LaVaque-Manty discussed a
famous ethical question most
commonly known as the trolley
problem. In the hypothetical
situation, a trolley car is headed
down a track that has five
people tied to it. To save these
individuals’ lives, a person is
next to a lever that can switch
the track of the trolley, but the
new track has one person tied to
it, meaning the person pulling
the lever will be responsible for
their death. LaVaque-Manty said
he disagrees with the ideology
behind the trolley problem along
with other similar hypothetical
situations because they do not
take the human experience into
account.
“The problem with the trolley
problem is that it doesn’t really
ask who you are,” LaVaque-
Manty said. “It assumes that you
just land here at this switch out
of nowhere. Its other problem
is that it asks you to think about
the hypothetical, which is pretty
hard to predict what we actually
would do in that situation.”
LaVaque-Manty
said
his
biggest issue with the trolley
problem is that it does not discuss
enough personal traits to make
the situation more realistic.
“The problem I’m interested
in is that it doesn’t assume that
you have any kind of history,”
LaVaque-Manty said. “It doesn’t
assume anything about your
motives, it doesn’t tell a story
about how you got there, it
doesn’t say anything about what
makes you use that switch — it
just assumes this.”
LaVaque-Manty
continued
his presentation by discussing
questionnaires
regarding
character, such as the character
and fitness test required to pass
the bar exam or the FBI security
clearance
process.
LaVaque-
Manty said in his experience as
a professor, he has been asked
about the character of former
students who were applying for
security clearance. Because he
believes many students at the
University of Michigan will
be in these possible situations
in the future, LaVaque-Manty
advised students to leave a good
impression on their professors.
“It’s helpful to remember what
actually matters down the line
are aspects of what we consider
features of your character more
than your intelligence or your
grades,” LaVaque-Manty said.
Additionally,
LaVaque-
Manty
considered
how
a
professor constructs a letter of
recommendation. He broke down
the structure he uses for writing
his letters into four categories:
an
introduction,
academic
substances, personal attributes
he has noticed and a summary.
LaVaque-Manty emphasized the
idea of building a relationship
with your professors so they
are able to write a substantial
number of personal attributes.
“Showing those transcripts
and talking about grades tells
you all you should care about are
grades,” LaVaque-Manty said.
“It’s helpful to try to remember
that every time you (focus on
grades), you are actually sending
a signal that either gives people
an opportunity to say something
beyond any merits or makes it
impossible to do that.”
LaVaque-Manty said students
should question whether their
reasoning behind their behavior
is ethical.
“I’m not suggesting that you
should be so extreme as to think
anything you do, you have to
actually think, ‘What is my reason
for doing that?’” LaVaque-Manty
said. “But it’s worth our while to
think about what our reasons are
for our ethical behavior.”
To conclude his presentation,
LaVaque-Manty asked students
to focus on larger ideas when
evaluating their decisions. He
said the most important question
students should ask themselves is
who they want to be.
I think it’s an especially
appropriate way for us to
spend this afternoon of
Presidents Day.”
He further emphasized
the
importance
of
the
event by highlighting the
need for open discourse
between
members
of
different parties.
“As
you
well
know,
these
are
extremely
challenging
times
for
our nation with fractious
political
discourse,
gridlock and partisanship
in our nation’s capital,
and an increasing lack
of
trust
in
institution
everywhere,”
Barr
said.
“The
relationship
between
Representatives
Dingell and Upton is the
antithesis
of
partisan
politics operating today in
Washington.”
Barr’s comments were
followed by an interview
segment featuring Dingell
and Upton moderated by
Public
Policy
professor
Brendan Nyhan. Dingell
and Upton shared their
personal thoughts about
bipartisanship in regard
to a number of issues
such as immigration, the
economy,
health
care
and the environment. In
all
of
their
responses,
they
emphasized
their
intention
to
work
together to find solutions
to these issues despite
their
different
political
ideologies.
“I made the decision
that firstly, every issue
I’ve ever worked on has
been bipartisan,” Upton
said. “I’ll meet you across
the aisle. I’ve got a lot of
friends like Debbie on the
other side of the aisle and
a lot of Republicans on
my side that want to work
together.”
Dingell built on Upton’s
point
by
noting
the
importance of overcoming
party
boundaries
to
preserve
American
democracy.
“I’m
worried
about
what is happening in the
future of this country,”
Dingell
said.
“I
think
every American’s got a
responsibility to stand up
to elect people that are
going to do what’s right.
And we need to worry
about
this
democracy.
I think we live in the
greatest land in the world
— united we stand and
divided we fall.”
At one point in the
discussion,
Nyhan
prompted the speakers to
explore the possible merits
of partisanship using his
background knowledge of
political science.
“Let me also give a
plea
for
the
value
of
bipartisanship
and
polarization,” Nyhan said.
“Sometimes
the
parties
do
disagree
and
that’s
an important part of our
democracy, too. We just
need to make sure not to
lose sight of that. Political
scientists think parties are
essential
to
democracy;
parties help … Contesting
the issues of our days is
important to our political
systems, too.”
The
forum
was
structured
to
provoke
thought in the audience.
Attendees were provided
with small pieces of paper
upon entry to the forum
and
encouraged
to
fill
them with questions they
would like the speakers to
address at the end of the
event. Upton emphasized
the importance of this
interaction.
“I think that part of the
reason we’re here today is
to talk about what really
is happening,” Upton said.
“Where is the bipartisan
success? And for us to get
encouragement from you
that we’re on the right
track here. … Part of it is
an educational experience
on both sides.”
Many
attendees
of
the
event
concurred
with
Upton’s
remarks,
expressing a desire for
communication as a means
of learning more about the
views of others.
Abigail Orrick, Public
Policy graduate student,
explained that she chose to
attend the event because
she wanted to broaden her
own worldview.
“I think that the Ford
School is predominantly
liberal as (for) the beliefs
of many of the students
here and so I think that
that
can
sometimes
lead itself to … students
being in a bubble and not
necessarily being exposed
to
other
viewpoints,”
Orrick said. “And so I
think that having events
like this where you are
listening to people who
are out doing the real-
life policy-making in the
world working across the
aisle, I think that’s really
valuable to be able to
witness and hear from.”
Toward
the
end
of
the
event,
WeListen
Co-Presidents Kate Westa
and
Brett
Zaslavsky
reiterated the importance
of bipartisan cooperation
as pertaining to the efforts
of their organization.
“Congresswoman
Dingell and Congressman
Upton
are
exceptional
examples of what we as
an organization are trying
to do,” Zaslavsky said.
“We’re
very
thankful
to the Ford School for
bringing
them
in
and
really taking initiative on
this event and for letting
us be a part of the sort of
facilitation of it.”
The speakers on the
panel each had a unique
perspective that allowed
students
to
better
understand the breadth
of this topic, from both
a student and a medical
patient perspective.
The
panel
was
moderated
by
Paul
Artale, academic program
manager
for
graduate
student
engagement
at
Rackham. After receiving
feedback from an LGBTQ
graduate
student
task
force
regarding
topics
they
wished
to
see
implemented
by
the
school,
Artale
and
his
colleagues began curating
an
event
focused
on
education
and
student
engagement surrounding
LGBTQ-affirming
medicine.
“The
goal
is
to
give
participants
the
opportunity to ask experts
whatever questions they
have, so hopefully they
can
get
some
specific
advice that would help
them in their situation,”
Artale said.
When
asked
about
their
formal
education
surrounding
affirming
medical care and treating
LGBTQ
patients,
the
panelists
agreed
that
little to no coursework
was
offered
regarding
this
practice.
Panelists
explained it takes time
and
outside
resources
to learn about providing
health care in a manner
that
welcomes
trans,
non-binary
and
queer
individuals.
One of the panelists,
Diana
Parrish,
a
care
manager
through
at
the
University
Health
Services, said learning to
be an affirming provider
required
self-ref lection
and
distance
from
her
personal identity in order
to
better
understand
LGBTQ
experiences
which may differ from her
own.
“A turning point for
me in being an affirming
provider was recognizing
several
years
ago
that
being queer myself is not
enough — that’s not the
whole
story,”
Parrish
said. “I really appreciated
being
introduced
to
the concept of cultural
humility as opposed to
cultural competence.”
Affirming
health
care
is
necessary
for
many
members
of
the
LGBTQ
community,
as
patients
must
ensure
that
their
physicians
are
understanding
and
accepting
of
their
identity. Discrimination,
mistreatment
and
ignorance
are
just
a
few
reactions
LGBTQ
individuals
can
receive
when facing a healthcare
provider, and finding the
right provider can take
time and energy.
According
to
the
panelists, this affirmative
attitude
should
span
beyond
the
patient’s
primary physician to the
staff members and other
employees in a medical
environment.
A
poor
interaction at the front
desk or with a nurse may
inhibit
their
comfort
within the doctor’s office
environment,
especially
for transgender and non-
binary people.
Another
panelist,
Daphna
Stroumsa,
a
clinical
lecturer
and
obstetrician-gynecologist
in
Michigan
Medicine,
noted the strength and
resilience of the LGBTQ
community
and
urged
audience members to work
together to ensure people
are safe and comfortable
in their environments.
“We hear a lot about
how difficult it is to be
(LGBTQ), and that’s true,
but I think it’s worth
mentioning
how
strong
this
community
is,”
Stroumsa said. “I think
we as a community, as a
community of providers,
as
a
community
of
patients,
can
build
on
the strength to use our
networks.”
Medical School student
Anuj Patel, co-president
of OutMD, attended the
event hoping to educate
the
greater
campus
community
about
the
conf licts LGBTQ people
face in the medical field.
“LGBTQ
people
face
a
lot
of
health
care
disparities,”
Patel
said
“For instance, they have
higher rates of mental
health
(problems),
depression
and
suicide.
These (events) are really
important to learn about
ways LGBTQ people can
feel more comfortable in
health care environments
and find providers that
are right for them.”
DOCTORS
From Page 1
“We
are
calling
on
Congress to smack Trump
down and say that this is not
a valid national emergency,
and if he tries to veto that,
we need to get their two-
thirds majority to overrule
his
veto,”
Prozinski
said.
“Our democracy is absolutely
at stake. If Trump gets away
with this, there are no checks
and balances in our system
any longer.”
Prozinski also condemned
Trump’s
previous
actions,
specifically
the
administration’s
family
separation
policy
in
the
summer of 2018.
“Trump’s
national
emergency is fake,” Prozinski
said.
“The
real
national
emergency is Donald Trump.
The real national emergency
is that children were in cages,
children have died in ICE
custody. … We condemn the
racism in Trump’s declaration
of a national emergency at the
border, and we will continue
to do anything we can to
resist until we get Trump out
of office.”
The
Ann
Arbor
event
started with short speeches
by co-organizers Prozinski
and
Adam
Nash.
In
his
remarks,
Nash
portrayed
the
declaration
as
unconstitutional,
arguing
instead for power from the
people.
“We
cannot
normalize
every step we take down
this hole,” Nash said. “Some
people say this emergency
declaration is good — this
just paves the way for our
next Democratic president
to
declare
an
emergency
to
implement
single-payer
health care or gun control.
But no — it’s very dangerous
reasoning.
No
president
should have this unchecked
power. … The power has to
come from the people. …
People don’t understand how
much power we have when
we are united, when we are
organized, we are working
together to resist.”
Protesters walked for about
an hour down Liberty Street
with various handmade signs,
chanting
slogans
such
as
“D.C. sellouts read our lips, no
Trump dictatorship.”
LSA
freshman
Danielle
Wachter said she came to
the protest because she feels
the proposed wall is not only
ineffective but also does not
warrant declaring a national
emergency.
“The thing is a border
wall won’t do anything to
fix what he wants to fix, but
also that’s not what a national
emergency is,” Wachter said.
“As president you can’t just
declare a national emergency
when you don’t get what you
want. That’s the equivalent of
throwing a tantrum. … I think
we need to check him in any
way possible.”
While
most
protestors
were Ann Arbor residents
or University of Michigan
students, three high school
students travelled about an
hour from Davison, Mich. for
the event. One of the Davison
High
School
students,
Brian Hall, a self-professed
Republican,
explained
he
came to participate in the
protest because he believes it
is important for students to be
politically involved.
“I came out here today
because I believe what the
president’s doing is wrong and
subverts the fundamentals
of democracy,” Hall said.
“I’m actually a Republican,
but I think it’s important
for people not to be blinded
by their own ideology. …
This is where students are
really
important,
because
students can literally change
the course of our country. …
In my government classes,
I’ve learned a lot about what
people can do to influence
government,
and
I’ve
realized that you don’t have
to be an adult, you just have
to be you.”
The Facebook event for
the protest was shared on
the Stop Trump Ann Arbor
page on Saturday. The event
came into action over the
past three days, Prozinski
explained.
“I was really pleased with
the turnout today, especially
so last minute, and during
the workday,” Prozinski said.
As
a
student
at
the
University
in
the
1990s,
Prozinski
engaged
in
activism around issues such
as affirmative action, anti-
fascism, rape and sexual
harassment, and homeless
rights. Until Trump’s victory,
Prozinski had not been an
activist for a while, she
explains.
“I started Stop Trump
Ann Arbor right after Trump
was elected,” Prozinski said.
“I’m a former activist, I
haven’t been active in a long
time, but then when Trump
got elected, I had to start
organizing again.”
Ann
Arbor
resident
Cathy
Helton
attended
the event with a sign that
read, “This president is our
national emergency.” When
explaining her sign, Helton
referenced Trump’s words.
“Congress
is
supposed
to
make
decisions
about
funding,
but
now
this
president,
he
even
gave
his
speech
and
said
he
didn’t have to do this now,
which implies this isn’t an
emergency,”
Helton
said.
“This is something he wants
to do for his campaign and for
his base. … I really do think
he is our national emergency.
An
MDining
employee
and LSA freshman, who
asked to remain anonymous
due
to
concerns
about
potential repercussions at
his job, said he didn’t feel
like he had much of a choice
as to whether he could come
to work or not.
“If
we
have
a
shift
during those days, we were
required to come in for work
as usual,” he said.
Steve
Mangan,
senior
director
of
MDining,
declined to comment on
the issue. When contacted
by The Daily, South Quad
supervisor
Chuck
Adams
declined to comment on the
situation due to MDining
policy.
He said living in East
Quad made it easier for him
to go to work during the
polar vortex. However, he
said he felt other employees
who had to commute to
the dining hall in sub-zero
temperatures should have
received more compensation
than just a few extra hours
of vacation.
“Honestly, for many of
the students, many of us live
in East Quad, so it wasn’t
really that hard for us to go
to work,” he said. “But for
many of the cooks and many
of the chefs who actually
had to travel to get to work
and leave late at night,
definitely for them they
probably
deserved
better
compensation
than
what
they got.”
The
University’s
Standard
Practice
Guide
Policies,
which
sets
the
terms for how employees
are
compensated
during
developing
emergency
conditions,
emergency
reduction of operations and
reduction
of
operations,
said regular staff were given
one extra hour of vacation
time for each hour worked
during the two days classes
and events were cancelled.
However, because students
working for MDining are
classified under the SPG
policies
as
temporary
employees, they are paid
only for time worked and do
not receive extra benefits.
Plascencia said this lack
of
extra
compensation
didn’t seem to deter most of
her student co-workers from
coming into work.
“Overall, I would say that
we were well-staffed both
days,” she said. “I mean, the
job that we have is not a job
that you can’t show up for
because if nobody shows up
to work, then students can’t
eat. So the attitude of a lot of
us was just to show up and
do what we had to do.”
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Tuesday, February 19, 2019 — 3
PROTEST
From Page 1
HONORS
From Page 1
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
MDINING
From Page 1
BIPARTISAN
From Page 1
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com