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

