Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
T
he
University
of
Michigan is being sued
right
now.
Thanks,
Obama.
Well, the actual story is a bit
more complicated, but the gist
of it is that a student is currently
suing the University, and the
court was seeking a deposition
of University President Mark
Schlissel up until late August.
How did this happen? Well,
it goes back a few years and it
goes beyond Schlissel and the
University.
This entire saga is related
to former President Barack
Obama and a ‘Dear Colleague’
letter
that
his
Department
of Education issued back in
2011. That letter changed the
adjudication system for sexual
assault on campus in three
important
ways.
First,
the
standard of proof was dropped
from “clear and convincing” to
a “preponderance of evidence.”
Secondly, the letter enabled
double, triple and quadruple
jeopardy
by
allowing
the
accusations to be tried again
and again. Finally, the letter
disallowed cross examination
by the accuser. All three of these
changes made the defendant’s
life much more difficult and
effectively
turned
Title
IX
hearings into kangaroo courts
where guilt was determined by
accusation or less.
In
addition
to
being
personally odious, these policies
may have run afoul of the law,
and that brings us back to the
University and Schlissel. The
Detroit Free Press discussed
the problems within the U-M
system. A student was about
to graduate and had been
accepted to the U-M Graduate
School for Engineering when
he was accused of sexual
assault. The University froze
his transcripts prior to an
investigation,
which
made
moving on from the allegations
nearly impossible. This action
is antithetical to the principles
of justice and due process and
demonstrates the problem with
the current system of Title
IX policies relating to sexual
assault. These were changed
after
the
aforementioned
‘Dear
Colleague’
letter
—
namely, that they result in the
violation of people’s rights and
the destruction of their lives.
This student was accused and
afforded no chance to clear his
name. The punishment was
given to him before his trial,
which represents a perversion
of any justice system. After
this, the student turned around
and sued the school, which is
when Judge Arthur Tarnow
sought the deposition of the
president. Schlissel and the
school had previously been
unsuccessful in avoiding this
appearance in court, and on
June 12, he won an appeal to
delay his appearance.
However, on Aug. 24, a 6th
Circuit Court of Appeals panel
blocked
Schlissel’s
required
appearance.
It
is
easy
to
understand why the judge would
want to ask the president about
policies governing the University,
especially when those policies
ignore due process, complicating
these latest developments. It
does lead one to think that, as
The Michigan Daily Editorial
Board argued in a previous piece,
considering Schlissel oversees
the policy, he has a duty to be
able to explain it. If Schlissel
both stood by the policy and felt
that the students at his campus
follow it, he should have taken
the opportunity to make those
statements under penalty of
perjury. His unwillingness to do
so suggests that he understands
the current Title IX system is
incongruous with a society that
values rights for the accused as
well as a fair trial.
Universities are supposed
to expose students to new
ways of thinking as well as
foster respect for the tried
and true methods of the past.
When schools don’t do this
and fail to foster freedom of
speech (like at Middlebury
College), or due process (like
the Title IX provisions relating
to sexual assault that existed
between the Obama letter’s
issuance and its withdrawal) or
any other virtue, they do their
name, their administrators and
their students a tremendous
disservice.
Universities
are
supposed to prepare the leaders
of tomorrow, and if Schlissel
feels that they don’t deserve
due process, he should have
appeared before the court to say
so. Seeing that he chose not to,
he should reconsider whether
the policy should exist.
The road to hell is paved
with
good
intentions
and
unfortunately,
this
is
no
exception.
When
Obama’s
Department
of
Education
issued the letter, they intended
to address problems related
to sexual assault on campus
— and in no way do I mean
to minimize the good faith
behind that. When former
Vice President Joe Biden went
on his “It’s On Us” tour to
promote the need for men on
campus to take responsibility
for their actions, I was in the
audience and agreed that a
culture change was needed. I
disagree with him regarding
what
that
change
should
be. There can be harsher
punishments
for
sexual
assault that do not trample
on the rights of the accused,
which is something that the
Obama letter and subsequent
guidance did. This type of
policy
should
be
pursued
and the University president
being unwilling (and possibly
unable) to defend his existing
one in court should serve as a
warning to other Universities
and their leaders.
ANIK JOSHI | COLUMN
Why the University is being sued — and who’s to blame
F
ormer Vice President Joe
Biden is unfit to be the
Democratic nominee, let
alone president. He is a geriatric
relic of a bygone era, a candidate
that represents stagnancy in
an age of political revolutions
and upsets. Out of the many
candidates on the Democratic
stage, he is the second oldest
only behind Sen. Bernie Sanders,
Vt., and only by a single year. The
ripe age of 76. Not even former
President Barack Obama seemed
to be keen on Biden running,
reportedly telling his VP, “You
don’t have to do this, Joe, you
really
don’t.”
His
opinions
are antiquated, conflating the
poor with Black people and the
privileged with white people.
He represents an old guard of
Democrats, even older than
the
neoliberal
Clinton-era
troupe. My blathering about
this particular baby boomer
isn’t going to change minds, but
maybe a look through his history
will.
Biden started his career in
the ‘70s dealing with the long-
contentious
issue
of
forced
integration in student busing, in
which he backed the wrong side
and adamantly stood against
the Department of Education’s
efforts to integrate segregated
school districts. Fellow 2020
candidate Sen. Kamala Harris,
D-Calif. (who has had plenty of
problematic positions dealing
with racial inequality in the past
herself), criticized Biden about
this in the first presidential
debate on June 27. Of course,
he tried to defend himself
with convoluted excuses, but
the issue still stands. When
it came to the fight for civil
rights, Biden couldn’t sacrifice
his constituents in Delaware
to fight for what was right.
In a 1975 interview with the
People Paper, he said “I don’t
feel responsible for the sins of
my father and grandfather. I
feel responsible for what the
situation is today, for the sins of
my own generation. And I’ll be
damned if I feel responsible to
pay for what happened 300 years
ago,” seemingly ignorant of the
concept of generational wealth.
People seem to forget Biden
was an architect of the war
on drugs. His voting record
concerning minimum sentencing
and bills relating to drug related
crimes has been horrendous.
He was a member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee from 1987
to 1995, helping write many laws
that led to a more punitive justice
system. Said laws have laid waste
to many already marginalized
communities, putting people in
prison unjustly and ruining lives
as a consequence. In response to
former President George H.W.
Bush’s plan for decreasing drug
use in 1989, Biden said that it
“doesn’t include enough police
officers to catch the violent
thugs, not enough prosecutors to
convict them, not enough judges
to sentence them and not enough
prison cells to put them away
for a long time” — a statement
that has aged like milk. The laws
Biden helped write include the
Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act, which included
(by his own admission) over 70
new enhanced penalties and
125,000 new prison cells.
Justice
Brett
Kavanaugh’s
appointment to the Supreme
Court re-opened old wounds
for many, reminding Americans
of
Justice
Clarence
Thomas’
predicament
with
Anita
Hill.
Similar
to
Kavanaugh’s
accusations of sexual assault,
Thomas was accused of sexually
harassing Hill, who worked under
Thomas in the Department of
Education. And in the hearing
for Hill, many remember Biden
being inconsiderate and unfair
to the law professor. Biden even
said in an interview a year later
that he “erred in not attacking
the attackers.” In recent years,
however, Biden has claimed to
apologize for her treatment.
He claims to have had little
power over the proceedings. But
considering how his apologies
have been conspicuously well-
timed
with
his
presidential
campaign, I suspect hollow
amends. With sexual harassment
finally
getting
its
due
consideration in our culture, the
light cast upon Biden from this
folly is not a good one.
Joe Biden’s career is long, and
with that comes the baggage
of missed opportunities and
grave mistakes. I don’t even
have to mention his vote on
the Iraq War to come up with a
comprehensive list of things he
was wrong about. Sure, people
can change. I think that Biden is
allowed to make amends with his
past mistakes. But that doesn’t
mean I think he can become
worthy of the Oval Office. He
is an antiquated man who has
antiquated opinions, and that is
not what America needs.
In the 21st century, problems
have arisen that need a new,
fresh and unorthodox approach.
I can’t think of a more traditional
candidate than Joe Biden. The
issue with tradition is that the
establishment
politics
Biden
represents led to a nationalistic
despot like President Donald
Trump
taking
office.
His
positions are inadequate to face
the issues that plague our nation
today, and that inadequacy is
directly due to his antiquity.
Climate change needs direct,
forceful action. Healing and
solving our racial divide once
and for all needs more than
hedging a compromise with bad
faith actors. Americans deserve
a president who can lead the
country into the future without
hypocrisy and a vacillating will.
That president will not be Biden.
Joe Biden — a man of many pitfalls
Anik Joshi can be reached at
anikj@umich.edu.
BRITTANY BOWMAN | COLUMN
Why we still need to fight for women’s liberation
SAM FOGEL | COLUMN
P
eople often argue that
Western societies have
made great leaps in the
struggle for equality between
men and women. Women now
outwardly have the same legal
rights as men, and because of
Title VII, discrimination in the
workplace based on gender is
illegal. Nonetheless, the battle
for achieving gender equality
continues,
leaving
some
to
wonder why it is necessary. The
standard that women strive to be
equal to their traditionally male
counterparts has always existed.
It is an encapsulating and toxic
ideal of the gender binary. It is
important to consider reforming
language as we know it in order to
change societal thinking toward
controversial topics.
While it appears superficially
that women have the same legal
rights as men, there are still
inherent biases present in both
professional and private spheres.
From medical environments to
political stages, the systemic
understanding of femininity and
a gender binary creates heaps
of issues. In Western culture,
the concept of a gender binary
exists almost everywhere and
is especially apparent in the
language we use, though one may
easily pass over this construction
if not actively searching for it.
Detrimental
binaries
have
been used for centuries, placing
women as the inferior, subpart,
second-in-line to the androgyny
of society. In the Greek myth of
Pandora, for instance, as well as
many other classic works that
frame
modern
psychologies,
the text embodies phallocentric
and
androcentric
anxieties
of
femininity,
where
women
inherently lack something when
compared to men. In “Pandora’s
Tongues,” a feminist analysis
essay of the Greek myth, Karin
Littau boldly states that “it has
always been the aim of Western
philosophy
to
obliterate
this
foreignness or otherness in the
quest for the return of the same.”
In the long and slow march
toward
equality
for
women,
the overbearing dominance of
men throughout society’s most
popular tales and history books
has shrouded the importance of
female and feminine characters.
This has contributed to the idea
that women are inferior, lacking,
subordinate
and
unoriginal.
The interpretations of classic
literature
over
centuries
has
undoubtedly shaped the way
Western civilization structures
itself, and this is why analysis of
our language now is so important
when striving to fight the systemic
oppression
of
women
and
confounding of gender binaries.
In
the
past,
the
feminist
movement
has
called
for
embracing
“womanness”
and
attempting to reclaim femininity.
Visibility
has
increased
as
women’s marches have occurred.
T-shirts have been made with
fronts
espousing
the
words
“Woman” or “I am woman” or
“Human Woman.” However, with
this trend of visibility, owning and
wearing one own’s womanhood
may only further solidify the
construct of a gender binary. This
isn’t to say that visibility of feminist
movements is a bad or good thing.
Perhaps this agenda to collectively
claim womanhood can work to
unify the movement by stirring
up solidarity among its members.
However,
by
emphasizing
a
homogenous
“womanness”
within the movement, we also
diminish potential commonalities
with those who do not necessarily
identify with visibly extreme
femininity.
Equality for all human beings
is incredibly important, but we
need to consider just what
equality
means.
Equality
oftentimes neglects to address
issues of diversity as well as
failing to address differential
impacts on individuals and
populations. Using language
such as “equality” means that
women and femininity should
strive to reach the standard of
the male counterpart, which
innately embodies a binary
that men are inherently above
women and women must work
to lessen the space between
the two. Using language such
as “liberation” works to break
down this system, as well as
all
other
binate
structures.
The word liberation explicitly
implies
the
dismemberment
of complex systems to remove
oppression
of
marginalized
groups and individuals.
Gender and women’s liberation
are inherently different from
gender and women’s equality.
Women’s liberation encompasses
the indiscriminate abolition of
the classes of women and men and
of the gender binary in general.
The fight for gender and women’s
equality today is thereby based on
preserving the system of gender
as we know it modernly — a
system which serves to reinforce
the social position of men as the
standard to which we should
aspire. Gender and women’s
equality assumes gender as
innate
and
the
differences
between genders as natural,
whereas gender and women’s
liberation negates wanting to
be “just as good” as men. Using
the term liberation instead of
equality calls for freedom from
the traditional gender binary,
freedom from the suffocation
of
traditionally
oppressive
womanhood
and
freedom
from the violence of manhood.
Women’s liberation calls for
nothing less than freedom from
the burdensome gender binary,
systemic discrimination and laws
of difference that work to dictate
our lives from birth to death.
Brittany Bowman can be reached
at babowman@umich.edu.
Sam Fogel can be reached at
samfogel@umich.edu.
He is an
antiquated
man who has
antiquated
opinions
Gender and
women’s
liberation are
inherently
different from
gender and
women’s equality
The current
Title IX system
is incongruous
with a society
that values
rights for the
accused
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the
editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300
words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words.
Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
ATTEND A MASS MEETING
Join The Michigan Daily! We will be holding mass
meetings in the Newsroom, 420 Maynard Street on
September 10, 12, 15 and 18. Come browse the different
sections and learn more about the paper.