Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Friday, October 25, 2019
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
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
MARISA WRIGHT | COLUMN
The consequences of a conservative Supreme Court
E
arlier this month, the
Supreme Court began
its new term. On the
docket for 2019 through 2020
are several paramount cases,
ranging
from
potentially
limiting
women’s
access
to
abortion
to
weakening
the Affordable Care Act to
stripping LGBTQ folks of their
civil rights.
This
term
will
be
the
second full term with the
current
group
of
justices
following
the
confirmation
of Brett Kavanaugh, who was
credibly accused of sexually
assaulting
multiple
women
and lied under oath. With the
retirement of Justice Anthony
Kennedy in 2018, who was
often considered a swing vote,
Kavanaugh’s
confirmation
means the Supreme Court is
now solidly conservative.
Though
Republicans
scoffed at women’s fear that
Kavanaugh’s
confirmation
meant the end of Roe v. Wade
and Planned Parenthood v.
Casey, even calling women
“hysterical,”
Kavanaugh’s
confirmation
marked
the
court’s sharp ideological shift
to the right and the beginning
of the end for legal abortion in
the United States.
In
2016,
the
Supreme
Court struck down a Texas
law
that
limited
abortion
access; however, it has now
decided to hear a case about
a similar Louisiana law that
requires abortion providers
to have admitting privileges
at
local
hospitals.
Eager
to
avoid
controversy
and
legal liability, though, local
hospitals are unwilling to give
abortion providers admitting
privileges. Masked as concern
for
women’s
health,
given
abortion is an “extremely safe”
medical procedure, the law
is ultimately geared toward
ending abortion access without
overturning Roe outright.
In another set of cases, the
court will decide if workplace
discrimination and firing is
legally based on an employee’s
gender
identity
or
sexual
orientation. The first pair of
cases concern two men who
were fired for being gay. The
other case was brought by a
transgender woman, Aimee
Stephens,
who
was
fired
after telling her boss that she
was deciding to embrace her
gender
identity
and
begin
transitioning.
The Supreme Court will
decide if the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, specifically Title VII,
which
prohibits
workplace
discrimination on the basis of
sex, race, color, national origin
and religion, applies to LGBTQ
people. In other words, it
will decide whether or not
queer
people
have
rights.
As if this wasn’t atrocious
enough, the rulings could have
broader impact on all workers
because the case challenges
protections for anyone who
does not conform to gender
stereotypes.
“A
rule
in
(the
Trump
administration’s)
favor
could
drastically
change
workplace
protections
for
all women, whether or not
they are LGBTQ, and anyone
who does not conform to the
administration’s
preferred
gender
norms.
That
could
include men with long hair,
women with short hair, men
who are primary caretakers
of children or parents, women
who wear pants, women who
work outside the home or are
the primary breadwinners,”
said journalist Ann Friedman
in
a
recent
conversation
with Chase Strangio, a staff
attorney for the American
Civil
Liberties
Union
and
trans rights activist.
The other important cases
the Supreme Court will hear
involve
immigration,
the
Affordable Care Act and the
Second Amendment. One case
on immigration will decide
if the Trump administration
can
end
protections
for
“Dreamers” in DACA, and
another will decide border
control
policies.
A
case
involving
the
ACA
would
allow insurance companies to
receive $12 billion from the
federal government as a result
of Republicans voting to gut
the healthcare law. Finally,
another case will decide the
legality of New York’s gun law
limiting the distribution and
transportation of firearms.
With 2020 looming, it is
hard to believe the Supreme
Court would hear cases on
such divisive issues in an
election year. And yet, here we
are.
With
one
single
vote,
the
Supreme
Court
could
eliminate
decades
worth
of progress for women and
queer folks. Border patrol
and gun advocates could be
strengthened. The ACA could
be undermined. So how did we
get here?
In
case
you
forgot
or
haven’t been paying attention
for the last three horrifying
years, we’re here because of
President Donald Trump and
Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell. In a politically-
brazen
move,
McConnell
stole
Merrick
Garland’s
seat on the Supreme Court
in order to hold it open for
a conservative justice. It is
important to remember how
Trump’s campaign released a
list of potential conservative
Supreme
Court
nominees
during the 2016 campaign,
which was at least a partially
motivating factor for Trump’s
voters. Then the Republicans,
including disappointing votes
from U.S. Sens. Susan Collins,
R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski,
R-Alaska, confirmed a second
man who was accussed of
committing sexual abuse to
the highest court in the land.
Some of the candidates in
the Democratic primary have
put forth ideas about how to
make the Supreme Court more
democratic — as in democracy,
not the Democratic Party.
Many candidates are open
to court packing, enacting
term limits for justices or
impeaching Brett Kavanaugh
for
new
sexual
assault
allegations.
Notably,
the
Democratic
frontrunner,
former Vice President Joe
Biden, does not support an
impeachment of Kavanaugh.
While I understand the
pushback on court packing
because
it
enables
the
Republicans to do it freely
in
the
future,
we
should
remember that the Republicans
already changed the number of
justices on the Supreme Court.
When McConnell refused to
hold hearings for President
Obama’s
nominee—Chief
Judge for the DC Circuit Court
of Appeals Merrick Garland—
he limited the Supreme Court
to eight seats for more than a
year.
Though Chase Strangio of
the ACLU has urged people on
show up and protest outside
the Supreme Court chambers,
there is little Democrats and
progressives can do to stop the
Supreme Court from stripping
rights
from
millions
of
Americans at this point. Going
forward, though, it is essential
for Democrats to make the
Supreme Court a priority at
the ballot box.
TIMOTHY SPURLIN | COLUMN
Fossil fuel divestment is complex but necessary
VARNA KODOTH | COLUMN
Why you should care about representation
N
owadays, I’ve noticed
that
there’s
been
a growing wave of
female celebrities who are
using their platform to incite
change by speaking against
social
injustices,
like
the
gender pay gap. In her Emmy
acceptance
speech,
actress
Michelle Williams urged the
audience, “The next time a
woman – and especially a
woman of color, because she
stands to make 52 cents on
the dollar compared to her
white male counterpart – tells
you what she needs in order
to do her job, listen to her.
Believe her.” It’s so important
to
heed
the
underlying
message here: This is a call
to the greater community to
make a conscious effort to
create a healthy and inclusive
work environment in which
male, female and non-binary
individuals are valued for
their work.
Growing
up,
when
I
watched award shows like
the Oscars, Emmys, Grammys
and MTV awards, I’d watch
solely to confirm whether
or not my favorite artists or
actors secured wins in the
most mainstream categories,
and then promptly fall asleep
thereafter.
The
next
day
I’d wake up and continue
listening to and watching the
same artists and actresses. It
wasn’t a huge of a deal to me.
Fast-forward to the present
day, and I find myself looking
specifically
for
women
of
color, and in general, Black,
Latinx, Asian and South Asian
representation
across
the
nominations, and ultimately,
award winners. This doesn’t
exclusively apply to awards
shows, but also on the covers
of magazines like Elle and
Time. For example, Mindy
Kaling and Hasan Minhaj
were recently featured as the
front covers of Elle and Vanity
Fair, respectively.
Mindy Kaling is an Indian
American comedian and a
success in the Hollywood
industry: a director, writer
and actress, known for her
original role as Kelly Kapoor
in “The Office.” To top it all
off, Kaling has written two
New York Times bestselling
memoirs entitled, “Is Everyone
Hanging Out Without Me?”
and “Why Not Me?” Another
example is “The Daily Show”
alum Hasan Minhaj, who is
Indian American and Muslim,
hosts his own Netflix show
providing a nuanced political
commentary to global news.
When I saw the two covers
come out, I recall feeling
a sense of pride. It’s funny
because it’s not like a family
member or best friend of
mine
was
on
the
cover.
But as a person of color,
there’s something especially
impactful and personal about
seeing someone who looks
like you or talks like you or
whose beliefs deeply resonate
with yours make it big in a
field that is predominantly
occupied by white men.
I look up to all the female,
Indian-American trailblazers
attempting
to
break
the
glass ceiling. It’s essential to
support, share and re-share
all
the
content
produced
by
up-and-coming
women
of color to assist them in
achieving
their
goals,
no
matter how small or large scale
they may be. For example,
Lilly Singh, an openly bisexual
Indian-Canadian woman —
better known as YouTube’s
“Superwoman”
—
recently
became the first woman of
color to host her own late-
night talk show, “A Little Late
with Lilly Singh.” She joined
NBC’s league of male hosts:
Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers
and Conan O’Brien.
In
2016,
the
University
of
Southern
California
Annenberg
School
for
Communication
and
Journalism
faculty
conducted a research study
on
“Hollywood
Equality:
All Talk, Little Action.” The
results of the study confirmed
expectations:
Across
800
films,
representation
of
gender, race/ethnicity, sexual
identity
and
portrayal
of
disability misrepresents the
diversity of the American
population.
A
few
key,
alarming highlights from the
study include: Among 886
directors, only 5.5 percent
were Black and 2.8 percent
were Asian. To break this
down even further, of the
5.5 percent black or African-
American
directors,
only
three were female and of
the 2.8 percent Asian or
Asian-American
directors,
only one was female. What’s
even more frustrating, USC
concluded that if filmmakers
added five female roles to
scripts each year this would
bring us to roughly a 50-50
male to female ratio. This
is a seemingly simple fix to
address gender inequality in
films.
As
students
at
the
University
of
Michigan,
we are privileged to have
unrestricted
access
to
a
wide variety of educational
resources and hundreds of
year-round
opportunities
to
attend
events
run
by
multicultural
clubs
and
student organizations, which
include
annual
cultural
shows,
student
dialogues
and
culturally
informative
fundraisers. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon us to go out
and support budding student
comedians,
activists
and
artists.
This
will
amplify
the representation of people
in important platforms and
creative spaces that lack non-
white roles. It only makes
sense to populate industries
with
the
same
level
of
diversity that is reflective of
the composition of America
and aligns with American
ideals of equity and inclusion.
Perhaps the most important
line from Williams’s speech,
“they understood that when
you put value into a person,
it empowers that person to
get in touch with their own
inherent
value.
And
then
where do they put that value?
They put it into their work.”
Marisa Wright can be reached at
marisadw@umich.edu.
Varna Kodoth can be reached at
vkodoth@umich.edu.
T
his year, the University
of
Michigan
saw
the
development of a massive
ongoing student protest regarding
climate
change
on
campus.
Thousands of students, faculty and
community
members
attended
the climate strikes held on the
Diag last spring and again this fall,
highlighting just how important
fighting climate change is in
students’ minds. On Oct. 10, some
of the students who were arrested
at last year’s sit-in at the Fleming
Administration Building following
the strike appeared in court to fight
the charges.
The movement itself, headed by
a coalition of student groups and
individuals known as the Climate
Action Movement at the University
of
Michigan,
includes
many
demands involving the University’s
current
climate
policies.
One
demand involves the complete
divestment of fossil fuels from the
University’s endowment. Last year,
it was calculated using information
from the University’s 2017 financial
reports that roughly $1 billion of the
total $12 billion endowment is tied
up in investments related to fossil
fuels. This raises two questions:
how can the University’s carbon
neutrality pledge and current
climate action plans coexist with
their investment in fossil fuels?
And what would the actual effect
of divestment be?
What exactly is divestment,
anyway? Divestment is the process
by which a company or institution
sells off stocks or financial assets
for a certain cause, often associated
with an intentional statement
of protest. The thought process
behind it is if a large number of
big investors intentionally pull
their resources, the affected party
will be forced to cease whatever
bad practice has drawn criticism,
or
simply
become
financially
damaged altogether. In the case
of the climate movement, we and
other institutions ought to divest
from fossil fuels to stand against
the industry, which is responsible
for worsening the issues of climate
change.
The University is no stranger
to calls of divestment, as other
student activists have called on
this tactic for social change in the
past before. The only successful
divestment
campaign
on
the
University’s campus was back in
the ’80s, when students pressured
the regents to fully divest from
companies
that
did
business
in South Africa in response to
Apartheid. More recently, the
Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions
movement (BDS) on campus tried
to push the University to divest
from Israeli companies in response
to the ongoing dispute and violence
in Palestine. The University put out
a statement that its “longstanding
policy is to shield the endowment
from political pressures and to
base our investment decisions
solely on financial factors such as
risk and return.”
Given the pretext that they
will indeed only divest based on
risk and returns alone, should
they
divest
now?
Based
on
some recent financial analysis,
yes. According to a 2018 report
from the Institute for Energy
Economics and Financial Analysis,
there is a legitimate case for
divesting from fossil fuels. Fossil
fuel stocks are now increasingly
speculative. According to IEEFA,
“Current financial stresses —
volatile revenues, limited growth
opportunities, and a negative
outlook — will not merely linger,
they will likely intensify.” Suffice it
to say, investment in fossil fuels is
likely to become riskier over time,
and it would be a smart financial
decision by the University to
divest.
Everything is a trade-off, and
divestment is no exception. One of
the biggest questions surrounding
divestment is how effective it is in
actually fighting emissions. A 2018
report published by the Political
Economy
Research
Institute,
found “that divestment campaigns,
considered on their own, have
not been especially effective as a
means of significantly reducing
CO2 emissions, and they are not
likely to become more effective
over time.” This is a concerning
fact that needs to be kept in mind
during these discussions.
Another issue is who gains
control of companies once stocks
are sold from divesting firms. It
could be the case that if we were
to sell our holdings, another less-
climate-friendly group could buy
up shares, who could put less
pressure on fossil fuel companies
to have better practices. By
holding onto our investments, we
could take a so-called “one hand
on the wheel” approach. This is a
double-edged sword: On the one
hand, we want the ability to nudge
bad actors in the right direction.
On the other, holding onto our
assets means financing something
we do not support.
Still, it seems wrong that
the
University
holds
onto
such a large investment in an
industry whose values are so
misaligned with the University’s
climate goals. It is important to
remember that divestment, as
big and complicated as it is, is
ultimately a moral decision at
its core. When the University
divested from South Africa it
wasn’t a financial decision. It was
because students stood strong and
demanded the University act. It is
understandable to want to avoid
politicizing something as big and
important as the endowment,
but climate change is not really
a political issue — or at least it
shouldn’t be. If the University
is actually committed to being a
leader in the climate action space,
then divestment from fossil fuels
needs to remain on the table as a
serious possibility. We can’t have
it both ways.
Timothy Spurlin can be reached at
timrspur@umich.edu.
KAAVYA RAMACHANDHRAN | CONTACT CARTOONIST KAAVYAR@UMICH.EDU
Support
budding student
comedians,
activists and
artists