Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, February 13, 2020
Alanna Berger
Brittany Bowman
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Jenny Gurung
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
ERIN WHITE
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.
ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND
MILES STEPHENSON
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
DAVID LISBONNE | COLUMN
New dog, old and vitally important trick
I
n July 1787, the United States,
under the governance of the
Articles of Confederation,
enacted a piece of legislation
titled the “Northwest Ordinance.”
The Ordinance called for the
delegation of land to new states
in the Northwest Territory —
land bound to the west by the
Appalachians, the south by the
Ohio River and the northwest
by the Great Lakes. Allocated to
the U.S. in the Paris Treaty of
1783, which formally ended the
Revolutionary War, the territory
had not yet been developed into
designated states. The legislation
contained rules regarding the
formation of new states and their
governments. However, its lasting
effect lies not in its specificity,
but rather in its advocacy for the
adoption of righteous virtues
in society and government. But
what does this have to do with the
University of Michigan, and how
can this be relevant today? Well,
every student has likely walked
past the Ordinance’s moral pith,
literally: It’s inscribed on the
western facade of Angell Hall,
the University’s largest academic
building.
Article 1 of the ordinance
guaranteed
that
“no
person,
demeaning himself in a peaceable
and orderly manner, shall ever
be molested on account of his
mode of worship or religious
sentiments.” Similarly, Article 2
ensures the writ of habeas corpus,
trial by jury and no cruel and
unusual punishments. Readers
will recognize these as core tenets
of the Bill of Rights that would
come four years later. Perhaps the
Ordinance enacted in 1787 — one
year before the Constitution’s
drafting — was a trial run of what
would become foundational
legislation.
Additionally,
Article
6
declares
“there
shall be neither slavery nor
involuntary
servitude”
in
the territory, and Article 3
mandates that “the utmost
good
faith
shall
always
be
observed
towards
the
Indians;
their
lands
and
property shall never be taken
from
them
without
their
consent.” Keep in mind, this
was 76 years before Lincoln’s
Emancipation Proclamation.
To my eye, they got it all right.
But my fascination with the
Ordinance — and what I believe
is its paramount lasting effect —
lies in the first sentence of Article
3. It reads: “Religion, morality,
and knowledge, being necessary
to good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools
and the means of education shall
forever be encouraged.” This is
the text forever inscribed in stone
above Angell Hall, and is clearly
fitting.
First is religion, which I believe,
despite its debatable flaws, is the
most successful and most effective
means for teaching character that
has ever existed. There are myriad
lessons and teachings on virtue
that are undeniably valuable;
the condemnation of murder,
theft and Coventry, the praise of
integrity and encouragement of
charity are all examples. Thomas
Jefferson, the primary author of
the Ordinance, understood this
and rightly sought to preserve
religion’s benefits.
Morality follows next and is
unique not only for its ambiguity
or contentiousness but because
of the means, and mediums, of its
teaching. Religion is a longstanding
source of morality, expounding
lessons and stories that comment
on the nature of that which is
good and bad. On the other hand,
education — especially through
subjects like philosophy, history
and English, with its analysis of
texts — offers alternative means
for discussing morality. Both
operate synchronously and are
each necessary to inculcate virtues
vital to effective government
and mankind. Again, Jefferson
understood
—
and
his
pen
further cemented in writing —
these complementary forces as
necessary means to an educated,
virtuous and content populace.
Last is knowledge. The pursuit
of knowledge has forever been
the driver of mankind, from his
first discovery of fire to Newton’s
articulation of the world around
us. And this pursuit is not
rooted in vanity or fame, but in
discovering new, more effective
means to achieve prosperity. Fire
enabled man to cook food, light
his caves and triumph over the
cold. Education is knowledge’s
natural complement; it is how new
knowledge is distributed. And
once distributed, that knowledge is
left to the creative and productive
devices of the individual. By virtue
yet again of mankind’s constant
pursuit of knowledge — now
embarking with more complex
building
blocks
—
fantastic
achievements can be had. From
Bacon to Babbage to Tesla to
Turing, and more along the way,
we arrived at the device on which
I’m writing this. Not bad.
Today, more information is
accessible than ever in human
history.
Globally,
3.7
billion
people access the internet. Google
processes 40,000 searches every
second. It has never been easier
to access new information, and
this is the modern legacy of
Angell Hall’s inscription. Yes,
“the means of education shall
forever be encouraged.” Schools
and universities must continue to
educate class after class of scholars
to ensure that each generation is
well versed in broad fields of study.
But I disagree with the notion
that educational institutions must
alone bear that burden. As a species,
we learn a great deal from one
another. Communities and religious
institutions
provide
excellent
resources to grow, and learn morals,
virtues and engage in mitzvot. To
some degree, it is the onus of the
individual to pursue knowledge,
in any and every aspect of life.
For example, as a civic duty to our
country exists the responsibility of
individuals to formalize themselves
with our government, and the
processes by which it operates, to
complement that which we are
taught in schools.
This dynamic must hold true
across multiple disciplines. History,
economics, writing and English
are necessary proficiencies, and
while it’s sad to observe the subpar
performances in these provinces
from vital institutions, there exists
a complementary responsibility of
every individual to seek knowledge.
The Ordinance articulated this
233 years ago, but the widespread
accessibility of information today
brings entirely new meaning to its
text. We must adapt, and follow
through on our instructions to
achieve “good government and the
happiness of mankind.”
David Lisbonne can be reached at
lisbonne@umich.edu.
MARY ROLFES | COLUMN
Make reproductive rights non-partisan ... again
S
peaking
to
my
own
experience of President
Donald Trump’s election,
the aptest way I can describe
the event is surreal. In the
moment, it was as if we’d had
the collective wind knocked
out of us and were all trying
to catch our breath. But once
that breath was found, not a
moment was wasted in using
it to speak as survival plans
for the next four years were
laid out. For many folks with
uteruses, reproductive health
was a primary concern. Facing
uncertainty about the future
of insurance coverage and the
right to choose, people took to
the internet to seek and share
suggestions for adapted birth
control solutions. A popular
recommendation was to get an
intrauterine device (IUD), a
method which can last for up
to 12 years — outlasting even
an eight-year administration.
This advice was not taken for
granted, with a 2019 JAMA
Internal
Medicine
study
finding the demand for IUDs
and other long-lasting birth
control increased after the 2016
election.
While this demonstration of
outreach and agency is inspiring,
its
necessity
is
somewhat
absurd. Of course, there is a lot
that’s absurd about Trump’s
presidency. What began as a
laughable candidacy rode a wave
of manipulation, divisiveness
and those notorious red “Make
America
Great
Again”
hats
all the way to the Oval Office,
taking Trump from a reality
TV host to the president-elect
in just over a year. But this need
for a heightened fight for bodily
autonomy
seems
especially
unexpected when considering
Trump’s
past
positions
on
the right to choose. In a 1999
interview he claimed to be “pro-
choice in every respect,” a sharp
contrast to his current status
as the most pro-life president
ever, according to White House
counselor Kellyanne Conway.
The changes he made to Title X,
which caused the withdrawal of
Planned Parenthood from the
program, support this claim.
But regardless of how genuine
— or agreeable — this change
in opinion is, it’s, in theory, the
objectively strategic move. How
could anyone hope to earn the
Republican nomination without
an
anti-choice
approach,
considering
the
Republican
Party’s definitively conservative
stance on reproductive rights?
Actually, this stance is not as
definitive as many may think.
At present, reproductive rights,
including access to birth control
and abortion, are seen as a
highly partisan issue. According
to a Gallup poll, the proportion
of
Democrats
who
support
legal abortion in all cases has
risen distinctly in the past
three decades while Republican
support has gone down. For the
stance of illegal abortion in all
cases, the trends are reversed,
with
Democratic
support
decreasing
and
Republican
support going up. But most
significantly, these polls show
how similar the proportions
of Democratic and Republican
support are to one another
across all three circumstances
— legality, limited legality and
illegality — in 1975. In fact, in the
first and last case, Republican
and Democrat support differ
by just one percent. So, what
happened? When did party
opinions divide? Why do they
stay that way, and what can be
done to change it?
Uncovering the answers to
these questions is imperative
in the advancement of health
equity and bodily autonomy.
Reproductive justice is a human
rights issue — it should not be
a political strategy. Legislation
and accessibility should not be
decided by strict partisan lines,
but
through
consideration,
compassion
and
critical
thinking. And there should not
be talk of strategic birth control
survival every time a Republican
takes the presidential oath.
The history of birth control
is a complicated one, woven
with
threads
of
politics,
overpopulation concerns and a
dash of the American Dream.
There is not a precise split
resulting in a partisan approach
to reproductive justice, but
Harvard University professor
Jill Lepore points out a moment
when it began to fray in her
2011 historical chronicle of
reproductive rights in The New
Yorker. Abridging this history
a bit, let’s begin with Dwight
Eisenhower. As a Republican
president in 1959, Eisenhower
claimed the funding of Planned
Parenthood and family planning
at large was not a public concern.
But in 1965, with overpopulation
concerns rising, he reversed
his position, even co-chairing
a
Planned
Parenthood
committee. A few years later,
U.S. Rep. George H.W. Bush
and President Richard Nixon,
both Republicans, pushed for
public family planning, in terms
of visibility and funding. As
president, Nixon would go on
to sign Title X in 1970, a federal
grant dedicated to the provision
of
widely
accessible
family
planning services.
This point, however, is where
the non-partisan support for
family planning hits a snag.
Preparing for the election of
1972, Nixon hoped to court
Catholic voters and to divide the
Democratic Party. His advisors
urged him to reconsider his
stance on abortion, a strategic
move that would accomplish
both objectives. Ultimately he
listened, reversing his position
on Title X, utilizing the Catholic
rhetoric of the sanctity of life.
And he won in 1972, leaving a
divide in the Democratic Party.
The origin of the partisan
fight
over
reproductive
rights is not some ideological
imperative — it’s a matter
of
campaign
strategy.
As
Lepore
puts
it,
“abortion
wasn’t a partisan issue until
Republicans made it one.” The
legacy of this divisive move
was not solidified until the
late 1980s, with First Lady
Betty Ford, Vice President
Nelson
Rockefeller
and
President Ronald Reagan all
demonstrating inconsistencies
in the Republican stance on
abortion. But today, the effect
is
clear:
The
Republican
Party at large stands firmly
against
abortion,
while
refusing for the most part to
support better birth control
accessibility,
improved
sex
education or address the social
structures which reproduce
socioeconomic inequality and
drive the desire for abortions
in the first place.
American history makes it
clear that reproductive rights
do not have to be a partisan
issue — and if we hope to
advance them, they shouldn’t
be. Moreover, the right to
not have children should be
incorporated into the larger,
intersectional framework of
reproductive
justice,
which
also includes the rights to have
children and to raise them
with dignity. According to
Nixon, “no American woman
should be denied access to
family
planning
assistance
because
of
her
economic
condition.” The right to plan
a family — whether or not that
plan includes children — is a
fundamental one, regardless
of not only economic class, but
of race, gender identity, sexual
orientation and even marital
status.
The Trump administration
continues
to
threaten
this
right through stricter Title X
regulations, attempts to slash
the Affordable Care Act and a
plan to gut Roe v. Wade. In this
era of oppression and control,
it’s
clear
the
increasingly
partisan
divide
on
family
planning is on a dangerous
trajectory,
jeopardizing
the
accessibility
of
reproductive
rights and dismantling hope for
a future of total reproductive
justice and equality. We need
to advocate for a collaborative
approach to reproductive justice
that is not based on Republicans
or Democrats, but on mutual
dedication
to
freedom
and
liberty.
Together,
we
will
make reproductive rights non-
partisan again. Oh, by the way
— if we make any merchandise,
can we instead go for a colorless
gaudy than imperial red? It just
clashes with everything.
Mary Rolfes can be reached at
morolfes@umich.edu.
KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN
Technology should be our salvation, not our downfall
T
oday,
technological
failures
often
drive
conversations
about
how
inconvenient
and
counterproductive technology
can be. As evidenced by the
app used to carry out the data
collection
during
the
Iowa
caucus
earlier
this
month,
technology can be complex and
problematic. Additionally, the
overwhelming
difficulty
of
utilizing start-up technology
on
a
national
scale
has
become
apparent,
and
we
have to realize that digitized
products must be improved by
developers for years in order
to ensure widespread success
among consumers.
Major
issues
can
be
averted
when
we
embed
preventative
technology
into
our
infrastructure.
The
proven
effectiveness
of
applying
computerized
numerical models to predict
weather patterns, including
damaging storms, outweighs
the inconvenience of the lack
of public access to this type
of
technology.
That
said,
we have not discovered the
potential benefits of enacting
automated
infrastructural
processes — such as building
rehabilitation
or
land
restoration — in immediate
response to climate disasters.
Processes that use algorithms
to direct unmanned, automatic
equipment could be adapted
by technology to limit human
interaction and facilitate faster
reactions to large scale issues.
Though
difficulties
exist,
automated
infrastructural
recovery
efforts
and
their
ability to help society recover
from
destructive
natural
disasters are promising, just
as
engineered
remedies
in
medicine serve as promising
solutions to health issues today.
Technological advancements
have
assisted
society
in
carrying
out
solutions
to
physical
problems
in
the
natural
world.
But
these
advancements have essentially
been isolated solutions and
I wonder if expanding the
functionality and accessibility
of
technology
could
allow
society to increase its reliance.
Could
current
efforts
to
develop
smart
stormwater
systems in Ann Arbor have
been
used
to
prevent
or
mitigate
the
contamination
of the Detroit River with
uranium and other harmful
chemicals? In other words,
could reducing the impact of
these mistakes imposed on
the environment be instigated
with digitized infrastructural
solutions? In this regard, the
advancement of technology
could serve society in more
conducive, far-reaching ways.
More
importantly,
this
technology could better equip
us to address major climate
issues. Since the University
of
Michigan
is
a
public
research institution, it’s our
responsibility
to
commit
to innovation to facilitate
how
college
campuses
address climate issues with
technology.
Leaders
on
campus
should
understand
the importance of investing
in the future of the entire
campus and work to prioritize
these
efforts
above
other
points of interest, like the
apparent aversion to making
substantial transitions toward
a carbon-neutral campus.
As
community
members
with the potential to influence
administrative decisions, we
should push for legislature
that will not hinder a society
distressed by climate change.
Instead, these developments in
citywide, regional and national
policy should become tailored
for an inclusive environment
where not everyone is required
to be educated thoroughly and
where everyone can benefit
from
the
intellectual
and
physical access to technology.
In doing so, a community
like Ann Arbor could see
widespread
benefits
from
research-developed technology,
and as these solutions ultimately
become
implementable
for
society, they could be used to
address climate issues.
Society
should
strive
to create more automated
climate solutions that can be
executed through technology
due
to
the
opportunities
technological
progress
can
provide.
From
separating
cafeteria waste to restoring
a coastal wetland affected
by a hurricane, technology
could
enable
society
to
achieve more in both trivial
and
monumental
tasks.
Transforming our mindset to
one of speculation about how
we utilize existing technology
and
act
on
hypothetical
advancements is essential for
progress.
It’s reasonable to wonder
if human intervention is the
answer
society
is
looking
for, one that could ultimately
restore
all
humans
have
laid waste to. Should we,
as the carriers of modern
civilization, instead remove
ourselves from the natural
world as a way to prevent
further
burden
going
forward? With this question
in mind, the driving force
behind a sustainable future
should be the belief that
we are capable of involving
ourselves positively in the
healing process of the planet.
Every day, the commitment
to creating positive human
intervention in the natural
world
contributes
to
its
revival. Challenging ourselves
to commit to technological
solutions that propagate a
positive way in which we
respond to and remedy the
climate
disasters
we
will
inevitably face is the first step
in making our multifarious
natural world a better place.
Kianna Marquez can be reached
at kmarquez@umich.edu.
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.
Reproductive
justice is a
human rights
issue.