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.

