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.