T

hough 
COVID-19 
started 

as a public health issue, 

in the past month it has 

transformed into an economic one 

as well. Lawmakers must act now to 

protect both the health and economic 

well-being of workers, especially 

women. Typical gender roles leave 

women at a disproportionate risk 

during 
this 
crisis, 
exasperating 

existing 
economic, 
medical 
and 

social gender gaps. 

Women’s roles in the workforce 

place them at a greater risk of 

contracting the virus. According 

to the World Health Organization, 

women make up 67 percent of the 

world’s healthcare workforce in 104 

countries, and in the United States, 

that number is 78 percent. Health 

care 
workers, 
especially 
nurses, 

nurse 
practitioners 
and 
medical 

assistants who are on the front lines 

of virus response, are highly exposed 

to the disease itself and in close 

proximity to other people. During the 

2002 SARS (severe acute respiratory 

syndrome) epidemic, more than half 

of the cases worldwide were women 

and 21 percent were health care 

workers. 

The high proportion of women in 

temporary and insecure positions 

also 
places 
them 
at 
a 
greater 

economic and medical disadvantage. 

Women are twice as likely as men 

to be employed part-time. In 2016, 

women made up 63.9 percent of 

the 
part-time 
workforce. 
Part-

time workers are less likely to have 

employee benefits including paid 

family and sick leave and health 

insurance. These workers are also 

the first to be slashed during times of 

economic vulnerability, leaving many 

women without a steady income. The 

Families First Coronavirus Response 

Act passed on March 18 offers paid 

sick leave to these part-time workers, 

but offers unequal pay compensation 

and leaves out a majority of the 

workforce, 
including 
domestic 

workers. 

Women who make up the majority 

of unpaid caregivers and domestic 

workers, 
including 
childcare 

workers, have no safety net. These 

workers are either unemployed or 

face infection because they often 

take care of families, the elderly 

and sick people. Pregnant women 

are another extremely vulnerable 

population right now. During the 

SARS outbreak, it was noted that 

pregnant women with SARS were 

more likely to miscarry. But with 

limited data on the transmission 

of SARS and coronavirus, there is 

uncertainty and anxiety in the air. 

Staying home and quarantining 

is one of the most effective ways to 

stop the spread of the virus. Families, 

then, are left with the decision of 

how to divide the labor at home. 

Women in dual-income households 

who are “poor, working in service 

jobs that cannot be done from home” 

will often bear the bulk of childcare 

responsibilities and stay home.

The economic impact of the virus 

will hit women, a majority of service 

and 
part-time 
workers, 
harder. 

Julia Smith, a research associate at 

Simon Fraser University, said that 

the Ebola outbreak in West Africa 

greatly affected the economy but 

“men’s income returned to what they 

had made pre-outbreak faster than 

women’s income.” If there is anything 

to be learned from past epidemics 

like Ebola it’s that women will have a 

harder time bouncing back from this 

economic recession.

Since President Donald Trump 

declared 
coronavirus 
a 
national 

emergency on March 13, the U.S. 

has worked quickly to pass the paid 

sick leave bill (even though this 

exempted millions of workers). But 

had the U.S. been better prepared, 

we could already be focusing on an 

equitable, gender-based response. 

More cities should already have 

paid sick leave and health insurance 

benefits for employees. Domestic 

and service workers should have 

labor protections already. Lack of 

employee benefits and protections 

are all public health risks.

In a sense, women are at the 

center of this pandemic, yet do we 

really 
think 
our 
administration 

will address these gender-sensitive 

policy needs? Lawmakers cannot 

ignore gender needs anymore during 

this crisis. Instead, they should take 

it as an opportunity to challenge 

existing social dynamics and deeply 

entrenched gender roles.

4 — Monday, April 6, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg

Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Jess D’Agostino

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

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

JENNY GURUNG | COLUMN

The need to address gender-sensitive policy 

during COVID-19

Jenny Gurung can be reached at

jennygrg@umich.edu.

FROM THE DAILY

In response to the University’s housing emails
O

n March 17, students received an email from University of Michigan 
Housing titled “URGENT: Petition to Remain in Housing.” The email, 
asking students “who truly have no other alternatives” to submit 

a request to remain in student housing by 8 a.m. the next day or lose building 
access, drew fire for the short notice and for backtracking on the University’s 
previous statement that students would be allowed to stay in the dorms. Further, 
the information in the email was not communicated to faculty, leaving professors 
blindsided and oblivious to the stressful situations their students had been placed 
in. 

The following day, Housing 

sent an email apologizing for 

the confusion and clarified that 

students had indeed not been 

required to move out at 8 a.m. 

that day. They offered support 

for students moving out and 

outlined the procedure for those 

who chose to stay in the dorms.

In these unprecedented times, 

we understand that no response 

on the part of the administration 

is perfect. Given how rapidly 

the situation 
changed 
with 

each new day, the University 

was forced to weigh the public 

health risks of leaving dorms 

open 
while 
accommodating 

students who were either unable 

to leave or had to coordinate 

arrangements in moving out. 

However, times of crisis call 

for 
clear 
and 
transparent 

communication. The array of 

emails and follow-up emails that 

students received from varying 

sources often failed to convey 

transparency and specificity in 

the University’s actions, creating 

confusion that could have been 

avoided had the administration 

simply been more clear and 

specific about their intentions 

in the original email. This 

undue stress and confusion only 

amplify students’ anxiety as 

they scramble to arrange flights, 

pack up belongings and adjust to 

online classes. 

Further, professors were left 

in the dark. Many had planned 

to carry on classes and exams 

during or soon after the time 

that students were moving out 

and were shocked and indignant 

that they, as professors, had 

received no information about 

this policy from the University. 

The 
multiple 
sources 
of 

information only added to the 

confusion as students received 

a number of emails regarding 

housing changes from Housing, 

the LSA Dean‘s Office and the 

Office of the Vice President of 

Student Life, making it difficult 

to discern the real authority on 

the matter. We believe that the 

confusion could be eliminated 

by creating a single, centralized 

source on behalf of the University 

administration to disseminate 

information regarding COVID-

19 updates and protocol, like 

U-M Public Affairs’ COVID-19 

information website, and only 

releasing information from that 

source and email address. In 

addition, the University should 

create better interdepartmental 

communication 
systems 
to 

ensure moving forward that 

professors are aware of the 

information 
their 
students 

are 
receiving 
and 
able 
to 

accommodate accordingly. 

While the policies put in place 

were necessarily reactionary, 

reflecting the rapidly escalating 

nature of the situation, we believe 

that the rapid response failed 

to account for the precarious 

food and housing situations of 

many students and jeopardized 

their safety and well-being. The 

vague terminology of “students 

who 
truly 
have 
no 
other 

alternative” raises questions as 

to which students are included 

and excluded, particularly for 

students 
with 
unsafe 
home 

conditions. The policy thrusts 

these students into a situation 

that could compromise their 

mental health and safety. In 

attempting to account for these 

students, the Maize & Blue 

Cupboard remains open and 

the University has consolidated 

residential hall services to West 

Quad Residence Hall and South 

Quad Residence Hall and dining 

services to South Quad.

The 
coronavirus 
has 

forced 
everyone, 
including 

students, 
faculty 
and 

University 
administrators 
to 

improvise and adjust in our 

current disorder. Though the 

University’s response has fallen 

short at times, we as students 

need to understand that the 

administration 
doesn’t 
have 

all the answers right now. 

Their actions reflect continued 

efforts to communicate with 

the student body and make 

accommodations 
without 

jeopardizing 
public 
health, 

namely by providing a partial 

refund for housing and meal 

plan expenses, keeping select 

dorms and dining halls open 

and offering free packing and 

storage services to students. In 

the end, no response that the 

University comes up with will 

be perfect and we should try to 

manage our reactions to each 

successive email that is released. 

However, this means we should 

learn from the shortcomings 

of 
the 
University’s 
initial 

response. Moving forward, the 

administration should reflect 

on students’ struggles in the 

COVID-19 pandemic in order 

to prepare better response 

protocols should future crises 

arise, and to make sure that 

communication 
from 
here 

on out is clear, accurate and 

widespread.

In the end, no 

response that the 
University comes 
up with will be 

perfect.

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.

SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK

The Opinion section has created a space in The 
Michigan Daily for first-person accounts of sexual 

assault and its corresponding personal, academic and 

legal implications. Submission information can be 
found at https://tinyurl.com/survivorsspeak2020.

