100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

April 06, 2020 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

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.

Back to Top

© 2025 Regents of the University of Michigan