2-News
O
ver the last few months,
the University of Michigan
has issued guidelines and
rules for its students regarding the
ongoing spread of COVID-19. Of
course,
intelligent
containment
efforts are necessary, as COVID-19
represents a serious threat to the
health of the University community
and the challenges administrators
face
are
remarkably
difficult.
However, this containment goal
does not justify the means the
University is employing. Further,
it is what the University risks by
employing these means that matters.
The directives the University has
issued and the means by which
they intend to enforce them violate
the higher-order principles that
constitute the University’s mission
as an institute of higher learning.
The manner in which the
University is monitoring contact
tracing risks an invasion of privacy.
Contact tracing — the attempt to
track who has come into contact
with whom, and by extension, who
is at risk of infection — is acceptable
in principle. Contact tracing is a tool.
The question is how it is being used or
enforced. The University’s recently
announced
program
protects
students’ autonomy by making it
a voluntary opt-in. However, in
the University’s FAQ page under
the heading “What is U-M’s plan
of COVID-19 testing and contact
tracing?” they note that students
will be allowed to manage contact
tracing efforts under the supervision
of professionals. In addition, per the
Recognized Student Organization
safety
measures,
RSOs
must
keep meeting rosters for 30 days
and, “when directed by U-M
administrators,” must provide a list
of those in attendance. RSOs must
also report to the Center for Campus
Involvement should any of their
attendees test positive for COVID-
19, though it’s unclear whether they
are required to report students’
names or the organizations they
are affiliated with. The issue is that
administrators and fellow students
— not health officials bound to
protect the privacy of their patients
— will be conducting contact tracing
efforts.
Chillingly, these efforts extend
off-campus, beyond the purview
of the University. Recently, the
University posted a job listing for
the Michigan Ambassadors. These
ambassadors are responsible for “Off-
campus Community Canvassing
Responsibilities,” which comprises
70 percent of their responsibilities.
This suggests that these students
will be confronting and reporting
individuals off-campus, leaving the
ill-defined scope of their jurisdiction
remarkably broad. This must also
be done through a “diversity, equity,
and inclusion lens,” suggesting
that one’s gender, racial, ethnic or
religious background will be taken
into account and, hopefully, held to
the same standard, when canvassing
and enforcing the rules. While this
may be the University’s attempt
to mitigate discrimination against
protected classes, it would seem that
the University may still be risking the
unequal enforcement of its policies
off-campus.
Furthermore,
the
Ann Arbor Police Department and
the University of Michigan Police
Department “response teams” will be
deployed if an emergency is reported
through a hotline the University has
set up, and the circumstances of this
call can be reported to the Office of
Student Conflict Resolution and the
Dean of Students Office. Assuming
the University’s guidelines aren’t a
perfect reflection of the laws that
AAPD is responsible for enforcing,
by what right can AAPD enforce the
University’s guidelines, which don’t
reflect those laws? Furthermore, the
academic and personal consequences
of such reporting remain unclear.
For some, it may be difficult to
see past the potential risk of not
implementing these measures.
But the risk to the privacy of
students among us and those
non-students who may be caught
in the fray — who could suffer
dearly when who they associate
with is revealed — is equally as
great. For example, say a student
who is gay or questioning their
sexuality and has not opened up
about this to anyone. This person
would be deeply concerned about
their privacy. They may go to an
LGBTQ+-related RSO meeting
to find answers or meet like-
minded individuals. They may go
to a party with fellow members
of
the
LGBTQ+
community,
risking exposure to the virus.
Maintaining
their
privacy
outweighs that calculated risk.
However,
the
aforementioned
University
guidelines
risk
potentially outing students in
situations such as these, the
consequences
of
which
are
personal and grave. Because they
may be exposed in the most public
way one could imagine — by one
of their fellow students showing
up to their gathering, calling a
hotline, having the police show up
to their door and reporting all of
the names of those who gathered
to administrators and fellow
students — that person’s privacy
and journey to personal identity
would be sacrificed on the altar of
“care.” And all of this could occur
in a place where the University
has no right to impose its power:
off-campus.
I
t seems like every day
the president finds a
new way to attack the
legitimacy of the upcoming
presidential
election.
In
2016, then-candidate Donald
Trump
refused
to
accept
the results of that year’s
election unless he won. But
his
most
recent
offense,
which is garnering support
among the fringe supporters
of his reelection campaign,
has been to eliminate and
invalidate mail-in voting.
This administration has
begun attacks on our postal
system to make sure that
mail-in votes are delayed,
not counted and not even
cast in the first place. He
is
opposing
new
funding
to the United States Postal
Service, suing Nevada for
expanding access to mail-
in
ballots,
intimidating
voters by making the only
method of voting in-person
—
something
increasingly
dangerous in a pandemic —
and discouraging Americans
from trusting the validity
of
their
absentee
votes.
By doing this, Trump has
once again set himself up to
deny the results of the 2020
election and to use mail-in
voting as a way to claim that
it was “rigged” if he loses.
Trump went on a Twitter
rant regarding the alleged
illegitimacy
of
mail-in
voting
while
the
death
toll from COVID-19 in the
U.S.
surpassed
180,000.
Beyond his dangerous and
unconstitutional proposal of
delaying a federal election,
and beyond his false claim
that
absentee
voting
is
somehow more secure than
mail-in
voting
(they’re
essentially the same thing),
he wants to make voting
in our country a life or
death choice for millions
of Americans based on the
misinformation
of
voting
practices.
Trump rages on in his
efforts
to
stop
mail-in
voting and at the same time
pretends that the pandemic
affecting
our
nation
is
going away. It is proven that
COVID-19 disproportionately
affects
Black
and
Latinx
communities relative to white
communities.
This
means
that while a white man may be
able to vote in person without
any substantial risk, a Black
woman, who may need to take
public transport for a greater
distance
and
wait
longer
in line, will be at a greater
health risk. In addition to
the racially disproportionate
health risk posed by the
pandemic, Trump is further
disadvantaging
people
of
color
in
the
democratic
process through his attacks
on mail-in voting, essentially
establishing
21st
Century
Jim Crow laws.
When asked about Trump’s
new
attack
on
voting
in
America,
Allayna
Hight,
a
Black
LSA
freshman
and active member of the
Multicultural
Housing
Community
on
campus,
did
not
hold
back.
She
commented,
“Low-income
areas
with
high
minority
populations
tend
to
have
higher numbers of COVID-
19 cases, and I’m afraid many
minorities may decide not to
vote if they can’t do it by mail.”
She continued, “Especially
because of the recent events
surrounding police brutality
against Black people, I feel
like it’s more important than
ever to secure my vote in
the election. Donald Trump
does not show any support
for the Black Lives Matter
movement and it scares me to
hear him denounce mail-in
voting.”
Though his assault on mail-
in voting disproportionally
affects
Black
Americans,
this is an issue even white
people are having to face.
We white Americans live in,
and inadvertently support,
a system that is set up to
favor us and now we are
getting a glimpse at what
Black individuals lived and
continue to live through.
We,
too,
are
now
being
told that our votes do not
matter. We, too, are being
forced to risk our health
to
simply
participate
in
this democracy. We must
acknowledge that we were
privileged over the past two
hundred years to be exempt
from literacy tests, property
ownership
requirements,
purging of names and even
being subjected to violence
only for voting.
Thoughthe voices of support
for
the
Black
community
from our predecessors were
too few and too quiet, we are
now given another chance to
defend the right to vote and
must seize this opportunity.
That includes passing the
Voting Rights Advancement
Act of 2019 to restate our
commitment to racial justice
in our electoral process.
This issue is about whether
we will let all Americans
vote safely like so many
white Americans have in the
past or force people to risk
their lives just to have their
voices heard. Voting is a
right that must be protected
with the utmost care, clarity
and accessibility. What is
happening now is a president
taking a move from an old and
racist playbook to suppress
his opposition. America is too
great of a nation to once again
stay silent as justice and
democracy fall apart.
Wednesday, September 9, 2020 — 9
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
A
s
tribalism
deepens
in the United States
and
around
the
world, political polarization
follows.
The
tendency
of
people to group themselves
based on ideology creates
environments where beliefs
outside of one’s norm aren’t
present and ultimately lead
to echo chambers that make
people unable and unwilling
to listen to other perspectives.
We can clearly see this
in the way people become
ardent fans and supporters of
the political stars of the day.
People across the political
spectrum — from progressives
to moderate Democrats to
conservative Republicans —
have their own politicians
who they worship without
question. For example, Rep.
Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez,
D-NY., Sen. Bernie Sanders,
I-Vt., former President Barack
Obama,
Supreme
Court
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and, lastly, President Donald
Trump all have their strong
supporters who find no flaw
in their policies, beliefs or
actions.
When
people
start
admiring someone, it becomes
inexplicably difficult to find
flaws. I grew up in the ultra-
liberal Oakland, Calif. and
Berkeley,
Calif.,
and
now
attend the University here in
Ann Arbor. In both places, I
have seen many people shout
their love of Supreme Court
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Sure, there is a lot to love.
RBG has an inspiring life
story that includes taking
care of both her sick husband
and young child while in law
school. She has almost become
a cultural phenomenon due
to her years defending civil
liberties as well as her role
as a liberal dissenter on the
Supreme Court. An article
titled “52 Reasons Why Ruth
Bader Ginsberg is My Favorite
Human” provides a clearer
understanding of how deep
this kind of love goes.
Articles like this, however,
also explain why this type
of worship is dangerous and
shows a lack of awareness
and critical thinking. The
author states that RBG is her
“favorite human.” While this
is obviously a hyperbole, it is
important to remember that
we know very little about
politicians and, unfortunately,
judges are political figures.
How
someone
presents
themselves
in
the
public
spotlight is not necessarily
who they really are.
Consider some of RBG’s
other actions. For example,
her decision not to retire in
2014 while Obama was still
president haunts me whenever
I open Twitter and see “RBG”
trending. If she had retired
in 2014, Obama could have
nominated her replacement,
ensuring
a
liberal
justice
on the Supreme Court and
keeping its relatively even
balance of four to five liberal
to
conservative
justices.
If Trump is reelected, he
will likely fill that spot and
cause
the
Supreme
Court
to lean further toward the
conservative side. RBG also
joined the Court’s conservative
majority to allow a natural gas
pipeline to be built under the
Appalachian Trail, a project
both environmentalists and
several
Native
American
tribes
oppose.
Liberal
Democrats’
lack
of
real
critique allows RBG to escape
the
consequences
of
her
actions, or inaction, that have
caused harm.
On the other side of the
aisle, let’s consider the cult
of personality that surrounds
Trump. The hypocrisy starts
with more mundane things
like his criticism of Obama
for
golfing
too
much
—
despite the current president
golfing more than Obama at
this point in his presidency.
On a more serious note, he
recently claimed that mail-in
voting will lead to a “corrupt
election” while he himself
voted by mail in August. The
Republican
Party
refuses
to hold Trump accountable
for the statements he makes
that are a threat to our
democracy. Sending federal
agents to arrest protesters,
as Trump did in Portland,
Ore., is not just undemocratic,
but, according to a Harvard
Law School professor Noah
Feldman,
unconstitutional.
But still, Trump’s supporters
continue to defend him at all
costs, while claiming to be
the party of the Constitution.
They only rebuke him on the
most egregious of accounts,
such as when he threatened to
postpone the election.
Additionally,
idolizing
political
figures
often
pushes
people
to
believe
in
unrealistically
simple
solutions
for
complex
problems. Take Sanders, who is
adored by progressives and has
a lot of support from college
students. Many of his proposed
solutions as a politician are
oversimplified, yet not met
with proper critique from his
supporters.
Sanders
fully
supports
Medicare for All, a single-
payer health care system. It
sounds so easy — Medicare
works,
let’s
expand
the
program
to
cover
all
Americans.
But
Sanders’s
view ignores political reality.
President
Barack
Obama’s
health care law took two
years
of
negotiation
and
compromise
for
it
to
be
narrowly
passed
in
2010.
The
Affordable
Care
Act
was controversial when it
was signed into law, and it
remains controversial today;
there
have
been
repeal
efforts as recently as 2017
and the Supreme Court will
hear
arguments
regarding
the constitutionality of the
health care law in November.
The Affordable Care Act is
a much more modest reform
of health care than Medicare
for All would be, and the
possibility of Medicare for
All
becoming
law
seems
politically
remote.
Yet
Sanders continues to push
for it. Realism is important
in politics, and supporters
of progressive ideas seem
unable to separate the ideal
from the realistic. The lack
of criticism for Sanders from
his supporters made him a
viable candidate for president,
despite his lack of notable
accomplishments
in
the
Senate. Sanders is a senator
of big ideas, but he does not
have the ability to make those
ideas American law. Even
congressional Democrats are
deeply divided over Medicare
for All.
You
can
like
political
figures, love political figures
or pick your favorite political
figures. But it’s important to
recognize that these people
are not perfect, and we should
not pretend that they are.
Check your politician
LYDIA STORELLA | COLUMN
Lydia Storella can be reached at
storella@umich.edu.
University overreach in the era of COVID-19
JOSEPH JACKOWSKI | OP-ED
Joseph Jackowski is a senior in the
College of Literature, Science & the
Arts and can be reached at
joejack@umich.edu.
Nathan La Huis can be reached at
ndlahuis@umich.edu.
Though the voices
of support for the
Black community
from our
predecessors were
too few and too
quiet, we are now
given another
chance.
Trump’s interference with our voting system
hints at his Jim Crow fantasy
NATHAN LA HUIS | COLUMN
Design courtesy of Mellisa Lee
JOIN THE DAILY
The Michigan Daily is having virtual mass
meetings on September 10, 13 and 16 at 7 p.m.
EST. All students are welcome! Go to this link to
fill out the Zoom RSVP form: https://tinyurl.com/
TMD-RSVP.
For individual section information and
applications, visit http://join.michigandaily.us.
Read more at MichiganDaily.com