2-News
A
s institutions of higher
learning begin to do
the long-overdue work
of examining structural racism
within
their
communities,
President
Donald
Trump’s
administration is fighting hard to
ensure it goes unacknowledged.
On Sept. 2, Princeton University
President Christopher Eisgruber
wrote a statement to the Princeton
community addressing systemic
racism and acknowledging that
“racist assumptions from the
past also remain embedded in
structures
of
the
University
itself.” The statement goes on to
detail a number of new initiatives
at Princeton that aim to create
a more welcoming and diverse
campus.
In
response,
the
Trump
administration
launched
an
investigation
into
Princeton’s
compliance
with
the
Civil
Rights Act, which “prohibits
discrimination on the basis of
race, color or national origin in any
program or activity that receives
Federal funds or other Federal
financial assistance.” In a letter
to Eisgruber, the Department
of Education argued that by
admitting racism inherent to the
institution, Princeton was also
admitting that they discriminated
based on race and were therefore
in violation of the Civil Rights Act
and ineligible for federal funding.
Princeton stood by the original
statement, as they should have.
Grappling with a fraught history,
and attempting some remedy, is
something that all institutions
should strive to do. One of the
examples that President Eisgruber
cites,
the
nine
departments
centered
around
European
language and culture departments
at Princeton versus one centered
around African studies, is a
discrepancy that can be found at
other universities across America.
The reaction by the Department
of Education to Princeton was
unique. Plenty of other universities
have admitted to systemic racism
at their schools, including flagship
institutions like the University
of Michigan and the University
of Virginia, without the threat
of legal action by the Trump
administration.
So then, why Princeton? Likely,
the timing of the statement by
Princeton fits in with Trump’s
ill-advised strategy of pretending
that racism no longer exists. It’s
an odd position to take, given
that more than three-quarters
of Americans agree that racism
and discrimination are “a big
problem,” as stated in a Monmouth
University poll released in early
June. By equating an admission
of systemic racism to a violation
of the Civil Rights Act, the Trump
administration’s official position
seems to be that the Civil Rights
Act solved racism, and if it didn’t,
that’s a personal problem. Most
Americans don’t seem to agree
with that anymore.
There
were
plenty
of
conservative
commenters
who reacted with glee at the
administration’s
announcement
that they were going to investigate
Princeton. Right-wing pundit Ben
Shapiro tweeted an article about
the news, saying “This is absolutely
spectacular,” but reactions seemed
less focused on whether this was a
smart policy move on the part of
the Department of Education and
more on mocking people with the
gall to admit that racism exists.
Two
recent
Princeton
graduates wrote, in support of
the Department of Education’s
investigation,
that
“the
DoE
had no choice but to act on the
investigative trolling opportunity
of a lifetime.”
To
insist
that
the
administration’s best use of time
and resources is to investigate
Princeton for civil rights violations
that authors do not believe exist
solely to “troll” shows flagrant
disregard for actual civil rights
violations. The Civil Rights Act
is not a joke and the Trump
administration should not use it
to attack universities attempting
to pursue racial equity. To applaud
the degradation of the Civil
Rights Act in service of a “gotcha”
moment is disgusting.
It is also hard to see the end
game with this move. If Princeton
is found to be in violation of the
Civil Rights Act due to systemic
racism, it would follow that the
Princeton education — that of a
handful of legislators and Supreme
Court Justices — is also racist.
This would strengthen the claim
that racism is institutionalized
in America, not weaken it. Of
course, the Trump administration
is banking on Princeton bending
over backward to avoid losing
their federal funding, which,
according to The Atlantic writer
Conor
Friedersdorf,
would
“expos(e) racism claims … as
hyperbole.” In other words, the
Trump administration is planning
on wasting resources to prank
Princeton.
A statement by Princeton’s
president does not make systemic
racism any more or less real.
It does not solve the problem
outlined by more than 300 of
Princeton’s
faculty
members.
But, it’s an imperfect step in the
right direction. To expect the
president’s administration to avoid
treating these messy moments of
reckoning as a chance to “troll”
at the expense of American
taxpayers feels like something we
should be able to take for granted,
but in Trump’s America, racism
was solved in 1964.
Trolling is not a good use of federal funds
JESSIE MITCHELL | COLUMN
Jessie Mitchell can be reached at
jessiemi@umich.edu.
S
tudents returning to campus
this fall may have noticed
a new profusion of orange
traffic barrels around Ann Arbor.
Though they have nothing to do
with road maintenance, the barrels
can be seen along the sides of several
of the city’s busiest thoroughfares,
blocking vehicles from entering
the outermost lanes. Judging by
the general lack of cyclists and
pedestrians
using
these
lanes,
however, it seems that many people
have not investigated exactly what
they are for.
The new car-free lanes are part of
a City of Ann Arbor initiative called
the Healthy Streets Program, which
was launched on May 4, 2020, in an
attempt to promote social distancing
among people who would otherwise
have been confined to city sidewalks.
The program has reconfigured
traffic on over 30 streets in Ann
Arbor. Of particular note are the
eight high-traffic streets (including
Main, State and Packard streets)
that have had entire lanes sectioned
off for pedestrian traffic.
These
reconfigured
lanes
have been converted into two-
way “streets” for cyclists and
pedestrians,
essentially
as
an
extension of existing sidewalks.
As a frequent runner and biker, I
have found this new abundance of
walkable, bikeable roadway to be
very useful, and although it seems
to be underutilized now, I believe
there are plenty of ways in which
the Ann Arbor community could
benefit from making better use of
the Healthy Streets Program.
Not only is it easier to maintain
proper social distancing while
walking or running along busy
streets (which, in Ann Arbor, is
very difficult to avoid doing), the
new lanes allow me to run through
normally
crowded
areas
like
downtown without being a nuisance
to other pedestrians — something
that was hard to do even pre-
pandemic.
I’ve also found Healthy Streets
to be a vast improvement in terms
of “bikeability.” Standard bicycle
lanes are often very narrow and
leave cyclists with no barrier
against automobile traffic. The
lanes reconfigured by Healthy
Streets, however, are essentially
mini-streets. With two lanes, there
is much more space for cyclists to
maneuver, and the barrels act as a
deterrent to cars that might stray
too close. In my experience, this
has made for much safer and more
enjoyable biking trips.
As much as I have made use of the
Healthy Streets Program so far, I
have been routinely surprised at how
few other people I encounter using
the converted lanes. Despite having
run or biked on a reconfigured
street several times a week since the
start of the semester, I can still count
with my fingers the number of other
people I’ve passed.
My estimate of how many people
are using Healthy Streets is based
on purely anecdotal evidence, and
understandably, people are traveling
fewer places right now. Nonetheless,
I feel that an exhortation to the
people of Ann Arbor to take
advantage of this program is in
order: According to the City of nn
Arbor website, the program is only
in effect until Nov. 10, and whether
or not these changes are permanent
depends on you. Staff members
from the city and the Ann Arbor
Downtown Development Authority
have been monitoring the Healthy
Streets since their launch in order to
determine their effectiveness. One
of the criteria used to determine
whether any reconfigurations will
become permanent is the volume of
people using the converted lanes.
Even if you don’t have anywhere
to go right now, I strongly suggest
that you go for a walk (or bike or
run) on a Healthy Street. You might
find that the new road configuration
improves
your
experience
of
downtown and other areas, as it
did mine. If nothing else, you’ll be
helping to make our city healthier
and safer by driving a transition to
car-free, people-focused roadways.
In fact, Healthy Streets operates
alongside
the
People
Friendly
Streets program, a more long-term
Ann
Arbor
initiative
launched
in order to redesign roadways
to
promote
carbon
neutrality,
economic development and personal
safety.
The Healthy Streets Program
was
created
to
address
an
immediate problem: the COVID-
19 pandemic. But if we provide the
program with enough support, it
will provide benefits much farther
into the future than the pandemic
will last and make our community
improvements
much
more
permanent than just a few orange
barrels.
Healthy Streets need more feet
EVAN DEMPSEY | COLUMN
Evan Dempsey can be reached at
evangd@umich.edu.
CHRISTINA KIM | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT CKIMC@UMICH.EDU
N
early seven months after
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer
issued her first executive
order aimed at battling the COVID-
19 pandemic in March, the Michigan
Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 2 that
Whitmer “had no authority to issue
or renew executive orders relating
to Covid-19 beyond April 30,”
according to CNN. The 4-3 ruling,
which Whitmer said in a statement
she “vehemently disagrees” with,
effectively strips away all of the
governor’s powers to unilaterally
issue executive orders aimed at
containing COVID-19. The court,
however, notes that the decision
“leaves open many avenues for the
Governor and Legislature to work
together to address this challenge.”
Since the first cases of COVID-
19 were confirmed in Michigan on
March 10 — one in Oakland County
and another in Wayne County —
Whitmer has worked under a state
of emergency and issued a wide
variety of executive orders to curb the
impacts of the pandemic. However,
some argued that she had no
authority to continue issuing orders
without the consent of the Michigan
State Legislature after April 30, the
date her initial emergency declaration
expired. Until the court struck down
Whitmer’s emergency powers, the
governor relied on two laws, one
from 1945 and the other from 1976,
to issue executive orders unilaterally.
Now, under the Michigan Supreme
Court’s recent decision, Whitmer can
invoke neither law to extend a state
of emergency or issue further orders
without working with the legislature.
The Michigan Supreme Court’s
ruling delivers a major blow to the
emergency powers Whitmer has
wielded in order to control the
spread of COVID-19 across the
state. The governor stated that,
“Right now, every state and the
federal government have some form
of declared emergency. With this
decision, Michigan will become
the sole outlier at a time when the
Upper Peninsula is experiencing
rates of COVID-19 infection not seen
in our state since April.” While some
fear that the decision will lead to an
uptick in cases across the state as the
governor loses her authority, others
— including State Senate Majority
Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake —
celebrated the ruling.
On the whole, Whitmer has
expertly navigated the unprecedented
crisis, and her decisive actions deserve
praise. Although the governor’s
orders have been met with criticism,
a poll released in May found that
nearly 64% of Michiganders approve
of Whitmer’s handling of the crisis.
But at the same time, many people
have expressed great concern about
the governor’s far-reaching powers
to single-handedly issue executive
orders that impact the entire state
population of 10 million people. While
Whitmer has acted with the best
interests of Michiganders in mind,
it is not prudent by any stretch of the
imagination to allow one person,
regardless of the circumstances,
to hold so much power. Ultimately,
while the people of Michigan elected
Whitmer as governor in 2018, she
heads one of three branches that
govern our state. Even though we
continue to find ourselves in the
middle of a dangerous public health
crisis,
Michiganders
didn’t
just
elect Whitmer; they also elected
representatives to the State House
of Representatives and State Senate,
who have been largely excluded
from exercising their power and
collaborating with Whitmer on
executive orders.
Regardless of the circumstances
— no matter how dire the emergency
is — we cannot allow one leader to
unilaterally make sweeping executive
orders. It is the responsibility of
the governor to work with the
representatives of the state legislature
to protect the health of our state.
Meanwhile, it is the responsibility of
Michigan’s elected representatives to
put checks and limits on Whitmer’s
powers as they deem necessary. It
doesn’t matter what kind of crisis
our state is confronting, and it
doesn’t matter whether the people of
Michigan have elected a Republican,
Democrat or Independent; ultimately,
it is dangerous to disproportionately
allocate any amount of power to a
single branch of government.
Throughout
the
course
of
Whitmer’s free rein, the people
of Michigan learned firsthand
the perils of vesting so much
political power in the office of
the governor. Although most of
Whitmer’s actions were justifiable
and protected Michiganders from
contracting COVID-19, there were
undoubtedly a handful that needed
improvement.
However,
with
Michigan’s legislators being shut
out of the process, our governor had
total discretion to issue arbitrary
executive actions, even if they
had significant costs; nobody had
the political means to influence
her executive orders and strike
down certain aspects that were
problematic. For instance, Whitmer
got flak nationwide for her order
barring the sale of certain products
in retail stores like seeds, home
gardening supplies and paint. As the
Detroit Free Press noted, this order
strangely permitted purchases of
lottery tickets in stores at the same
time, which the state uses to fund
certain programs.
Beyond ordering stores to block
off certain sections that sold goods
deemed “non-essential,” Whitmer
kept Michiganders under one of
the longest-running stay-at-home
orders in the nation, even amid the
obvious economic carnage of such
moves that our state is still reeling
from today. In Oakland County
alone, the state’s second-largest
county, the University of Michigan
Research Seminar in Quantitative
Economics found that a quarter of
small businesses were lost, along
with nearly 160,000 jobs. Finally,
even throughout the summer
months, as Michigan experienced
low numbers of new cases as well
as a small test-positivity rate,
Whitmer prohibited businesses
like gyms and movie theaters
from reopening. As a result,
many business owners who have
invested their whole lives in these
industries have teetered on the
edge of collapse for reasons with
little support from a public health
standpoint. Right here in the heart
of Ann Arbor, according to the
Daily, the Michigan Theater and
State Theater recorded financial
losses of $1.5 million, forced to keep
their doors closed well into the fall
as other businesses across the state
like hair salons opened in June.
Another theater owner in the state,
according to the Holland Sentinel,
said “revenue has been down about
95 percent since the coronavirus
pandemic shutdown began in mid-
March.”
These losses are staggering
and could have been averted if
Whitmer
couldn’t
unilaterally
keep the economy closed. If the
Michigan State House and Senate
had a say, we could have combated
the pandemic just as successfully
while also supporting the hard-
working people of Michigan. In the
midst of this deadly pandemic, it is
inconceivable why we suddenly
abandoned
our
American
principles of checks and balances
and opted to allow one leader
to navigate this viral storm. In
Michigan — along with our federal
government in Washington, D.C.
— we all know our government is
based on checks and balances and
the separation of powers. These
checks on emergency powers
don’t become irrelevant in the
middle of a public health crisis like
the COVID-19 pandemic, as some
have argued; on the contrary,
they are more important in order
to prevent abuses of power. On
the international stage, experts
have argued that the exponential
spread COVID-19 opens the door
for world leaders to “tighten their
grip on power.”
There is no evidence Whitmer
has abused her powers. She has
handled the crisis with one goal:
to protect the state of Michigan.
However, it is exceedingly evident
that her steady refusal (until now)
to work with our legislators has
cost our state. In the wise words
of Montesquieu, as the Michigan
Supreme
Court
noted
in
its
decision, “When the legislative
and executive powers are united in
the same person...there can be no
liberty.”
As the pandemic continues
to rage on, accelerating as the
weather cools down and we
approach the end of the calendar
year, we need to rethink our
approach to mitigating this crisis
here in Michigan, and ensure that
all branches of government have
a say in the next steps forward.
I applaud Michigan’s high court
for taking this action, and I look
forward to Gov. Whitmer, our
elected
state
representatives
and other government bodies
working collectively to protect
our state.
Whitmer’s powers should be checked, even in the middle of a pandemic
EVAN STERN | COLUMN
Evan Stern can be reached at
erstern@umich.edu.
Design courtesy of Katherine Lee
10 — Wednesday, October 14, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com