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

