Opinion

It’s no secret that both the 

administration and the students 
made mistakes this semester. 
We’ve recorded thousands of 
cases of COVID-19, which resulted 
in a countywide shutdown of 
undergraduate activity. Now is 
the time to prove we can do better. 
The University needs to expand 
housing to accommodate students 
with special cases and make their 
criteria to stay on campus more 
widely known and accessible for 
those not able to move home. The 
University also needs to release 
a clear and comprehensive plan 
to actually implement effective 
COVID-19 testing, which did 
not happen this fall. Students 
need to take this opportunity to 
make responsible decisions going 
forward.

The looming uncertainty of 

housing security haunts freshmen, 
causing them to seek off-campus 
alternatives instead of re-applying 
for residence halls where they 
will also avoid mandatory testing 
by the University. While the new 
plan was implemented in hopes 
of reducing off-campus social 
gatherings — citing that there is 
“little evidence” that on-campus 
activities largely contribute to 
the spread of the virus — it seems 
that the new plan is doing just the 
opposite. 

Furthermore, the University’s 

plan could encourage those who 
have neglected social distancing 
guidelines to push parties further 
underground, while those who 
have honored the University’s 
policies are left in the dust. 
And while the University is 
allowing 
select 
students 
to 

return to campus housing if their 
circumstances qualify them for 
need-based on-campus housing 
and they applied by Nov. 11, the 
requirements appear muddy. The 
qualifications 
for 
need-based 

housing include students who are 
taking a necessary in-person class, 
who have financial needs, who 
have wellness or safety concerns, 
international 
students 
and 

ResStaff. However, the University 
neglects 
to 
precisely 
define 

“wellness or safety concerns,” 
which could potentially exclude 
students 
with 
mental 
health 

concerns if they aren’t prioritized. 
In 
addition, 
the 
closing 
of 

residence halls disproportionately 
affects marginalized students who 
don’t have the privilege of signing 
a lease with five days of notice, 
as well as students who cannot 
afford to take a gap year or gap 
semester due to financial aid that 
requires them to enroll as a full-
time student.

The University is scapegoating 

freshmen 
as 
the 
culprits 
of 

the 
“unacceptable” 
levels 
of 

COVID-19 cases this fall rather 
than admitting to their own 
wrongdoings. As predicted by the 
graduate student employees in the 
beginning of this semester, the 
University’s plan for the fall was 
insufficient to prevent the spread 
of COVID-19 and strict changes 

are necessary. While students 
do have agency of their own, by 
relying on students to socially 
distance on a campus designed 
to 
promote 
socialization, 
the 

University is at fault for the rise 
in cases we have experienced this 
semester. Earlier, the Graduate 
Employees’ Organization strike 
campaigned for the Division of 
Public Safety and Security funds to 
be relocated to the implementation 
of COVID-19 protections and for 
mandatory testing. Instead of 
blaming freshmen, the University 
should have listened more to the 
demands of the GEO strike, or at 
least have credited them in the 
plan for the winter semester.

The University’s announcement 

for 
the 
upcoming 
semester 

contains plans for more robust 
testing, 
including 
testing 
all 

on-campus 
residents 
and 

attendees of in-person classes or 
research. However, the breakage 
of all residence hall leases that 
has pushed on-campus students 
to scramble for sublets and winter 
leases decreases the number of 
students the University would 
be 
responsible 
for 
testing. 

While the increased availability 
of 
asymptomatic 
testing 
will 

increase overall testing, students 
off-campus are unlikely to make 
the effort to get tested often 
without enforcement, especially as 
the weather becomes colder. Many 
other universities across the nation 
have managed to increase testing 
numbers 
through 
penalizing 

students for not getting tested or 
even offering prizes and rewards 
for getting tested. The University 
should 
consider 
implementing 

similar systems to encourage more 
widespread testing.

The 
University 
witnessed 

a spike in third-party testing 
this semester. Many students 
have voiced concerns over being 
forced into the infamous isolation 
housing and difficulties in getting 
tested through the University 
Health Service. The winter 2021 
testing 
plan 
does 
guarantee 

“weekly 
asymptomatic 
testing 

available for all students … who 
are not otherwise covered by a 
mandatory program.” For this 
policy to be effective, however, 
the University must make it easy 
for students to sign up for testing, 
offer different testing locations 
for accessibility to off-campus 
students 
and 
encourage 
all 

students to get tested routinely. 

The success of the University’s 

plan 
to 
control 
COVID-19 

during the winter 2021 semester 
cannot rely upon administrative 
efforts alone. We, as students, 
must be willing to follow public 
health 
guidelines, 
including 

the 
sacrifices 
that 
entails. 

While many students have been 
staying 
socially 
distanced, 
a 

large portion of undergraduates 
have continued to engage in 
unsafe activities. Fraternity & 
Sorority Life members continue 
to host and attend large indoor 
gatherings and hold in-person 

recruitment events. As a result, 
FSL has experienced COVID-19 
outbreaks. Students also continue 
to gather in large numbers in and 
around bars and restaurants near 
campus, including the Brown 
Jug, which became a COVID-19 
hotspot earlier this semester. And 
as Michigan football began its 
delayed season, the “Overheard 
at umich” Facebook page featured 
several images documenting large 
and unmasked tailgate events. 
While the University has failed us 
with an insufficient plan for fall 
semester, we have also failed each 
other.

Many students have expressed 

frustration that administration 
is 
shifting 
blame 
onto 

uncooperative 
undergraduates, 

but we need to stop giving them 
this option in the first place. 
Though 
administration 
bears 

the ultimate responsibility, we 
should engage on an individual 
level — the same way many 
environmental 
activists 
view 

individual climate action. Just as 
no one person can stop climate 
change, no one student can 
control the COVID-19 pandemic. 
But the combination of individual 
efforts sends a collective message 
to the University that we are 
willing to make sacrifices and 
concessions for our community, 
and we expect nothing less from 
them. Finally, we need to hold 
one another accountable with 
student-led initiatives, similar 
to the “F*ck It Won’t Cut It” 
campaign spearheaded by Boston 
University 
undergraduates. 

Wolverines should collectively 
encourage one another to stay 
COVID-conscious this winter — 
and should productively call one 
another out when we don’t.

The winter 2021 plan presents 

significant changes to life at the 
University next semester. In 
many ways, this plan has been the 
one the community demanded 
for fall — limited on-campus 
housing, widespread testing and 
courses held remotely whenever 
possible. But transitioning to this 
plan in the middle of the school 
year will cause disruption for 
many students. Moreover, the 
fumbling of the fall semester 
by administration has created 
skepticism toward the University’s 
ability to pull off the revamped 
winter plan. Ultimately, next 
semester will be an exercise in 
trust-building for students, both 
with administration and with 
each other. Will the University 
prioritize students over profits to 
keep us safe? Will they take full 
responsibility for their missteps 
rather than shifting blame onto 
students? 
And 
will 
students 

be willing to make personal 
sacrifices to demonstrate that 
they take this crisis seriously? 
The failures of this fall have sown 
animosity and distrust within 
our community. The winter plan 
may be the first step toward 
improvement — but it could also 
make things even worse.

I 

imagine that for the political 
aspirant, there’s a great deal 
to learn from this election 

regarding 
campaign 
strategy, 

polling accuracy, voting patterns 
and a myriad of other facets of 
electoral politics. As ever with 
an eye for history, I ignored 
this and went back to watch 
Sen. John McCain’s, R-Ariz., 
concession speech from 2008. 
It demonstrated with startling 
clarity and eloquence the aspect 
of today’s politics I find most 
despairing: The bygone virtues 
of mutual respect and agreement. 
While a concession speech may 
seem entirely antithetical to 
compromise, insofar as only 
one candidate wins the race, 
McCain’s 
speech 
conveys 

the 
fundamental 
essence 
of 

compromise. 

The very notion of compromise 

necessitates 
concession, 
as 

coincidental as that wording may 
be. But to reach an agreement 
in which both parties believe 
they’ve gained or lost does not 
demand a weak will or loosely 
held convictions. In fact, it’s 
the opposite. Compromise is 
never easy, and surely not for 
those so stubborn to the point 
of absolute immobility. Change 
is incremental and cooperative; 
such is the nature of our county, 
of our government and of people. 

Thankfully, we live in a system 

that doesn’t enforce a universal 
belief set. We are free to pursue, 
maintain and change our own 
convictions however we see fit. 
This invites discord and the idea 
of opposition, but disagreement 
should not premise a refusal to 
compromise. In his concession, 
Sen. McCain said just that: 
“Sen. Obama and I have had and 
argued our differences, and he 
has prevailed.” 

He also said, “I urge all 

Americans 
who 
supported 

me to join me in not just 
congratulating him, but offering 
our next president our goodwill 
and earnest effort to find ways 
to come together, to find the 
necessary 
compromises, 
to 

bridge 
our 
differences 
and 

help restore our prosperity.” 
As foreign as his words may 
sound today, they serve only as 
conclusions, not solutions, to the 
question of compromise. So, what 
then is this fundamental essence 
of compromise? 

It’s mutual respect for the 

person on the other end of the 
table, and it’s an appreciation 
for 
a 
collective 
association 

greater than any political party. 
Critically, such respect does 
not exist without integrity and 
decency. 

Reading and listening to Sen. 

McCain’s speech, it is remarkable 
the degree to which his character 
shines. In commenting on his life 
as a public servant, McCain said, 
“I would not be an American 
worthy of the name, should I 
regret a fate that has allowed 
me the extraordinary privilege 
of serving this country for a half 
a century.” Suchis reverence for 
his work makes clear that his 
words on compromise were said 
wholeheartedly.

In 
congratulating 
his 

opponent, he said, “A little while 
ago, I had the honor of calling Sen. 
Barack Obama — to congratulate 
him on being elected the next 
president of the country that 
we both love.” When the crowd 
in Arizona began to boo after 
hearing Obama’s name, McCain 
held out his hands, imploring his 
supporters to refrain. Later, he 
said, “I hold in my heart nothing 
but love for this country and for 
all its citizens, whether they 
supported me or Sen. Obama, I 
wish Godspeed to the man who 
was my former opponent and will 
be my president.” 

All of this brings me to 

where we stand today. In the 12 
years since McCain’s speech, 
we seem to have forgotten 
how to compromise. Divided 
government 
has 
become 
a 

byword for stagnation when, 
instead, 
it 
should 
foster 

compromise. 
Speaker 
of 
the 

House Nancy Pelosi refused to 
move on stimulus negotiations 
this 
past 
October, 
leaving 

talks at a complete impasse. 

In 
2016, 
regarding 
Judge 

Merrick 
Garland’s 
Supreme 

Court nomination, Sen. Mitch 
McConnell, R-Ky., said, “One 
of my proudest moments was 
when I looked Barack Obama in 
the eye and said, ‘Mr. President, 
you will not fill the Supreme 
Court vacancy.’” McConnell’s 
statement 
is 
far 
beyond 
a 

refusal 
to 
compromise, 
and 

calling it indecent is a dramatic 
understatement. 

President Trump has yet to 

formally concede and give a 
concession speech. He instead 
took to Twitter, commenting, 
“this election is far from over.” 
When — or if — he gives a 
concession speech, I can only 
imagine how it might differ from 
any such congratulatory speech 
we’ve seen before. Joe Biden 
has run a campaign centered 
on unity and spoke further 
about those ideals in his victory 
speech 
this 
past 
Saturday 

evening. I hope his drive to unify 
and heal American divisiveness 
is genuine, such that we may 
rekindle the respect, integrity 
and decency for one another I 
fear we’ve lost. 

Compromise, as it exists in 

the legislative process and in the 
structure of our government, 
serves as a check on the 
majority and ensures the beliefs 
of the minority are heard. At the 
Constitutional Convention in 
1787, Benjamin Franklin spoke 
truths equally of woodworking 
as of compromise: “When a 
broad table is to be made, and 
the edges of planks do not fit, 
the artist takes a little from 
both, and makes a good joint.” 

As 
a 
nation 
and 
as 

individuals, we are the sum 
of innumerable influences. In 
the same way, two halves of an 
arch cannot stand without its 
keystone. A citizenry of split 
ideas cannot stand without 
embracing compromise and the 
respect, civility and decency it so 
commands. 

ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ELIZABETH LAWRENCE

Editor in Chief

BRITTANY BOWMAN AND 

EMILY CONSIDINE

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

DAVID LISBONNE | COLUMN

On compromise

Ray Ajemian

Zack Blumberg

Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Elizabeth Cook

Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Jenny Gurung

Krystal Hur
Min Soo Kim

Lizzy Peppercorn

Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes

Gabrijela Skoko

Joel Weiner
Erin White

Wednesday, November 18, 2020 — 8
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

LYDIA STORELLA | COLUMN

Joe Biden won, but America lost

David Lisbonne can be reached at 

lisbonne@umich.edu.

T

he 
last 
American 

president 
to 
lose 
a 

reelection 
campaign 

was President George H.W. 
Bush in 1992. On election 
night, Bush conceded to then-
Governor Bill Clinton and 
gave a speech thanking his 
supporters and wishing the 
future president well in the 
White House. Bush spoke of 
ensuring a smooth transition 
of power and asked Americans 
to “stand behind our new 
president regardless of our 
differences.” 

The American people have 

not yet heard such a speech 
from President Donald Trump, 
and it is unlikely that we ever 
will. Instead, the president of 
the United States has recklessly 
tweeted, 
retweeted 
and 

spoken of baseless accusations 
of voter fraud and claims to 
have won the election. While 
many individuals may likely 
understand that there is no 
evidence to back up these 
false accusations, it remains 
true that a large portion of 
the country believes Trump 
when he says that he won the 
election. 

Though Joe Biden has won 

the requisite 270 electoral 

votes to declare victory and 

will become the president 
on Jan. 20, 2021, it is unclear 
how many Trump supporters 
will view Biden as a legitimate 
president. 
Some 
of 
these 

supporters 
are 
high-profile 

elected officials, who have not 
only refused to congratulate 
President-elect 
Biden, 
but 

also repeat Trump’s rhetoric 
about the illegitimacy of this 
election. Sen. Lindsey Graham, 
R-S.C., and Sen. Ted Cruz, 
R-Texas, have both appeared 
on Fox News since Biden was 
announced the winner to call 
into question the legitimacy 
of the election and to argue 
that Trump still has a path to 
reelection. 

It is bad enough that so 

many 
people 
believe 
that 

Biden stole this election from 
Trump, but even worse is 
that people such as Graham 
and Cruz, two well-known 

senators, are allowing people 
to continue believing it. Belief 
in the electoral system is key 
to American democracy, and 
two senators are participating 
in accusations that reject that 
belief with no evidence. 

Regardless 
of 
what 
you 

might think of Biden or Trump 
and who you think should be 
the president, it has become 
clear that America lost this 
election. 
Regardless 
of 

partisanship and who would 
perform better as president, 
when a candidate announces 
he won when he didn’t and 
accuses states of voter fraud 
with no evidence, and people 
believe him, that country’s 
democracy 
is 
in 
trouble. 

American democracy is in 
trouble. 

We 
shouldn’t 
really 
be 

surprised 
that 
Trump 
has 

refused to concede. He’s said 
repeatedly that he wouldn’t 
necessarily accept the results 
of the election if he lost, and 
he’s said in the past that he 
might try to run for a third 
term in 2024. On the other 
hand, it’s almost surprising 
that prominent Republicans, 
including 
former 
president 

George W. Bush and Sen. 
Mitt 
Romney, 
R-Utah, 

have come out against this 
rhetoric 
and 
congratulated 

Biden, considering that many 
Republicans have spent much 
of the last four years only 
condemning 
the 
president 

when absolutely necessary. 

But elections only work if 

everyone involved respects the 
outcome. If everyone who lost 

an election claimed they won, 
people would have no faith 
in the electoral system and 
would not trust any election. 
As Americans, we should be 
appalled and concerned that 
our 
president, 
along 
with 

the many who support him, 
refuse to participate in a 
peaceful transition of power 
and instead deny this pillar of 
American democracy. 

I am worried about the 

future of America. As the 
country 
becomes 
more 

entrenched in our political 
dichotomy and aggressively 
stereotypes 
people 
on 

either side of the political 
spectrum, it becomes more 
likely that our democracy 
will be in trouble. As long as 
there continue to be political 
figures who encourage this 
type of thinking and cast 
doubt about the integrity of 
our elections, we will remain 
on a dangerous path both in 
terms of our democracy and 
in terms of what it means to 
be an American.

A 
Biden 
presidency 

could help to heal some of 
the damage that has been 
done to the U.S. due to rifts 
between identities like race, 
gender, 
geography 
and 

political affiliation. But if the 
Republicans who refuse to 
condemn Trump’s efforts to 
remain in power continue to 
do so, the healing of our nation 
will be an extremely difficult 
job, if not an impossible one. 
If 
the 
Democratic 
Party 

continues 
to 
ignore 
the 

thoughts of the white working 
class, especially those in rural 
America, people will continue 
to want what Trump brought 
to the White House in our 
government. 

You can either celebrate 

or mourn the end of the 
Trump presidency. But you 
must accept the results of 
this election and all other 
elections if you want the U.S. 
to continue to be a functioning 
democracy.

Lydia Storella can be reached at 

storella@umich.edu.

FROM THE DAILY

Skepticism for winter 2021

O

n Nov. 6, the University of Michigan announced a plan for the winter 
semester that included major changes to on-campus housing, class 
formats and testing protocols and accessibility. Most notably, the 

University will be converting on-campus housing into single-occupancy 
units, with undergraduates required to provide a reason to stay in one. 
Additionally, COVID-19 testing will be made mandatory for all students 
living in on-campus housing or participating in on-campus activities, and 
an even larger proportion of classes will be moved online than were during 
the fall semester. Upon releasing the plan, University President Mark 
Schlissel stated, “The changes we’ve made for winter semester reflect 
what we’ve learned and what we must do to keep our community safe.”

Elections only 

work if everyone 

involved 

respects the 

outcome.

