Opinion

B

efore this election and 
the 
anti-democracy 

maneuvering that quickly 

ensued, 
Amy 
Coney 
Barrett’s 

appointment 
to 
the 
Supreme 

Court had already destroyed any 
expectation the American left may 
have had for mutual respect between 
them and the Republican Party. Now, 
let’s be clear: reducing the identity of 
any Supreme Court justice to their 
nominating party is a mistake. But 
in an ideal world where people abide 
by morals rather than their hunger 
for power and control, Barrett would 
have refused the appointment. 

I do not say this as a thinly veiled 

insult. I simply would like to trust 
that when a venerated Supreme 
Court justice, requests as her dying 
wish that the incumbent party wait 
to make a new appointment, the 
incumbent party would respect the 
wish. Barrett is smart and it would be 
a mistake to not regard her as such. 
She is an individual shaped by many 
cultural factors and an upbringing 
in the Catholic Church. She opposes 
abortion and that’s her individual 
choice. I’d argue something of far 
greater importance — more so than 
her stance as a Republican — is 
Barrett’s commitment to originalism.

What is originalism? It signals 

that a judge would, as a rule, cite 
original precedent in writing any 
new opinion or decision. In effect, 
it makes interpretation vulnerable 
to history. However, the law is 
meant to be updated for a reason. 
The implementation of new Civil 
Rights statutes, building on what 
came before, expands our existing 
freedoms and builds toward a better 
world. The ability to do this arguably 
depends on the maintenance of the 
precedents we have now, rather than 
a return to those from hundreds 
of years prior. In a recent op-ed for 
the Chronicle of Higher Education, 
Oliver Traldi laments how recently, 
everyone 
from 
philosophers 

to literature scholars with “no 
knowledge” 
of 
originalism 
has 

emerged to denounce the practice. 
In saying so, Traldi repeatedly 
declared this was not only arrogant, 
but also showed a lack of respect for a 
foundational judicial ideology. 

At the outset, it is important 

to acknowledge that originalism 
is used by all judges sometimes, 
particularly concerning the scope of 
the application of any constitutional 
law. At its core, however, such a 
belief system taken to its extreme 
perpetuates the notion that the 
state, as it was built at our country’s 
founding, has more insight into 
modern life than we as modern 
citizens do. Therefore, originalism 
seems to imply the state can know a 
hypothetical or actual situation better 
than we do. Most problematically, 
this approach insinuates modern 
science isn’t one of the most relevant 
tools at our disposal for determining 
the moral actions of so-called rational 
actors. 

We don’t use neuroscientific 

research enough as is — a feature of 
our modern heyday of contemptuous 
anti-intellectualism. We don’t need 
more extreme anti-intellectualism, 
and it is not at all appropriate to 
undermine science in any situation. 
No matter one’s political viewpoint, 
it is antithetical to our society’s 
well-being to continue cutting the 
floor out from beneath our scientific 
institutions in this way — even and 
especially in the courtroom, which 
is meant to protect the citizens it 
serves by obtaining the most accurate 
version of truth that it can.

I also interpret Barrett’s stance as 

an originalist to mean she believes 
the state has supreme power to 
enforce more carceral values in the 
guise of “protecting” its citizens 
while glossing over the demonstrable 
ineffectiveness of resulting policies. 

This cuts both ways, actually. 
For example, the victims’ rights 
movement of the 1970s established a 
then-novel idea that victims should 
have a voice in the courtroom. 
Before the VRM, the state simply 
did whatever it saw fit in deciding 
on retributive punishment for the 
victim, but the victim wasn’t afforded 
any agency in these decisions. 
The interpretation of the victim 
as irrelevant in court proceedings 
has its roots in the original laws’ 
texts; consequently, victim impact 
statements are recent developments. 

The Victim’s Rights Bill, also 

known as Proposition 8, was passed 
in 1982. Before its passage, victims 
either weren’t addressed at all or 
were regarded as property and 
therefore void of agency. Doris 
Tate, the mother of slain Manson 
victim Sharon Tate, was a major 
proponent of this bill — she read 
the first Victim Impact Statement 
in 1976 to persuade the court not to 
grant parole to Charles Manson’s 
followers. The long-standing notion 
of a victim’s irrelevance before the 
VRB was a vestige of British common 
law, under which victims were the 
property of the king and so any crime 
was technically committed against 
the king. Even today the idea of 
victims’ voices having a role in court 
is complicated by archaic notions of 
textualism under the law as it applies 
to, say, domestic violence situations.

In a situation fueled by primal 

brain stem activities in the form 
of shifting brain chemistry — 
evolutionary 
advantages 
meant 

to protect humans in dangerous 
situations — humans are still 
assessed as rational thinkers, which 
is itself nonscientific. Psychiatrist 
Dana Ross from the University of 
Toronto writes that the prefrontal 
cortex “normally helps us think, 
plan and solve problems and brain 
imaging shows it goes ‘offline’ with 
far less activity when undergoing a 
trauma — or reliving one.” Knowing 
what 
neuroscience 
has 
shown 

us regarding the way the brain 
typically reacts in life-threatening 
situations, the idea that someone in 
the throes of domestic abuse is able 
to override their brain chemistry is a 
willful twisting of facts — an excuse 
to punish individuals who dare 
defend themselves. By extension, 
referring to foundational precedent 
that has long been usurped by new 
precedent rewinds the clock to a time 
when none of this information was 
available to us.

Take a hostage situation, where 

an abuse victim shoots their abuser 
but it’s determined the abuser’s 
weapon wasn’t known to be active. 
If someone truly adheres to the 
principle of the rational actor in 
such a situation, where science has 
shown the brain’s chemistry to 
be fundamentally different than 
usual and there is a precedent of 
aggressors possibly using force, the 
originalist judge is fundamentally 
trampling on and constraining that 
person’s right to defend their life — by 
declaring defensive force somehow 
wasn’t warranted. Paradoxically, 
Barrett’s anti-abortion ideals, her 
Catholicism and her originalism are 
all in conflict here; all of these ideas 
of hers are loosely coded excuses 
for rewinding the clock by at least 
70 years and rescinding the civil 
rights that marginalized groups, 
traditionally excluded from power 
and not granted rights, have received 
only recently. 

Citing outdated precedents and 

opinions, which existed before we 
could even conceive of serotonin and 
norepinephrine — chemicals related 
to fight or flight — would likely lead 
to interpreting someone threatened 
with death as having the same 
capacity for rational thought as, say, 
someone taking a stroll in a museum. 

Rather than paying attention 

to Barrett’s status as a woman, or 
even as a Republican, we should 
cut through all that distracting flak 
and ask ourselves: What morals will 
Barrett bring, or not bring, to the 
Court? 

What I refer to here isn’t related 

to Barrett’s race, class or gender: It 
is her ability to apply rules to facts in 
a way that would manage to escape 
profoundly distorting bias, such as 
her faith in the mirage of idealism 
that was the founders’ vision for 
the Constitution. This desperate 
reach for a nonexistent ideal world 
populated by perfectly rational 
actors would buckle under the 
horrors of today’s post-industrial 
violence. I don’t want to disparage 
Barrett’s intellect — that is uncalled 
for. Unfortunately, when it comes to 
matters regarding the importance 
of the state in people’s lives, I don’t 
trust her ability to apply ethical 
principles to those whose lives 
are steeped in poverty or unduly 
influenced by other accidents of 
birth. 

Understanding 
the 
role 
of 

context is the foundation of equity. 
Perhaps the victim was born with 
a disability and coerced into a 
relationship. Maybe the victim fled 
with bloodshed at their heels and 
was similarly coerced by a predatory 
partner. Not to mention biological 
context, such as when a child’s life 
is inviable (e.g. they won’t survive 
outside the womb) or when the 
mother’s life is threatened. In any 
scenario, the victim’s social, personal 
and biological contexts are read as 
irrelevant when a judge abides by 
the law’s original text; absolutist 
thinking overpowers science to 
the point of regression and near-
silencing of crucial context. This 
approach is anathema to reality and 
science has produced mountains of 
evidence showing precisely how.

Admittedly, in reading over 

any of Barrett’s opinions one has 
the urge to defect to optimism, 
even while immersed in their own 
inescapable, blunting cynicism. We 
live in the United States in 2020, 
so relating Barrett’s appointment 
back to the prevailing climate that 
surrounds 
her 
is 
unavoidable. 

But I was determined to get to 
the bottom of what was at the 
core of her appointment. I would 
argue Barrett’s appointment is the 
product of a capitalist individualism 
with capricious roots in the idea 
that your idea of liberty, and my 
idea of liberty, are each inferior 
iterations of some brand of original, 
categorically 
certain 
liberty 

determined hundreds of years ago. 
Individualism and originalism are 
woven into the same mélange of 
American mythos, which constrains 
responsibility to the individual 
or a tapestry of individuals in 
isolation, rather than expanding 
the responsibility to include our 
legal system and its networked 
supports or institutions. Therefore, 
the lack of right to due process 
presses especially hard upon those 
already not favored by the system, a 
structuring fact an originalist such as 
Barrett isn’t likely to acknowledge as 
noteworthy.

In any case, it is unjust to mute 

this background or to bury it 
under the narcosis of “tradition.” 
The problem here is Barrett’s 
demonstrated commitment to ideas 
that are hundreds of years old while 
her supporters declare her to be an 
empowered woman by virtue of 
being a mother with a Juris Doctor. 
Supporting Barrett’s approach is the 
equivalent of declaring bloodletting 
with leeches to be standard, best 
medical practice.

ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

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. 

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

SIERRA ÉLISE HANSEN | COLUMN

Amy Coney Barrett: Ready to rewind the clock

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, December 2, 2020 — 8
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

Sierra Élise Hansen can be reached 

at hsierra@umich.edu.

SAM WOITESHEK | COLUMN

University is housing logic over undergraduates
I

nsanity, 
according 
to 

Albert 
Einstein, 
is 
doing 

the same thing repeatedly 

and expecting different results. 
Unfortunately, some of us are so 
darn stubborn that we believe we’re 
right even when we aren’t and repeat 
the same mistakes. My psychology 
professor would call this an inability 
to perform metacognition: a failure 
to recognize our incompetence. 
But, the University of Michigan is 
ahead of the curve — literally and 
figuratively.

On Nov. 6, University President 

Mark Schlissel effectively closed 
most of the undergraduate residence 
halls for the winter semester due to 
increasing COVID-19 cases. With 
Thanksgiving break beginning on 
Nov. 20, most freshmen will have 
vacated campus, leaving those 
residing in off-campus housing as 
the remaining majority.

The decision has undoubtedly 

left undergraduates disconcerted. 
Out-of-state students are finding 
apartments, storage options for 
their items for the next ten months 
or moving back home. At this rate, 
students have a better chance 
at winning the Powerball than 
securing a sublease. Not to mention, 
we have to navigate final projects, 
papers and exams. The amount 
of stress we’re experiencing is 
unrivaled. 
Furthermore, 
there’s 

a heavy emotional weight to the 
University’s actions. 

Many 
of 
the 
University’s 

restrictions over the past three 
months have waned or felt less 
impactful, but losing the winter is 
too big a burden to bear, right? As 
if losing the latter half of our senior 
year in high school wasn’t enough, 
now we’re forced to forgo the second 
part of our freshman year as well? 

Granted, the “college experience” 
we’ve all fantasized about hasn’t 
truly come to fruition, but we could 
still hope, right?

Wrong. 
We can’t. Quite frankly, we 

shouldn’t. As much as we think we 
can control the actions of others, we 
cannot. Consequently, COVID-19 
has jeopardized first-year students’ 
safety far more than it should have. 
Some of us have been more vigilant 
in following Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention protocols 
than others, but the minority who 
believed they were invincible spoiled 
the winter 2021 semester for most of 
the undergraduate population.

In the midst of my dejection, I 

thought back to Einstein’s words. 
The U-M data hasn’t been entirely 
encouraging 
for 
our 
futures. 

Coupled with the fact that flu season 
is fast approaching and that we’re 
going to be spending more time 
indoors because of the weather, 
how “insane” would it be for the 
University to continue housing 
undergraduates?

Yes, the administration’s choice 

means I’ll be studying at home for 
the entirety of my freshman year. 
However, I’m not a gambler; I’d 
rather wait and safely preserve my 
peers’ lives — as well as my own — 
until we receive a vaccine (which 
we have reason to believe is on its 
way). Therefore, I think Schlissel 
and the administration made the 
correct call. It’s the latest episode in 
a series of unpopular but righteous 
decisions. 

To those who remain skeptical: 

What would be a better alternative? 
By allowing undergraduate housing 
in January, you’re delaying the 
most difficult part of the situation, 
which happens to be what first-

years are about to encounter. The 
administration’s resolution is the 
equivalent of ripping a Band-Aid off; 
it’s inevitable, so you may as well do it 
quickly and avoid a slow, painful peel. 

In fact, we’re in such a dire 

situation as a state that Gov. 
Gretchen Whitmer is prying off 
a second Band-Aid and picking at 
a scab that should have scarred in 
June. If Schlissel and his team had 
not made this call, Whitmer’s order 
would have had the same effect. 
There is a question of maturity for us 
as students: Are we able to take this 
pandemic seriously as we transition 
to full-on adulthood? If we’re being 
honest with ourselves, we know the 
answer. We’re stubborn by nature; 
we have always wanted normalcy 
since the pandemic first struck, no 
matter how gravely dangerous the 
price. If we cannot make the sound 
choice ourselves, we must trust our 
leaders to minimize the ensuing 
damage.

From here on, we must trudge 

along and embrace the uncertainty 
of our situation. While it may not be 
the only solution, it is the best one 
for us, whether we appreciate it or 
not. Living and studying at home is 
unappealing, but it can be done. In 
fact,you might enjoy it more than 
you think. To those of you who were 
lucky enough to find off-campus 
housing: Take one for the team and 
don’t screw this up for the rest of us. 

In the meantime, to fully enjoy 

the “college experience” we’ve 
been so desperately searching for, 
we must follow in the steps of the 
administration by thinking with our 
heads and not our hearts. We cannot 
afford to be insane. 

Sam Woiteshek can be reached at 

swoitesh@umich.edu.

D

ear 
President 
Donald 

Trump, 

You have continuously 

touted 
your 
administration’s 

response to the pandemic. In an 
ABC News town hall, you claimed 
to have no regrets. In fact, you have 
gone as far as to say that you rate 
your 
administration’s 
pandemic 

response a 10 out of 10. It seems that 
a “thank you” is in order from the 
United States’ college students for 
this great COVID-19 response you 
implemented. 

Thanks to your downplaying 

the virus’s lethality and danger, 
Americans who trust you have 
refused to live in fear of the virus, 
breaking 
social 
distancing 

guidelines and contributing to the 
spread of the virus. While you were 
taped privately acknowledging 
that the virus is “deadly stuff” on 
Feb. 7, you said the next month that 
“this is a flu” and “it’s very mild.” 

Even in July, after COVID-19 

had taken over 130,000 American 
lives, you claimed that 99% of 
COVID-19 
cases 
are 
“totally 

harmless.” While 99% of people 
may survive the virus, 15% of cases 
are considered severe and 5% are 
considered critical. There are also 
long-term effects that are yet to 
be understood and studied. Now, 
at my university alone, there have 
been over 2,500 cases of COVID-
19. These students were told that 
they were practically immune 
to the virus by their president. 
I speak for my friends whom I 
witnessed receive positive tests, 
then struggle to breathe and talk, 
lose their senses of taste and smell, 
fall behind in school and now fear the 
possible long-term effects that young 
people are not immune to. 

Thanks to your claims that the 

virus 
will 
magically 
disappear, 

Americans lived normally under the 
assumption that it would just go away. 
On May 8, you claimed “This is going 
to go away without a vaccine. ... We 
are not going to see it again.” On May 
8, the country was averaging 26,544 
cases a day. Now, in mid-November, 
the United States averages 164,000 
cases a day. Does it seem that this 
pandemic has disappeared “like a 
miracle” to you? 

Early on, Americans could have 

taken this virus more seriously and 
slowed down the spread. However, 
you, the leader of our nation, decided 
to blatantly lie in an attempt to make 
everything appear as if it was under 
control. This virus could have been 
controlled by the beginning of the 
semester. Instead, college campuses 
across the nation were overwhelmed 
with thousands of students arriving 
from hotspots and high-risk states. It 
was a disaster waiting to happen. 

Thanks to your rush to open the 

economy, even as deaths and cases 
increased exponentially, students 
returning to school faced an extremely 
unsafe semester. On March 25, you 
said, “the faster we go back, the better 
it’s going to be.” Public health experts 
disagreed and claimed that pulling 
back social distancing guidelines so 
soon did not provide enough time for 
them to fully work.

It is important that the government 

reopen parts of the economy and 
do what it can to protect businesses 
and workers. However, pushing for a 
reopening without giving universities 
the funding necessary to provide 
public health informed semesters 
ensured that college campuses across 
the country would become massive 
hotspots. 

Underscored 
by 
your 

stigmatization of wearing one, 
masks have not been accepted 
or embraced as necessary by 
many Americans. On April 3, 
you explained that you did not 
want to wear a face mask when 
you greeted leaders from other 
nations. You spent the beginning 
months 
of 
the 
pandemic 

questioning 
the 
effectiveness 

of masks and refusing to be 
photographed in one. Even once 
you began acknowledging that 
people should wear masks, you 
continued 
to 
send 
different 

messages to the American people. 
On Aug. 13, you said “maybe 
they’re great, and maybe they’re 
just good. Maybe they’re not so 
good.”

Your inability to set a good 

example 
for 
Americans 
and 

wear a mask, even when science 
has repeatedly pointed to its 
effectiveness, has confused the 
American people and made the 
importance of wearing masks a 
point of unnecessary controversy. 
Even 
on 
college 
campuses, 

wearing a mask at social events 
has 
not 
been 
normalized. 

Repeatedly, I have been asked by 
friends, “Why are you wearing a 
mask?” Wearing a mask around 
friends now gives the impression 
that there is a level of discomfort 
or distrust by the mask wearer. If 
the president of the United States 
is questioning the need to wear a 
mask, the people will too. 

An open letter to President Trump

Lizzy Peppercorn can be reached at 

epepperc@umich.edu.

LIZZY PEPPERCORN | COLUMN

ZOE ZHANG | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT ZOEZHANG@UMICH.EDU

Read more at MichiganDaily.com