I
n December 2020, the COVID-19
vaccine was first administered in
the United States and people finally
began to feel a sense of hope. Now that it
is being provided more widely, people are
beginning to wonder if a national COVID-
19 vaccine mandate is in store. If this were
to become a reality, though, the majority of
states may allow for religious exemptions
from the vaccine, potentially threatening
the widespread immunization necessary to
put an end to this pandemic thus keeping
many people at risk. In the case of a national
COVID-19
vaccine
mandate,
religious
exemptions must not be tolerated, as the
vast majority have no basis in scripture, and
the health of the country must be prioritized
above the unjustified beliefs of a few.
As evidenced by a 2013 study, most major
world religions have no explicit scripture or
laws implying any opposition to vaccinations,
the major religions being Christianity,
Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and
Jainism. These religions along with atheism,
agnosticism and a lack of religious affiliation,
cover nearly 99% of the U.S. population,
so it makes little sense that any religious
exemptions to vaccines could be sustained
when the health of the country is at stake.
Furthermore, both the Catholic Church and
world Islamic leaders have openly endorsed
the administration of vaccines, noting the
health of many is a higher priority than the
beliefs of few. But, in a perceived disagreement
between religion and scientific teachings, the
distribution of support is concerning. About
55% of those with religious affiliations would
agree with their religious teachings over
science — only 29% would agree with science
instead. The fact that so many are willing to
hold their beliefs above scientific evidence is,
frankly, pretty scary.
If objections to vaccines on religious
grounds are not generally rooted in
religious scripture or promoted by
leaders, where do they come from? Most
are largely related to either the ethical
dilemma of receiving vaccines made from
human cell tissue or the belief that the
body is sacred, should not absorb certain
chemicals and should be healed by G-d or
natural means.
As far as the first objection goes, it
primarily applies to vaccines that use the
HEK-293 and HeLa cell lines. The former
comes from the tissue of a fetus electively
aborted in 1973, and the latter comes from
the cervical tissue of Henrietta Lacks, a
Black woman who was diagnosed with
cervical cancer in the mid-twentieth
century. Both cases create ethical dilemmas
— vaccines using the HEK-293 cell line
may be objectionable to those religiously
opposed to abortion, and vaccines using
the HeLa cell line are morally questionable
because Henrietta Lacks’s tissue was taken
and developed nonconsensually.
However, these ethical concerns do not
apply to the primary COVID-19 vaccines
in circulation. The Pfizer and Moderna
vaccines are both developed with chemical,
not biological, synthesis so they do not
contain any human cell tissue. While the
moral concerns regarding the HEK-293
and HeLa cell raise compelling points that
should be explored and developed, they do
not pertain to the COVID-19 vaccine, which
must be administered widely and urgently.
As far as the objection relating to the
sanctity of the human body goes, it has no
grounds in scripture or religious laws, as
previously stated. Suppose you’re standing
in front of a crowd of 100 people, and you’re
offered a mysterious liquid. You are told
truthfully that the liquid is not dangerous
to your health or well-being, but it doesn’t
taste very good and you don’t know exactly
what’s in it. If you do not drink the liquid,
all 100 people will be forced to eat a cookie
that could potentially kill them or cause
them great harm. If you do drink the liquid,
35 of the 100 people will be forced to eat the
cookie. What do you do?
My assumption is that most would drink
the liquid, despite it being unappetizing
and unknown. Similarly, most do not
know what goes into a vaccine, and some
minimal negative consequences, such as
chills, tiredness and joint pain, can result
from receiving one. But, when drinking
that metaphorical liquid has the potential
to save a significant number of people
(studies have shown that one dose of the
main COVID-19 vaccines may offer 50-80%
protection against symptomatic COVID-19),
an individual’s own perceived sacredness of
their body matters little.
Anyone who uses their religion to get
out of a COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes
available has no solid grounds on which to
argue. The majority of religions practiced
in the U.S. have no indication of opposition
to vaccines. There are no constitutional
obligations to allow people to opt out
of a vaccine if receiving it would have a
significant positive impact on national
health. Ethically, it makes the most sense
to be administered the vaccine. So, in the
case of a national COVID-19 vaccination
mandate, religious exemptions must not be
sustained because, by nature, they aren’t
religious at all.
W
hen the United States
Capitol was stormed
during the certifying of
the election, many of us in Michigan
saw immediate parallels to the recent
political extremism in our own
state. Following the insurrection in
Washington, D.C., it is imperative that
we work to address political violence
by banning all weapons from the
Capitol building and holding elected
officials accountable for their violent
rhetoric.
In April of last year, a large group
of armed protestors who were angry
about the state’s COVID-19 lockdown
entered the Michigan State Capitol in
Lansing, Mich. The scene inside the
Capitol showed many aggressive and
agitated demonstrators harassing
legislators and Capitol police while
dressed in military fatigues and toting
semi-automatic weapons. Some of
the people at the demonstration were
identified as being part of far-right
militia groups.
After this intimidation at the
Michigan Capitol, many Democrats
in Lansing pushed to change the
rules that allowed for people to
carry firearms into the Capitol.
Unfortunately, there was no change in
the gun rules because of obstruction
by the Republican leadership which
refused to ban weapons from the
Capitol building. Months later, the
world witnessed a similar attack on
a larger and more dangerous scale at
our nation’s capital. That riot led to
the death of five people — including a
Capitol police officer — and two more
officers took their own lives afterward.
Following
the
armed
protest
at
the
Michigan
State
Capitol,
representatives in Lansing eventually
decided to take the small step of
banning open carry of weapons inside
the Michigan Capitol. While this is an
important change, it does not go far
enough. The change only applies to
openly carried weapons, meaning that
people with a concealed carry pistol
permit can still legally carry a hidden
weapon into the Michigan Capitol.
The political violence that we have
seen in Michigan has been furthered
not only by lax gun laws but also by our
very own elected officials. Michigan
Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey,
R-Jackson, has come under fire for
his comments and actions that have
lent credence to violent groups and
movements in Michigan.
Shirkey
has
long
been
an
adversary of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer,
consistently working to oppose her
agenda. Recently, he has resorted to
making many bizarre and misogynistic
comments about the governor, such as
his sexist comments about her looks
and his discussion about “spanking
her” on the state budget. His comments
and actions sometimes threaten or
promote violence, including when
he said he would like to fist fight the
governor on the Capitol lawn and was
caught on a hot mic saying that the Jan.
6 Capitol attack in Washington, D.C.,
was a hoax.
Shirkey has not only promoted
violence with his words but also
with his actions. He has liaised with
far-right militia leaders in Michigan
and earlier this year, he met with the
leaders of multiple militia groups to
help them with their public perception.
His actions against the governor
have been even more concerning due
to the credible threats of violence
against Whitmer. In October 2020,
the FBI announced that it had
arrested multiple members of a
far-right militia who were actively
planning to kidnap and harm the
governor. Even after learning about
the plot against the governor, Sen.
Shirkey still made positive comments
about militias and how “they are not
uniquely different from you and me.”
Wednesday, March 3, 2021 — 9
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
ISABELLE SCHINDLER | COLUMNIST
ILANA MERMELSTEIN | COLUMNIST
JULIA MALONEY | COLUMNIST
Isabelle Schindler can be reached at
ischind@umich.edu.
Ilana Mermelstein can be reached at
imerm@umich.edu.
Julia Maloney can be reached at
jvmalo@umich.edu
W
hile Angell’s legacy
is
complex
—
and
potentially problematic
— it is unlikely that more than a small
percentage of the students that walk
through the doors of Angell Hall are
aware of this legacy.
Amid a nationwide reckoning with
the memorialization of controversial
historical figures, the University
must also partake in increasing our
efforts to thoroughly understand the
leaders we choose to highlight on
campus, including Angell.
Angell
served
as
University
President from 1871 to 1909. During
his 38 year tenure as president,
the University’s enrollment more
than tripled. He was adamant that
education be accessible to all, not
just for the elite. To this point, he
emphasized the admission of first-
generation college students; in 1880,
fewer than one in four students
had parents with a college degree.
Angell also oversaw the first female
students to join the University at the
beginning of his term in 1870 and 1871
and later became a vocal supporter of
co-education.
Angell saw education as a public
service
and
greatly
expanded
resources for faculty research to
this end. Under his leadership, the
number of departments on campus
grew from three to seven and the
number of professors went from 35 to
250. Historian James Tobin asserted
that it was Angell who supported the
University in becoming the leading
public university in the country.
These details make it clear
why the University would want to
honor Angell’s legacy — and they
have done so through a myriad of
memorialization, the Angell Scholars
and Angell Hall being the most
well-known. Notably, the University
highlights much of this history in its
descriptions of Angell online.
But the full story of Angell’s work
is more complex: In 1880, during his
tenure as University President, he
was a diplomat under Rutherford B.
Hayes and renegotiated the United
States’ ability to restrict immigration
from China. The treaty produced,
named after Angell himself, opened
the door for one of the most racist
immigration
bills
in
American
history: the Chinese Exclusion Act,
the first and only major federal
law suspending immigration for a
specific nationality.
The act, signed in 1882 by
President
Chester
A.
Arthur,
prohibited all Chinese laborers from
immigrating to the U.S., leaving
only Chinese diplomats and their
servants with the right to enter the
country. Additionally, all non-citizen
Chinese laborers who had previously
immigrated to the country were
barred from becoming citizens, and
Chinese citizens who left the U.S.
had to obtain special permission to
re-enter.
While Angell himself was not
directly involved in the creation or
passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act,
his negotiation of the Angell Treaty
did pave the way for it. This treaty
revoked the Burlingame Treaty of
1868, which had previously granted
special privileges to citizens of China
and encouraged large-scale Chinese
immigration. Shortly after revoking
the Burlingame Treaty, the U.S.
government chose to ban nearly all
Chinese immigration, subsequently
resulting in the passage of the
Chinese Exclusion Act.
Angell’s history is thus more
complicated
than
often
first
presented and we, as a university,
need to reckon with it. That being
said, it is imperative that this
reckoning extends past a debate over
whether or not his name belongs on
school buildings or honors titles —
such a debate is inherently temporary
and denies U-M students the ability
to honestly discuss and understand
our history. Moreover, the removal
of a name from a building does little
in creating a platform through which
to discuss the positive and negative
aspects of a figure’s legacy.
The Michigan Daily Editorial
Board
recommends
that
the
University establish some variety of an
official, transparent forum in which
students and faculty may honestly
discuss important and complicated
issues of the University’s history,
which include, but are not limited
to, Angell’s legacy. This can take a
number of forms: perhaps a one or
two-credit mini-course that teaches
about important figures and events of
the University, or a section of student
orientation with a similar focus.
Angell’s history is a great case
study given that his history, like
many others, cannot be categorized
binarily as good or bad. Forums
like those we suggest would allow
students to actually learn about
these issues, engaging with history
through a more holistic and critical-
thinking approach.
It is difficult to predict whether
such
a
course
or
orientation
component would be accepted by
faculty and students, or if it would
be
considered
an
inconvenient
obligation. Nevertheless, a forum
of some sort, regardless of if it
manifests in this manner, should be
implemented.
Understanding the University’s
history is important, especially
when its prominent figures are
so frequently celebrated without
context.
Angell’s
history
could
therefore act as a springboard for
implementing heightened University
resources on other historical figures
and influences that shape the
community we know today.
Ultimately, we need to collectively
address the memorialization of those
who came before us and, therefore,
set the tone of the virtues and values
the University aims to uphold. In
these continued conversations of
reckoning with our University’s
past, we must also acknowledge
the gray area that many of these
historic figures fall into — James B.
Angell was able to accomplish some
admirable goals, yet his past is not
just the positive narrative publicized
and memorialized by the University.
It is the responsibility of our
institution
and
its
community
members to explore the foundations
of this University and create a
better scaffolding for navigating our
understanding of such history going
forward.
I
t is well known that the
University of Michigan is one of
the country’s most consistently
left-leaning educational institutions.
It is hoisted up by a predominantly
liberal student body that spews
progressive thought in the residence
halls and holds hot debate in the
lecture halls. The strong progressive
foundation
that
the
University
upholds appears to be cemented in
blue — with a pinch of maize of course
— but it is important to recognize
not being able to vote wasn’t the only
thing women on campus weren’t able
to do within the past century.
With all of the controversial topics
that remain unresolved from this past
year — sexual misconduct scandals,
weak COVID-19 plans, etc. — let us
reflect on the past for insight on how
to prevent history from repeating
itself.
It was not until 1956 that women
were permitted to enter the Michigan
Union through the front door, a lifted
restriction that was revolutionary for
students at the time. With progress
comes its stipulations; upon entering,
female students were banned from
using the Pendleton Library. Why?
To “preserve some spark of the ‘for
men only’ tradition,” according to
a 1957 publication of The Michigan
Daily. This spark has now fizzled, but
the fires of the feminist movement
have run their course through the
University since its founding.
Ann Arbor’s own Annie Smith
Peck was one of the first women
admitted to the University, most
known for her refusal to let gender
norms prevent her from scaling both
the mountains of a patriarchal society
and actual ones. In 1895, she dropped
her skirt to scale the Matterhorn,
famously
photographed
touting
trousers as she made the climb. Upon
descending 14,692 feet from the peak
and back to campus, she faced major
criticism over her slacks.
“She provoked moral outrage
with her daring and eccentric
climbing outfit: a hip-length tunic,
knickerbockers, stout boots and
woolen hose, topped off by a stout
felt hat with a veil,” writes Charles T.
Robinson for Yankee. Such outrage
even culminated in a public debate
centering around whether or not Peck
should be arrested for her crime of
pants-wearing.
For some, it may be hard to
believe that the streets of Ann Arbor,
now home to its own category of
“hipster” fashion, once restricted
women to skirts and dresses and
that debates held on the steps of the
Union or bricks on the Diag were
for a right-wing cause rather than
left. However, there is a reason why
female trousers were left tucked away
in wardrobes and entrance to the
Union was restricted, and that reason,
put simply, is men. Where there is an
intermingling of the sexes, the male
gaze that we women either dread or
relish emerges. This inescapable gaze
is relevant in any time period, creating
a socialized uniform.
Back in the 1940s, the minds
of Michigan men were not only
consumed with fears of being drafted,
but apparently the potential of soon
viewing the outlined legs of women.
Articles upon articles of The Michigan
Daily during the early 1900s detail the
dress code of the proper and rational
Ann Arbor woman. One 1941 story
details different dress combinations
for
every
Michigan
freshman,
describing a skirt as a “necessity” in
order to follow with the University’s
lean towards conservatism and the
standards of being desirable. The
campus that was once considered one
of the more right-leaning campuses
of the east must surely be a different
campus than the one we walk through
today. It is not the same campus it was
60 years ago, but that is thanks to the
women who changed it.
It wasn’t until the 1960s, roughly 65
years after Peck’s climb, that counter-
culture had finally hit its peak and
enacted change in dress reform.
Something practical in nature, meant
to provide protection and flexibility
all while promoting productivity,
takes form in pants. An everyday
clothing item that nowadays is stuffed
in our drawers once represented
equality, power and freedom.
Fast forward to present society,
the great legging debate continues
to upset the nation and college
campuses. It was just three short years
ago United Airlines sparked outrage
when an employee denied two young
girls from boarding a flight due to
their infamous tight pants. It was only
one year ago when a woman named
Maryann White published a letter
in Notre Dame’s student newspaper
asking girls to eliminate leggings from
their wardrobe under the belief that
leggings “make it difficult to ignore
young women’s bodies.”
These instances of the lack of male
accountability rekindle the fire that
women have fiercely sought to snuff.
That mother (and other mothers)
argue that there’s a generational gap
that justifies their views, but this holds
no avail on our campus. Growing
up in a different generation is not an
excuse for policing women’s clothing
choices nor for the lack of male
self-control. This issue is not a new
concept with the advent of leggings
but is in fact generational, making us
only hope that Peck would be proud of
a new kind of pants that has scaled yet
another sexist mountain.
The progressive roots that the
University appears to be grounded in
do not run as deep as one may think.
Recognizing
these
shortcomings
in modern history is important to
achieve further progress.
Entering the Union takes on a
whole new meaning knowing that,
at one point, I — and the now 14,432
women that call this campus home
— would not have been able to open
the ornate wooden doors at the main
entrance. As I am writing this article,
I have my feet perched on a chair
in the skylit courtyard, sporting my
leggings. Something as simple as this
is a small victory that we are not to
Fighting extremism in Michigan
Religious beliefs aside, get the damn vaccine
Vintage feminism will never go out of
style, just look at my pants
BRITTANY BOWMAN
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.
CLAIRE HAO
Editor in Chief
ELIZABETH COOK
AND JOEL WEINER
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.
Julian Barnard
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Elizabeth Cook
Jess D’Agostino
Andrew Gerace
Krystal Hur
Min Soo Kim
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Gabrijela Skoko
Elayna Swift
Joel Weiner
Erin White
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Acknowledging Angell — we need a
comprehensive U-M history lesson
FROM THE DAILY
I
n the coming weeks, select students in the College of Literature,
Science & the Arts will receive an email congratulating them for
being named James B. Angell Scholars. The award, named for the
University of Michigan’s third president, celebrates any LSA student who
receives an “A” record for two consecutive terms at the University. While
we wish to offer congratulations for these students’ diligent dedication
to their studies, it is also critical to learn about the award’s namesake.