R
ecently I time-traveled 100
years in the past. I didn’t go
to a historical house to find
out what life was like on the frontier,
I didn’t churn my own butter or read
the Farmers’ Almanac by candlelight,
but I did witness an internal party
primary for New Mexico’s 1st
Congressional District. This arcane
process was the norm prior to the
early 20th century, with party
insiders — or in this case, members
of the State Central Committee —
choosing their preferred candidate
instead of the huddled masses.
Climate scientist and state Rep.
Melanie Stansbury, D-Albuquerque,
triumphed in the State Central
Committee
runoff
over
state
Sen.
Antoinette
Sedillo
López,
D-Albuquerque, who was also the
first Latina law professor at the
University of New Mexico. Sedillo
López placed third in the 2018
primary for this district; Stansbury
did not run. Stansbury, being one
of the only white candidates, was
an underwhelming choice for some
to succeed Deb Haaland, one of
the first (alongside Rep. Sharice
Davids, D-Kan.) Native American
women in Congress. Stansbury
would arguably have a slim chance
of winning the Democratic primary
without the current rush to select a
representative.
The congressional seat needs a
replacement because the incumbent,
Haaland, was recently confirmed
by the Senate to her new position,
Secretary of the Interior. The election
was a scramble that eventually went
to a runoff. Throughout the race
there were multiple calls to replace
Haaland with another woman of
color, claiming this would honor
Haaland. I’d like to unravel what it
means when someone says they want
to honor their predecessor.
The presidency of Lyndon B.
Johnson was overshadowed by
the tenure of his predecessor, the
assassinated former President John
F. Kennedy. Likewise, the tenure
of Melanie Stansbury will likely
be overshadowed by her historic
predecessor. But what will Stansbury
owe to Secretary Haaland and her
legacy if — most likely, when — she
takes office?
Some people’s first response
will be “nothing.” If you asked a
bundle of Joe Biden voters what
they think the current president
owes to former President Donald
Trump, they would probably laugh
in your face. Many would say that
Biden’s only responsibility is to the
people, not to his predecessor. In a
winner-take-all system, the losing
politicians don’t govern at all and
former politicians govern even less.
In terms of political differences
between the two women, there
is not much to discuss. Both are
progressives with an emphasis
on the environment and Native
American issues. Stansbury has
made solving the crisis of missing
and murdered Indigenous women
a notable part of her platform,
which is something Haaland has
prioritized both in her new job and
her old one.
Many responses to the question
of what is owed will have nuance
because
most
politicians
have
nuanced responsibilities. There is
a responsibility to execute policy,
and more broadly to represent
your community. I would love it if
Stansbury could be a carbon copy
of Haaland, but unfortunately, she
is not. As I noted before, Secretary
Haaland was the first Native
American woman in Congress.
Neither Stansbury nor her unlikely-
to-win Republican rival — Sen.
Mark Moores, R-Albuquerque — can
succeed her in this way.
In one of her first releases after
receiving the nomination, Stansbury
tweeted, “The fight to defend Deb
Haaland’s seat starts now.” This is an
understandable political maneuver,
invoking the name of an extremely
popular politician. It does complicate
how we think of politicians as distinct
figures, with distinct experiences
and policy positions.
Stansbury wanting to honor
Haaland is admirable but concerning.
On the issue of representation,
Haaland brought an irreplaceable
perspective to Congress. Stansbury
can honor that, and continue the
work Haaland did in uplifting Native
communities nationwide, without
passing herself off to be some sort
of anointed heir. This problem of
branding would not be so bothersome
if Stansbury were not a remarkable
and compelling candidate in her
own right. Running explicitly as a
replacement to a person, as opposed
to a proponent of an idea, does not
allow a politician to flourish as an
honest legislator. Stansbury should
run as Stansbury because to run as
Haaland 2.0 is dishonest.
This may be a niche observation
about one congressional race in
one of the most sparsely populated
states in the nation. But this sort of
thing happens often, most recently
with a vice president, one politician
running as the spiritual successor
to another. I don’t care for it, and
neither should you.
In an age of political compass tests,
vote analyses and other desperate
attempts
to
differentiate
non-
differentiable candidates based on
ideology, marketing yourself as “I’m
like this person!” may seem to be a
silver bullet for lackluster candidates,
but it is never accurate. Politicians,
especially those wanting to have a
real effect on the national dialogue or
public policy, should not strive to be
indifferent from their predecessors.
Back to our fundamental question
of what a candidate owes to their
predecessor — they owe what they
owe to any constituent: honesty.
Stansbury can carry forth Haaland’s
bold climate initiatives, kind spirit
and fierce advocacy without using
her shadow as cover from potential
attacks. The primary debt, I will
remind you, is to the voters. Voters
deserve an honest candidate who
is not beholden to politicians of the
past, no matter how popular they are.
Opinion
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.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Julian Barnard
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Elizabeth Cook
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Andrew Gerace
Krystal Hur
Min Soo Kim
Jessie Mitchell
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Gabrijela Skoko
Elayna Swift
Jack Tumpowsky
Joel Weiner
Erin White
And that makes sense.
Despite Michigan’s hesitancy to
enforce new COVID-19 restrictions,
it is clear that abandoning common
sense measures in favor of vaccines
will result in more unnecessary
deaths. We call on Gov. Whitmer
to mandate the necessary public
health restrictions immediately, as
called for by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Then we
can ask for more doses.
Whitmer’s recent request for
more vaccines from the federal
government
goes
against
the
guidance of the director of the CDC,
who has asked Michigan to “shut
things down” as of April 12. Even if
the requested vaccines all got here
tomorrow, were distributed quickly
and injected into Michiganders’
arms, full immunity still takes five
weeks to take effect with the Pfizer/
BioNTech vaccine and six weeks
to take effect with the Moderna
vaccine because both require two
doses. In other words, additional
vaccines, if distributed now, will
not create immunity fast enough to
slow the surge.
The spike in Michigan could be
a harbinger of things to come for
other states, so increasing vaccine
allocation to any state experiencing
a spike would unlikely prove to
be an effective long-term strategy
in the months to come. Instead,
policymakers should focus on
implementing
and
enforcing
effective restrictions and directing
available vaccines to the most
vulnerable communities.
Whitmer’s job is to make
the decisions that will protect
Michigan residents, even when
they are unpopular. As an elected
leader, she is uniquely situated
to influence the state’s safety
measures and decide the trajectory
of this outbreak. Even in the face of
fierce political opposition or strong
community pushback, she must
mandate safety measures that will
save lives. Her legacy will be shaped
by COVID-19’s impact on Michigan
and beyond, so shying away from
long-term well-being to avoid short-
term political pushback would be
betraying her responsibility and
commitment to the state.
Moreover, these mandates are
only effective if a critical mass of
the population follows them, so
Whitmer should make clear how
important safety measures are
to the state’s long term health.
As the weather gets warmer and
more people get vaccinated, it’s
easy to feel that the pandemic
must be over. However, the spike
in cases and deaths makes clear
that this pandemic is not over,
and the more we pretend it is,
the longer it will go on. Michigan
residents, including University
of Michigan students, should
be following suggestions from
both the state and the University.
All should practice the same
social distancing measures they
have throughout the pandemic,
including avoiding unnecessary
travel, wearing masks and keeping
social
gatherings
small
and
outdoors whenever possible. But it
is unreasonable to ask residents to
follow instructions it seems their
governor doesn’t even support.
This is why Whitmer needs to
take decisive action and use her
voter-given power to enact these
measures.
It is critical to consider the
number of citizens in Michigan
who are hesitant to get vaccinated
when
discussing
this
current
outbreak. If a significant proportion
of Michiganders avoid vaccination,
outbreaks will continue, and the
risk of variants will increase.
Some individuals may not have the
information necessary to make that
decision, and a state- or nation-wide
information campaign could sway
initially hesitant people to get the
vaccine.
Some communities don’t trust
the health care system because it
discriminates against people of
color, specifically Black people,
and
Black
Michiganders
are
underrepresented in the vaccine
rollout, even after the federal
government set up a mass site at
Ford Field in Detroit. According
to an MLive article, Black people
made up less than 10% of people
who got vaccinated at Ford Field,
despite making up almost 80% of
Detroit’s population. Therefore,
any vaccination campaign must
acknowledge vaccine hesitancy
in different communities and
focusing on addressing both the
symptoms and sources of that
mistrust.
Education,
outreach
and accessibility are crucial to
ensuring people get the shots and
stay safe. This is one aspect of the
vaccine rollout the governor can
prioritize along with the necessary
mandates.
It is clear that more mandates
are unpopular and tiresome. After
more than a year of living in this
pandemic,
Michiganders
want
nothing more than to finally enjoy
the benefits of loosened restrictions.
However, the current COVID-19
spike in our state shows that, while
the end seems in sight, we are still
in the midst of a global pandemic.
Vaccines are just one weapon
in defeating the virus, and they
won’t work unless accompanied by
public health mandates. Michigan’s
leaders must respond to this
crisis and residents should listen,
no matter how unpopular those
measures may be.
EMILY LAWSIN & SCOTT KURASHIGE | OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS
I
n the aftermath of the Atlanta-
area spa shootings and a
continued upsurge in anti-
Asian violence, leaders of colleges
and universities across the country
have issued statements denouncing
anti-Asian racism and extending
support to members of the Asian
American community.
Anyone who has been around
academe for even a moderate
amount of time has come to expect
such statements in the wake of
national tragedies, such as the
death of George Floyd in police
custody, the white supremacist mob
violence in Charlottesville, Va., and
the mass murders at Charleston,
S.C.’s Emanuel African Methodist
Episcopal Church and Pittsburgh’s
Tree of Life Synagogue.
Such statements can help to
reassure members of historically
marginalized
communities
that
their concerns register with decision-
makers and remind them of their
commitment to inclusion. However,
we have also come to expect that
these statements will sadly be
received by many as performative
acts unless they are followed by
transformative measures to redress
long-standing problems of structural
racism and other forms of inequity.
The
breadth
and
scope
of
statements in the past few weeks
addressed to Asian Americans
seems
unprecedented,
signaling
a possible watershed moment. A
quick internet search turns up
well over one hundred statements
connected to institutions of higher
education. The American Historical
Association released the “Statement
on Violence against Asians and
Asian Americans” co-signed by 44
scholarly organizations.
Over the next few years, we
will see how much that sentiment
translates into action. For instance,
institutions with Asian American
Studies departments, majors and
doctorate programs are few and far
between. Students and scholars in
the field generally need to find space
for their work within traditional
disciplines
or
interdisciplinary
units. This usually means relying
on non-specialists to recognize the
significance of their work, which can
often involve more interpersonal and
emotional negotiation than cerebral
academic pursuit. Expanded course
offerings and tenured faculty hires
in Asian American Studies would
help to remedy that problem.
Indeed,
many
colleges
and
universities still have no more than
a token number of Asian American
Studies courses or, even more
commonly, none at all. Dedicated
cultural
centers
or
counseling
staffed by full-time experts in Asian
American student affairs are also the
exceptions rather than the norm. As
such, for decades, Asian American
students and advocates have been
pushing for more resources and
investments
by
their
schools,
including at some of the most
prominent and wealthy institutions
in the world.
We may also see a wave of new
hires at all levels of Asians and Asian
Americans within not only higher
education but also within media,
government
and
corporations.
Some of these openings will provide
opportunities for exceptional talents
that have long been overlooked.
History, however, cautions us to
be wary of cynical and token hires.
Arguably the most notorious Asian
American hire in history was the
appointment of S.I. Hayakawa,
endorsed by then-California Gov.
Ronald Reagan, as president of San
Francisco State College during the
Third World Liberation Front strike
for Ethnic Studies in 1968-69. The
conservative
Hayakawa
became
the “model minority” symbol of
state repression to end the strike
with a brutal police crackdown that
left hundreds of students beaten,
bloodied and jailed — though not
defeated.
The editors of the acclaimed 2012
anthology, “Presumed Incompetent:
The Intersections of Race and Class
for Women in Academia,” warned to
watch for the use of a woman of color
“pet” or “mascot” whose purpose is
to reinforce structures of oppression.
The book says, “The pet may be
a
key
administrator’s
personal
favorite, who serves as the official
spokesperson for all faculty of color.
She may be the ‘exceptional’ woman
of color whose accomplishments
(real or imagined) or compliant
attitude put other faculty of color
in a negative light. In public, the
pet makes a dramatic display of
her selfless efforts to support
colleagues of color. In private, the
pet is harshly critical of the teaching
and scholarship of these same
colleagues, thereby reinforcing the
race- and gender-based presumption
of incompetence.”
One of the immediate tests of
sensitivity toward the concerns
of Asian American workers and
students is whether employers and
schools will require in-person labor
and instruction. Echoing concerns
expressed by Black and Latinx
parents, Asian Americans have been
reluctant to send their K-12 children
back to school in person, and these
concerns cut across geography, class
and ethnicity. It
is not hard to
see how many of the same factors
identified
in
an
eye-opening
Washington Post article may also
apply to college-level instruction, as
well as employment more broadly.
First
and
foremost,
Asian
American parents and students
have expressed alarm at the racial
harassment
and
assault
they
and others have faced. The fear
of such incidents extends from
the classroom and playground
to
walking
or
taking
public
transportation
to
and
from
campus. In our mentoring of
Asian American students, we have
repeatedly heard reports of Asian
American women being subjected
to harassment and abuse especially
when drinking and partying take
place. Even college students who
studiously avoid parties can be
subjected to such attacks while
walking home from the library or
study group meetings.
Second, Asian Americans harbor
fears of COVID-19 spread not only
to themselves but also to vulnerable
members of their families and
communities. Nearly 30% of Asian
Americans live in multigenerational
households. Society often thinks of
Asian Americans as the stereotypical
“model minority” student going
to an elite university. The reality is
that most Asian Americans attend
community colleges or state schools
like those we have previously
taught at, where students routinely
commute to campus from homes
with parents and grandparents.
The concern is escalated at the
colleges and universities that are not
requiring students to be vaccinated,
even as it becomes widely available.
Third, Asian Americans share
the concerns of other groups
who live with dependents or
household
members
who
are
immunocompromised. For example,
we are parents of a kindergartner
with Down syndrome and one study
has found that individuals with this
condition are ten times more likely
to die of COVID-19 than the general
population. Further, assuming test
trials go well, young children are not
likely to be eligible for a vaccine prior
to 2022. And even if K-12 children
have the option of virtual learning,
this won’t mean much if their
parents and guardians are required
to work in person and can’t be at
home. Vaccinated adults may have
a low risk of hospitalization, death
and reduced risk of transmission,
but new strains are challenging that.
How much risk should be tolerable in
a deadly pandemic? This is a decision
that parents should have the right to
determine in consultation with their
medical providers.
Finally,
Asian
American
employees and students deserve
the option of virtual work and
instruction on a full-time basis to
alleviate mental illness. Otherwise,
being forced to choose between
undesirable
options
will
only
heighten the stress and anxiety that
have already escalated for Asian
Americans during the pandemic.
Asian Americans have reported a
higher level of concern for COVID-
19 than the general U.S. population
and
heightened
anxiety
about
racist harassment and attacks. As
Dr. Tung Nguyen, director of the
Asian American Research Center on
Health at the University of California
– San Francisco, has noted, Asian
American mental health issues “tend
to be under-diagnosed and under-
discussed.”
Through the pandemic, many
of us have normalized grocery
shopping, dining out, watching
movies
and
even
attending
parties and weddings through the
internet. Instructors have gone to
extraordinary lengths to develop
pedagogical
techniques
over
Zoom and through asynchronous
learning. Why should anyone be
forced to assume unnecessary risks
when effective and viable forms
of work and teaching can occur
online?
The message to leaders of higher
education and corporate employers
should be clear. Asian Americans
have heard your statements.
Now it’s time to listen to us in
shaping the policies and priorities
that will exemplify your true values.
Support for Asian Americans Must
Go Beyond Performative Statements
JULIAN BARNARD | COLUMNIST
A political masquerade in the Mountain West
Julian Barnard is an Opinion
Columnist and can be reached at
jcbarn@umich.edu.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Wednesday, April 21, 2021 — 15
From The Daily: Governor
Whitmer, take action
M
ichigan’s COVID-19 surge is the worst in the country. In the past
week, we have had more cases and deaths per capita than any
other state. In response, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has issued a set
of suggestions to curb the spread, such as limiting in-person dining capacity
and switching to virtual learning for the next two weeks, but she has not
issued any new mandates or restrictions. Instead, she has turned to the federal
government, asking for more allocation of vaccines to navigate the crisis.
But the federal government has denied her request, stating that the solution
is to curb the spread through social measures rather than medical ones.
Emily P. Lawsin is Lecturer IV in the
Department of Women’s and Gender
Studies, Department of American Culture,
and Asian/Pacific Islander American
Studies Program at the University of
Michigan-Ann Arbor. She can be contacted
at elawsin@umich.edu. Scott Kurashige
is Professor and Chair in the Department
of Comparative Race and Ethnic Studies
at Texas Christian University and Past-
President of the American Studies
Association. He can be contacted on
Twitter: @scottkurashige. Institutions are
listed for identification only.