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.

