so many others lacked was a set of
parentheses and a sense of ambiguity.
Specifically, the parentheses encom-
passing the “s” in parents were part
of the educational revolution toward
inclusive language that only came
relatively recently. That letter encom-
passed by two curved brackets made
having two parents optional — an
option that this generation is the first
to realize. Finally, being “incomplete”
is an option rather than a burden. No
longer should a child have to cram the
names of both her mothers on one line
for their field trip permission slip. No
longer should a child have to submit
information on an absent parent to
receive financial aid. Beauty can be
found in ambiguity and options.
Subtle changes in keystrokes, like
the addition of parenthesis encom-
passing the “s” in parents, are impor-
tant to eliminate the idea of policy
and paperwork as one-size-fits-all. In
line with this mission, the Center for
Research on Learning and Teaching,
in tandem with LSA Inclusive Teach-
ing at the University of Michigan,
has compiled extensive resources for
instructors and administrators in the
U-M community to foster an inclu-
sive learning environment, including
in every character printed on syllabi
or word spoken in in-person dialogue.
Faculty and U-M commitment to fos-
tering diversity, equity and inclusion
down to the punctuation in school
paperwork is incredibly refreshing.
A set of parentheses instituted with
purpose is the “Michigan difference”
I waited so long for.
Parentheses around the “s” in par-
ents mean a lot to me, and they should
to you too. Hence, the collective mind-
set towards inclusive language is just
as important as the University’s mis-
sion for supporting non-traditional
students. Ambiguity and neutrality are
the only way to make language one-
size-fits-all, and therefore, we are to be
detailed in our quest to root out exclu-
sive words and phrases so that every-
one can fit the form.
5
Thursday, June 10, 2021
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Blame Goodwill for rising thrift store prices, not the girl on Depop
Fitting within the form
OPINION
JULIA MALONEY | OPINION COLUMNIST
OLIVIA MOURADIAN | OPINION COLUMNIST
I
t’s no secret that thrift store prices
have changed in the last decade,
particularly at large corporations
like Goodwill — as seen by comparing
prices between past and recent ver-
sions of Goodwill’s Valuation Guide.
After seeing these changes, my origi-
nal idea for this column was to argue
that reselling thrifted pieces is unethi-
cal and exclusionary. With the rise
of consignment apps like Depop and
Poshmark, people can buy thrifted
pieces at inexpensive prices, post them
to the application at a marked-up price
and make a profit in minutes. While
I still consider this to be unethical in
certain situations, there are many cir-
cumstances in which reselling can be
sustainable and fair. Common argu-
ments I’ve found against secondhand
reselling are that resellers take in-
demand items away from low-income
communities, cause thrift store prices
to increase and resell at inaccessible
prices. Although there are many arti-
cles vilifying secondhand resellers as
the source of these problems, the dis-
cussion of the ethics of secondhand
reselling needs to be more nuanced to
reflect the complexities of the $17.5 bil-
lion resale industry and its surrounding
consumerist culture.
Considering only about 20% of the
clothing Americans donate ends up
being sold to consumers, the argument
that resellers create scarcity within
thrift stores is a limited one. In fact,
most thrift stores are restocked daily
and the never-ending cycle of consum-
erism and fast fashion prevents the
majority of thrift stores from running
out of donations. And this cycle was
only intensified by COVID-19, with
many stores unable to accept donations
due to overflow. For most thrift stores,
secondhand resellers are not “taking
all the good stuff” — there are still mil-
lions of tons of clothing going to waste.
Another common argument against
reselling thrifted clothing is that it
contributes to rising thrift store prices.
Although there are specific examples
of local thrift stores charging steep
prices, there is little research on gen-
eral pricing trends in non-corporate
thrift stores. Most evidence surround-
ing increasing thrift prices seems to
come from corporate thrift stores such
as Goodwill and The Salvation Army.
While prices at these stores have been
increasing with the rising popularity
of secondhand reselling, it’s important
to note that correlation is not causation.
Even considering this rising popularity,
the mass influx of affluent teenagers
thrifting for fun every weekend likely
contributes more to rising costs than
individual resellers do.
Along with rising rent costs and
inflation, with large thrift store chains,
the incessant factor of corporate greed
comes also into play. These companies
are often non-profit organizations, yet
their practices are far from socially
beneficial. Under the guise of being a
charity organization, Goodwill oper-
ates by paying many employees sub-
minimum wages. And with its history
of anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, The
Salvation Army is not really a charita-
ble organization to rally around, either.
When rising prices at these companies
are used as an argument against sec-
ondhand reselling, we must recognize
all of the factors that go into retail
pricing before placing all the blame on
resellers. In a society that prioritizes
capitalistic gain, it is shortsighted to
claim that secondhand resellers are
the sole perpetrators of rising costs at
these large corporations. Beyond that,
given these companies’ tight-knit rela-
tionships with hypocrisy, the question
of whether we should be supporting
them at all must also be addressed.
In addition to being blamed as
the cause of rising thrift store prices,
resellers are often told their own
resale prices are too steep. While it
is difficult to determine how much
resellers typically upcharge for the
items they thrift, these prices cannot
be compared to prices in thrift stores
without taking into account the time
and energy required to comb through
the thrift store, potentially clean or
even upcycle the item, take quality
pictures of it and post it for sale. As Alli
Vera, YouTuber and former Depop
seller, said in a video on the gentrifica-
tion of thrift stores, “the customer is
also buying that reseller’s ability to see
the potential in things.”
Read more at michigandaily.com
Read more at michigandaily.com
I
t is so hard to be form-fitting. I
am not talking about body size
and appearance in clothing but
rather the societal norms that have
created a standardized and gendered
framework in paperwork. Checking
boxes and signing on lines is a pain
in print. Turning in papers is a seem-
ingly mindless practice for those who
fit the form, but to the students com-
ing from single-parent or non-heter-
onormative households, that blank
second signature line or series of boxes
left un-checked represents imprinted
exclusivity that the school system has
mindlessly perpetuated.
With an impending semester
comes a series of forms looming in
your inbox — the Free Application
for Federal Student Aid, often called
the FAFSA, being the one that causes
the most dread. A process that is sup-
posed to take less than an hour is
instead a source of exhausting agony
each year due to the seemingly unend-
ing pages that must be read and boxes
that must be filled. Regardless of the
size of the form, there is room for for-
mat improvement to streamline the
process and accommodate those who
don’t “fit.” Small details are a part of
almost every school form — beyond
just the FAFSA — which should be
addressed in the push toward achiev-
ing inclusive language and its sub-
sequent positive effect on student
morale, thus leaving no student lost in
the process. Each student’s circum-
stance is unique, and there needs to
be a comprehensive change towards
adopting inclusive language down to
every punctuation mark.
For me and others coming from a
single parent or other non-traditional
household, there is a specific box and
line that causes our pens to shutter and
clicks to be in question: the box that
requires information about our par-
ents. When presented with a physical
paper, my way of coping began with
scratching out the “s” in parents as well
as marking the blank line for “Father’s
name” as “not applicable.” Blatant pen
strokes did not fill the parental void,
nor did they go unnoticed to those who
received the form on the other end.
Completeness is a necessity when fit-
ting within the form and, therefore, I
was made to either feel incomplete or
attention-seeking.
The gendered plurality of the word
“parents” is an unspoken stressor. It
would be so much easier to write in
two names, one male and one female,
yet the second line and the letter “s”
at the end of the word are intentional
spaces that the form cannot begin to
understand. That privilege of a “tra-
ditional” family is not one I have — in
fact, it’s one most Americans don’t
have. How dare the innocent 8-by-11
sheet of paper or government website
assume that I am a part of the 46%
of young adults living in a traditional
nuclear family structure. As with
all things nuclear, it’s about time the
concept of the standard family being a
two-parent, man-and-woman house-
hold explodes. The seats and size of
my family dinner table are without
labels or standard measurement, and
therefore, the school system should
tread lightly when inquiring about
those who fill or abandon said seats.
The solution lies in punctua-
tion, and its arrival in paperwork is
anything but punctual. What I and
Julia Maloney is an Opinion Columnist and
can be reached at jvmalo@umich.edu.
Olivia Mouradian is an Opinion Columnist
and can be reached at omouradi@umich.edu.
Design by Mellisa Lee