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

