Content warning: This article
contains mentions of sexual
assault
T
he 50th anniversary
of Title IX of the Civil
Rights Act of 1972 on
June 23, 2022, was marked by
emotional turmoil for many.
A great win for the students
of America was immediately
followed by the disheartening
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s
Health Organization decision,
which largely overshadowed
the triumphs and failures of
the
Biden
administration’s
proposed changes to Title IX
regulation.
Thousands
of
students
have been waiting for fair and
protective legislation since
President
Joe
Biden
took
office in January 2021. And
yet, the administration chose
to wait an entire year and a half
— in order to commemorate
the 50th anniversary of Title
IX — to release their edits to
Betsy
DeVos’s
problematic
regulation. This might just be
the largest failure of Biden’s
proposed edits, as students
across
the
country
suffer
through court examination-
induced
trauma,
victim
blaming and inactive Title IX
coordinators.
One of the most anticipated
additions to Title IX policy is
the inclusion of off-campus
assaults.
While
current
regulations do not require
institutions
to
address
harassment
that
occurred
off-campus or outside of the
United States, the proposed
regulation
would
demand
action
for
any
“conduct
that occurs in any building
owned or controlled by a
student
organization”
and
“conduct
that
occurs
off-
campus when the respondent
is a representative of the
recipient.” While it seems
impossible that students have
gone without this protection
for so long, this addition is
a large step toward victim
protection — a running theme
in Biden’s updates.
Another such edit comes in
the form of “permitting but
not requiring live hearings,”
which differs from the DeVos
regulation’s
requirement
of live hearings and cross-
examinations.
The
burden
of the current regulations
falls entirely on the victim. A
Western Michigan University
student laid out the choice
before her, stating that “she
could go to a hearing and let
the male students she had
accused of sexually assaulting
her ask her questions, trying
to discredit her. Or she could
decline to attend and watch
them
walk
away
without
any
punishment.”
Beyond
the
horrifying
expectation
of a cross-examination, the
requirement of a live hearing
and
further
trauma
from
recounting one’s own assault
in front of one’s attacker could
very well be part of the reason
that sexual assault has an
incredibly low reportability.
It
is
hard
to
predict
whether
the
removal
of
a large obstacle from an
already
traumatic
process
will
increase
reportability
on campuses, but an increase
in reports could result in
pressure
on
universities
to take responsibility and
address the growing concern
of sexual misconduct on and
off campus.
Unfortunately, the process
of filing a Title IX complaint
is still fraught with traumatic
experiences and long waiting
periods — neither of which
are appropriately addressed
by
the
proposed
changes.
Between conflicting evidence,
unfiled information, feeling
unheard and disappointing
policy restrictions, re-trauma
is a common side effect of
undergoing
the
Title
IX
process
and
these
issues
must be addressed before we
can truly claim to be a just
community.
Trauma-informed
legal
work
and
professional
care
advocates
are
the
bare minimum that should
be
expected
from
each
university’s Title IX office to
ensure that the Title IX claim
process is as comfortable and
empowering as it is meant to
be. However, accountability
for educational institutes is
just as important as protecting
victims for sex discrimination
regulation to be effective.
While
the
proposed
changes do touch on the
expectation
for
Title
IX
coordinators “to take prompt
and effective action to end
any sex discrimination in
its
education
program
or
activity,” (complete with a
detailed list of procedures),
the
power
to
dismiss
or
distort claims still lies in
the hands of a single Title
IX coordinator. This is an
issue because many Title IX
coordinators across the nation
are mere placeholders that
allow uncaring institutions to
fly past flimsy enforcement.
A 2018 study published by the
National Library of Medicine
found that “most Title IX
coordinators were in part-
time positions with less than
three years of experience,”
indicating
disinterest
on
the part of the institutions
involved.
It is clear that while the
Biden
administration
has
righted several wrongs in
the sexual misconduct law
that all students rely on,
we are far from receiving
the
care
and
justice
we
deserve. Nonetheless, June
23, 2022, should go down in
history for taking American
students a step closer to a safe
educational experience.
I
n media about politics,
the
vice
presidency
is
often grounds for humor.
“Angelica, tell my wife, John
Adams doesn’t have a real job
anyway,”
from
Lin-Manuel
Miranda’s musical “Hamilton.”
“Vice president is a nothing
job,” from “Vice,” a film about
Vice President Dick Cheney.
And of course, there is “did the
president call?” from “Veep,”
a show formed around Julia
Louis-Dreyfus satirizing — and
insulting — the vice presidency.
Outside
of
movies
and
television shows, it’s no secret
that the vice president lacks
institutional power. Because
of
that,
vice
presidents
throughout
history
have
often been either ignored or
hapless. When he was vice
president, Harry Truman was
famously left out of President
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s major
decisions. When a reporter
asked
President
Dwight
D.
Eisenhower if he had ever
implemented an idea of then-
Vice President Richard Nixon’s,
Eisenhower responded, “If you
give me a week, I might think
of one.”
As for hapless vice presidents,
Vice President Dan Quayle
misspelled the word “potato,”
and Vice President Richard M.
Johnson believed that Earth
was hollow. In fact, President
Martin Van Buren, who served
with
Johnson,
thought
the
office
so
unimportant
that
he decided to campaign for
reelection with no running
mate at all.
Until the 25th amendment to
the U.S. Constitution, there was
no way to fill a vice presidential
vacancy. If a president or vice
president died in office, there
simply was not a vice president
at all until the next election —
something that happened 16
separate times. In other words,
the office is so insignificant that
the Founding Fathers neglected
to include another method of
filling it, and no one thought to
change that for 180 years.
The
Washington
Post
even published a delightful
assortment
of
quotes
disparaging the vice presidency.
(Most of the quotes are from
vice presidents themselves.)
Incumbent Vice President
Kamala Harris is presently more
unpopular than even President
Joe Biden — who is historically
unpopular
(although
he
is
making
a
comeback).
She
has been tasked with leading
the
Biden
administration’s
response
to
immigration,
an issue that has repeatedly
drawn the ire of conservative
voters.
As
vice
president,
Harris has virtually no power
to
bring
about
substantive
immigration reform. She can’t
sign executive orders, nor does
she have authority over U.S.
immigration officials, who fall
under
Alejandro
Mayorkas,
the Secretary of Homeland
Security.
With
immigration
reform unlikely to pass through
Congress, it seems Harris was
set up to fail.
Beyond
immigration,
Harris’s official biography has
a total of one paragraph about
her time and accomplishments
as vice president. She recently
made headlines for attending
the launch of the Artemis 1,
an unmanned rocket headed
for the moon. The launch was
canceled.
Expanding, or at least better
defining, the vice president’s
constitutional
role
would
require
amendments,
which
in today’s climate are quite
difficult to pass. And even
then, expanding the role of
vice president could take away
authority from the president.
However,
there
is
another,
simpler,
constitutionally
allowed option. Make the vice
president a Cabinet secretary.
Give them substantive influence
over their preferred realm of
policy by handing over the keys
to an executive department.
The
vice
president
is
supposed to be the second
most influential figure in the
American government. More
importantly, they need to be
ready to take on the presidency,
should they need to. Having the
vice president be more directly
involved in policy-making and
administration would better
prepare them to actually be
president.
Currently,
the
vice
president’s
influence
comes
from her role as an advisor to
the president. Few advisors
launch successful presidential
campaigns.
A
Cabinet
post,
though,
could
boost
presidential
preparedness.
Hillary
Clinton
served
as
secretary
of
state
during
President
Barack
Obama’s
first term and briefly during
his second term, after being
criticized for a lack of foreign
policy
experience.
Experts
say that the opportunities for
major achievements available
to Secretary of Transportation
Pete Buttigieg — a top contender
for
the
2024
presidential
nomination — would bolster
another campaign.
For
the
vice
president
specifically, having to balance
the concrete, administrative
duties of a Cabinet secretary
with
the
ceremonial
and
advisory roles of the vice
president would best prepare
them for the important, hectic
and often ceremonial (they
pardon the turkeys) nature of
the presidency.
In other democracies, it is
not uncommon for the head
of government’s main deputy
to run the equivalent of a
cabinet
department.
Robert
Habeck, the vice chancellor
of
Germany,
concurrently
serves as the minister for
economic affairs and climate
action; Thérèse Coffey, the
deputy prime minister of the
United Kingdom, also serves
as secretary of state for health
and
social
care;
Chrystia
Freeland,
the
deputy prime
minister of Canada, is minister
of finance. The number two
in all three countries has few
official
responsibilities,
but
instead
of
being
relegated
to a mainly ceremonial role,
they are also given a role of
substance.
The idea isn’t even terribly
far outside mainstream U.S.
politics.
During
the
2020
Democratic
presidential
primaries, Sen. Bernie Sanders,
I-Vt., had lawyers investigate
whether
he
could
appoint
rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren,
D-Mass., as both vice president
and secretary of the treasury.
The problem isn’t just that
the vice president has nothing
to
do,
though.
Presidential
advisors are important, and
the vice president is often
considered a top advisor. The
problem is that the power of
the vice president can change
dramatically every four years
because the vice president’s
role is largely determined by
the relationship they have with
the top of the ticket.
In the past, strictly defining
the
responsibilities
of
the
vice
president
would
have
restricted
those
who
seek
too much responsibility. Vice
President
Dick
Cheney
is
widely considered the most
powerful
vice
president
in
American history. His influence
was a key factor in the Bush
administration’s
decision
to
invade Iraq, and he held great
influence over Supreme Court
nominations,
federal
budget
proposals,
tax
policies
and
energy regulations.
Cheney was able to wield so
much power because President
George W. Bush allowed it,
and Bush was able to allow it
because the vice president’s role
is so poorly defined. If Cheney
had been made secretary of
defense, he would have been
able to directly influence an
area of policy he cared about. At
the same time, he would have
been more confined to defense-
related issues — the secretary of
defense doesn’t screen Supreme
Court nominees, for instance.
The vice president is one
particularly
bad
bicycle
accident away from becoming
the
most
powerful
person
in the world. That is more
than enough uncertainty for
America’s
second-highest
political
official.
The
vice
president
needs
a
stable
role, one that offers critical
experience and an abundance
of opportunities to influence
practical policy. Each of the 15
executive departments offers
just that.
Opinion
America, give your VP a seat at the table
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
10 — Wednesday, September 21, 2022
Triumphs and
shortcomings of new
Title IX regulations
A
s
President
Joe
Biden
announces $10-20,000 in
student
loan
forgiveness
in response to growing demands
from activists and citizens, we must
examine how we got here. Simply
looking at generational differences
speaks to the enormity of this issue.
I graduated from the University of
Michigan in 2015 and paid nearly six
times the tuition that my father paid
at Michigan State University in 1971,
after adjustment for inflation. That’s
a 465% increase in tuition across our
generations at public universities in
Michigan over 50 years. Most have
seen the staggering statistics: 46
million Americans struggle with
student loan debt and student debt
totals amount to nearly $1.8 trillion.
How the hell did this happen?
This story is not about personal
failure. It is not about people’s
unwillingness to pay off their debts,
take responsibility or work hard. It’s
about our values and our tax dollars —
or lack thereof — in support of higher
education. The government has been
decreasing direct funding for public
colleges and universities, and instead
shifting
funding
to
individuals
via student loans; this has created
the debt balloon and made higher
education increasingly inequitable.
It’s past time for the United States
to shift course. We must cancel the
debt we created and pass the College
for All act, introduced by Sen. Bernie
Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Pramila
Jayapal, D-Wash., to adequately
fund higher education for everyone.
Budgets are moral documents and
ours should reflect America’s values
of education.
Older
generations
sometimes
recount their hard work during
college as reason to blame younger
generations for not working as
hard. But as tuition continues to rise
astronomically, the minimum wage
remains stagnant. The Education
Data Initiative estimates that the
average cost of a four-year higher
education will cost a student $35,551
per year. If a student works a full-time
job at the federal minimum wage,
they will make $15,080 per year,
covering not even half of the average
tuition. The issue is not about working
hard. Students have absolutely no
choice but to take out massive student
loans to cover costs.
So, how did tuition manage to
skyrocket
as
wages
stagnated?
It’s actually quite simple. The
government shifted from funding
public universities directly to putting
the financial responsibility onto
students, transferring risk from
institutions onto individuals. From
2003 to 2017, the state of Michigan
cut funding to public universities by
30%, or $262 million. The University
of Michigan reports that in 1960, 78%
of their general fund budget came
from state funding, compared to 13%
of their current budget in 2022. Peter
Hinrichs from the Federal Reserve
Bank of Cleveland reports that public
universities’ revenue from state and
local governments has generally
fallen from 1987 to 2013, and in 2013,
it fell to its lowest rate ever.
Additionally, the Pew Institute
reports that a mere 2% of our federal
budget is spent on higher education
when excluding student loans. While
direct funding decreased, the federal
government embraced student loans,
even funding private institutions at a
higher rate than public institutions.
The National Center for Education
Statistics reports that university
revenues from federal funding, per
full-time-equivalent (FTE) student
in 2019, amounts to $8,000 for
private nonprofit institutions and
only $5,230 per FTE student for
public institutions. Furthermore, the
Education Data Initiative finds that
the average student loan debt upon
graduation has quadrupled from
1970 to 2021, adjusted for inflation.
The government’s decreased direct
funding to public institutions, along
with its increased funding of student
loans, shifted risk onto the American
people and created the debt trap that
many find themselves in.
Black borrowers are especially
burdened by this structure, as student
debt has increased the Black-white
wealth gap and led to the growth
of predatory for-profit colleges.
Dorothy Brown, a law professor at
Emory University’s School of Law,
examines these disparities, noting
that while white Americans’ student
loan debt diminishes over time,
Black Americans’ student loan debt
rises. This is due to many factors,
including inherited wealth that
white students use to pay off their
tuition costs, discriminatory college
admissions processes, job and wage
discrimination and the type of schools
that students attend. Brown reports
that wealthy colleges give out more
financial aid to students and admit
white students at high rates, while
a disproportionate number of Black
and Latino students attend for-profit
colleges that give out little financial
aid. Many for-profit colleges are also
predatory, targeting students of color
and saddling them with unbearable
debt — leaving many without quality
degree or even a diploma.
While student debt forgiveness is a good start, it is
simply not enough
LISA TENCER
Opinion Contributor
REVA LALWANI
Opinion Columnist
C O M M E M O R AT I N G
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22
4:20–5:30 p.m., Jeffries Hall 1225 or Livestream
AMERICAN
DEMOCRACY IN PERIL
Sponsored by U-M Office of the Provost
LIVESTREAM | michigan.law.umich.edu/constitution
QUIN ZAPOLI
Opinion Senior Editor
Design by Serena Shen
Read more at MichiganDaily.com