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

