100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

September 21, 2022 - Image 9

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Q

ueen
Elizabeth
II
passed away in her
sleep on Sept. 8, 2022,
following her 70-year reign as
the United Kingdom’s longest
serving monarch. Whether this
development has been perceived
as a great tragedy, a moment
of indifference or a chance for
criticism, it is undeniable that
the Queen’s death marked the
end of a relevant and long-lasting
reign, the impact of which has
been felt even in America. But
why exactly do the Queen,
and the British monarchy she
represented, take up so much
space in the American psyche?
From
“Harry
Potter”
and
Shakespeare,
to
red
telephone
booths
and
the
ever-romanticized
British
accent, the United States has
wholeheartedly
accepted
a
number of iconic symbols of
British culture. While escapism
and
romanticization
play
a
part in the American public’s
devouring
of
royal
drama,
could there be an aspect of the
British monarchy that parallels
a greater American desire?
The monarch is an apolitical
figure
who
must
“remain
strictly neutral with respect to
political matters” during their
reign. Consequently, most of
the monarch’s duties are merely

ceremonial, and the monarchy
functions as a unifier during
divisive periods representing a
common entity British citizens
can rally around. The United
Kingdom’s very identity is tied
to its monarchy and historical
image. The American equivalent
of this kind of unifying factor
could be the democratic ideals
this country was founded on,
but even that bedrock value
is widely debated in today’s
polarized political sphere.
The United States and its
citizens — without a monarchy to
rally around — crave stability and
cooperation on a national scale.
This could explain the American
obsession with the monarchy,
but reactions to the queen’s
death have been notably mixed.
While some Americans have
openly expressed their sadness
at the Queen’s death, some have
rejoiced at her death due to
her complicity in colonization.
With this sentiment in mind,
it is important to remember
that while Queen Elizabeth II
did represent the U.K. during
her reign, she is not solely
responsible for the country’s
actions and her death does not
spell the end of the country’s
colonial history.
When looking at her reign
in its totality, the Queen’s
death represents the end of a
historically significant reign,
67%
of
Americans
oppose
America having a monarchy.

From
the
highly
divisive
American
reactions
to
the
queen’s passing, it is clear that
Americans on the whole view
the Queen and her Royal Family
more as cultural icons than
political ones.
In the United Kingdom, it is
considered highly inappropriate
for members of the Royal Family
to express political opinions.
Despite
the
British
public
viewing a partisan monarch
as improper, over one-third of
polled Americans believe that
British
royals
should
make
public political statements.
The disparity between how
Americans
and
citizens
of
the U.K. perceive their public
figures’ politics highlights an
important distinction between
the two nations. In America,
it is difficult to conjure a
figure akin to the queen in
sociocultural
influence
and
historical
precedence.
Even
nominally
apolitical
figures
are politicized in the U.S., as
seen with Dr. Anthony Fauci in
2020. Although Fauci’s role as
chief medical officer throughout
the COVID-19 pandemic was
intended
to
offer
universal
advice, his opinions quickly
became politically polarizing.
In December 2021, Dr. Fauci’s
approval
rating
among
Democrats was 85% and just
19% among Republicans.

T

hough they both attempt to
explain the world, religion
and science are essentially
opposites.
Science
relies
on
testable empirical evidence, while
religion is subjective, meaning any
“evidence” exists in our own minds
and the writings of our ancestors
— so is it truly possible for the
two concepts to coexist? Coming
from someone who has come to a
crossroads with their faith due to a
greater understanding of science, I
believe the answer to this question
is yes.
I have always identified as a
religious person. In fact, praying
every night is the thing that keeps
me most in touch with myself,
my hopes, fears and feelings. As
a pharmaceutical sciences major,
however, I have found myself
questioning my faith. With my
expanding knowledge of science
and its dependence on proof and
physical evidence, having faith
in something that is completely
intangible has its challenges.
Many stories in religious script are
physically impossible; the idea of
resurrection, for example.
Interestingly enough, science
and
religion
were
actually
unified in our country’s early
history.
Many
writers
from
ancient times were considering
religious and scientific questions
at the same time, and did not
necessarily think of them as
different topics and certainly not
conflicting ones. Steven Clark,
professor of molecular, cellular
and developmental biology at the
University of Michigan, reminds
us that “the modern notion of a
scientific method arose among

very religious people whose very
religion was part of their drive to
understand the natural world.”
The fact of the matter is, religion
and science should be appreciated
both as separate entities and as
interrelated concepts. There are
certain questions we can answer
with science, such as how viruses
and diseases spread, and others
we can gain insight into through
religion, such as the reason why
we must suffer from said viruses
and diseases. In other words, the
reason science exists is to help
people, whereas religion exists to
teach us to have the compassion
to want to help people. In this way,
the two concepts come together.
In fact, there is an entire subject
matter, bioethics, that essentially
combines science with the moral
frameworks that religion offers.
On top of that, the idea of science
itself is more indeterminate than
we think, because our current
knowledge of the universe is
constantly changing. For example,
Clark points out that recent
discoveries from the James Webb
Space Telescope are overturning
decades of research about our
galaxy structure. He elaborates
on this idea: “I never say, ‘I believe
in evolution,’ because saying that
would not be in accordance with
the scientific method. I would
rather say, ‘there is a tremendous
amount of experimental evidence
that
is
consistent
with
our
theory of evolution and no other
competing theory explains this
evidence as well.’”
This reminds us that the
scientific method is not necessarily
claiming that it is the truth (though
it could be), but rather helping us
discover the truth. Clark drives
this point home in pointing out that
“inherent in the scientific method

is that we are never describing the
truth. We are simply describing
our current best understanding
of the natural world. There are no
‘truths’ in science, only our best
current understanding.”
Many
of
religion’s
idiosyncrasies can be written off
when we remind ourselves that
religion is based in storytelling.
We must acknowledge that many
of the stories in scripture are
from thousands of years ago.
Many scholars take note of the
contradictions and inconsistencies
in the Bible and attribute these
flaws to the idea that the Bible was
likely passed down orally before
being written. Word-of-mouth
can be very unreliable — as we
all learned as children playing
the game of telephone where the
statement at the end is completely
different from the original one.
Perhaps some of the stories
we read are exaggerations of the
original occurrence. This does
not invalidate their significance,
but simply reminds us that
storytelling
and
framing
are
important.
Sometimes
stories
are even modified as beliefs
and perspectives change, much
like science changes as what we
discover expands. For example,
the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints was at odds
with the United States Congress
for about 40 years regarding their
practice of polygamy. When the
government went to seize all of the
church’s assets in 1890, suddenly a
vision came to then-LDS President
Wilford Woodruff showing that
polygamy must be stopped, or the
church would perish. This spurred
Woodruff to release a manifesto
that banned polygamy.

T

his October, the Supreme
Court is set to hear
arguments
against
race-based admissions policies
that could upend affirmative
action. Broadly defined as a
set of procedures to remedy
discrimination
and
promote
diversity, affirmative action is
credited with improving access
to education and employment
for women and minority groups.
The plaintiffs in the Supreme
Court case, Students for Fair
Admissions,
have
brought
lawsuits against both Harvard
University and the University
of North Carolina for what they
claim are admissions practices
that discriminate against Asian
American and white applicants.
Such
cases
have
become
commonplace in the American
judiciary,
appearing
before
federal courts dozens of times.
Cases against affirmative action
have
also
come
before
the
Supreme Court, which has largely
upheld the practice. However,
there is reason to believe that
given
the
Supreme
Court’s
conservative makeup, affirmative
action will be the latest of
progressive policies to be struck
down.
While many universities and
employers have been litigated
in relation to affirmative action,
the University of Michigan has
arguably occupied the greatest
spotlight. In 2003, U-M was
sued for its affirmative action
policies resulting in two cases
being brought before the Supreme
Court. The University won one
while losing the other. Soon after
in 2006, the State of Michigan
voted in a referendum to uphold
Proposal 2 banning affirmative
action statewide and ending the
University of Michigan’s policy.
Eight years later, the Supreme
Court again heard arguments
regarding the State of Michigan’s
ban on affirmative action and

voted 6-2 in favor of upholding
the ban.
Since then, the University
of Michigan has struggled to
enroll minorities. Its student
body in 2020 consisted of 4.3% of
students identifying as Black and
6.8% identifying as Latino, largely
unchanged from 2012. Despite
concerted efforts to recruit Black
students through outreach, such
as from its special admissions
office in Detroit and extensive
investments numbering in the
hundreds of millions of dollars,
the University of Michigan has
come up short.
While
the
banning
of
affirmative action has certainly
contributed to the University’s
lack of diversity, other policies,
specifically legacy admissions,
have
also
hindered
the
University’s
efforts.
Formally
established in the early 20th
century,
legacy
admissions
policies were created to protect
universities’ white, wealthy and
Protestant student bodies from
competing with recent European
and Jewish immigrants.
Today, they function in much
the same way, favoring the
admission
of
white,
wealthy
applicants
over
immigrants,
people of color and individuals
of lower socioeconomic status.
Maintaining
this
admissions
policy
thus
presents
two
obstacles for the university. The
first: continuing a practice that
runs contrary to the University’s
commitment to anti-racism. The
second: hindering their stated
goal of creating a diverse student
body.
Although
some
may
be
skeptical that legacy admissions
could have a sizable effect on the
composition of U-M’s student
body, an important case study
sheds light on this phenomenon.
In
2014,
Johns
Hopkins
University quietly phased out
legacy admissions, citing its anti-
meritocratic bias and its struggle
to recruit diverse classes of
students. After evaluating data
from 2009 to 2019 Hopkins found

that Pell Grant eligible students
increased by 10%, students on
financial aid increased by 20% and
racial minority representation
increased by 10%.
For those that claim legacy
admissions are integral to a
university’s ability to fundraise,
evidence points to the contrary.
For example, during the 10-year
period over which Johns Hopkins
eliminated
legacy
admissions,
its endowment actually tripled.
Further concrete evidence is given
by one statistical analysis that
showed no causal relationship
between legacy admissions and
alumni donations. Another, out
of the University of Michigan
Law School showed that legacy
admissions did not positively
impact university fundraising.
As an alumnus and a former
legacy student, I’m proud to be a
Michigan Wolverine and grateful
of the education that I received at
U-M. It’s the same education that
I wish millions of students could
access, including my own future
offspring. However, my conviction
is that children of alumni should
be judged by their merit, not by
their educational pedigree. It is
time for the University and for
all of us to push for this smallest
of changes in order to temper the
accumulation of wealth by the
elite few and to promote racial
and socioeconomic inclusion.
As the Supreme Court prepares
to hear a case that could reshape
the
landscape
of
university
admissions, the University of
Michigan should take a stand
and eliminate its legacy policy.
Joining the ranks of Johns
Hopkins, Amherst, MIT and the
State of Colorado would not only
be an honor but would also be a
continuation of the University’s
work to defend affirmative action
and improve the diversity of its
student body. For if we’re honest,
legacy admissions are affirmative
action for the rich, and if
affirmative action should end for
the marginalized, as is likely this
fall, it should certainly not exist
for the privileged.

Opinion

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.

PAIGE HODDER
Editor in Chief
JULIAN BARNARD AND
SHUBHUM GIROTI
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
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Shubhum Giroti
Devon Hesano

Sophia Lehrbaum
Olivia Mouradian
Siddharth Parmar
Rushabh Shah
Nikhil Sharma

Lindsey Spencer
Evan Stern
Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky
Alex Yee
Quin Zapoli

I’m an alum and a legacy. End legacy
admissions now

Wednesday, September 21, 2022 — 9
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

From The Daily: The significance and
harm of Queen Elizabeth II and the
British Monarchy

Can science and religion coexist?

THE MICHIGAN DAILY
EDITORIAL BOARD

A

merican
democracy
is
in trouble. Trust in the
federal
government
is
near an all-time low, as only
19% of people trust the federal
government to do the right thing
most of the time, according to
polling from the Pew Research
Center.
This
concern
is
compounded by recent news that
the Supreme Court will hear a
case about the legitimacy of the
independent
state
legislature
theory — the idea that state
legislatures
have
complete
control over federal election
procedures, even if state supreme
courts say otherwise. This could
mean state legislatures assigning
electoral college votes, with no
mind to what their own laws or
state courts have to say on the
matter.
As liberals venture into a
federal landscape that seems to
be opposed to their interests in
every way imaginable, it may be
time for progressives to do what
conservatives have been doing
for decades: focus on winning
statehouses.
The
Electoral
College, a Supreme Court that
has made enforcing the Voting
Rights Act nearly impossible and
the filibuster are all structural
advantages
that
Republicans
hold in our political system.
In the days following Politico’s
bombshell release of a draft
Supreme Court opinion that was
poised to overturn Roe v. Wade —
the precedent that has protected
the right to abortion for nearly 50
years — many Democrats were
left scrambling.
“Where the hell is my party?”
asked California Gov. Gavin
Newsom, a Democrat, at a May
5 press conference. “This a
concerted, coordinated effort.
And yes, they’re winning. … Let’s
acknowledge that. … Where’s the
counter-offensive?”
These comments are even
more prescient in the wake of
the official Dobbs v. Jackson
Women’s Health Organization
decision
overturning
Roe
v.
Wade.
Newsom’s criticisms, though

directly
focusing
on
abortion, are widely applicable
to
the
Democratic
strategy
in 2022, 2024 and beyond.
Adam Jentleson, former staffer
to the late Senate Majority
Leader
Harry
Reid,
D-Nev.,
posited that Newsom’s speech
“reflects a growing sense among
Democratic pros that there is
a leadership vacuum and no
plan — short-term, long-term
or otherwise — to deal with the
threats we face.”
President Joe Biden’s strategy
for
keeping
Democrats
in
power seems to have been to
pass
popular,
common-sense
policies focused on material
change in people’s lives. The
Inflation Reduction Act, the
American
Rescue
Plan
and
the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act are some notable
examples of this.
Moderate Senate Democrats
— namely Sens. Kyrsten Sinema,
D-Ariz., and Joe Manchin, D-W.
Va. — have consistently opposed
the attempts to abolish or change
the Senate filibuster to enable
this transformational agenda. As
of yet, Senate Majority Leader
Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has
been unable or unwilling to
offer
appropriate
concessions
or threats to these two red state
renegades.
With Congress’s failure to
pass substantial voting rights and
anti-gerrymandering legislation,
Democrats are looking at being
locked out of federal government
for a decade. The first years of the
Biden administration have seen
an outright failure to correct
the
structural
advantages
Republicans have attained and
maintained through the decades.
So what is the solution for
a Democrat frustrated by an
unwillingness or inability of
Democratic leadership to corral
their own senators? Retreat to
the statehouse.
For decades, Democrats have
been outspent and outgunned
at the state legislative level.
This reached its peak in 2016,
when Republicans controlled 32
statehouses. Today, Republicans
have unified control of 30 state
legislatures,
and
Democrats
control only 17. Haley Barbour,

past
Republican
National
Committee Chairman, described
the goal as making “self-reliant
state parties.” A similar guiding
sentiment does not exist on the
Democratic side, due in part to
fundamentally different goals.
There are several reasons
that
Democrats
are
less
interested in state government
than
Republicans.
Principal
among those is that the GOP
can accomplish many of its
important priorities, such as
tax cuts, gun rights, abortion
restrictions, school choice, from
the statehouse.
Democrats, on the other hand,
would have little luck enacting
comprehensive
immigration
reform,
combating
climate
change or passing universal
health care at the state level.
It’s not that these issues are too
complex to be dealt with on a state
level, but instead that individual
states have constructed political
systems that make this sort of
policy-making nearly impossible.
The
states,
once
referred
to by Supreme Court Justice
Louis Brandeis as “laboratories
of
democracy,”
are
proving
ineffective
at
actually
experimenting.
This
isn’t
because state legislators are so
much more small-minded than
their federal counterparts, but
because most state governments
are severely restricted.
Take New Mexico for instance.
Joe Biden won the “Land of
Enchantment” by almost 11%.
With a Democratic trifecta in the
statehouse, an outside observer
might expect New Mexico to
pass policies combating poverty,
drug addiction and child neglect.
The
reality
is
much
more
restrained. New Mexico, with a
“citizen’s legislature,” wherein
legislators are given a paltry per
diem for lodging and have only
90 days of legislative sessions
every two years, is ill-equipped
to pass substantial legislation.
These extremely short legislative
periods don’t give lawmakers a
lot of time to execute good policy;
they don’t have time to take full
advantage of their laboratory of
democracy.

JULIAN BARNARD
Editorial Page Editor

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

CHRISTOPH BAKER
Opinion Contributor

VANESSA KIEFER
AND KATE WEILAND
Managing Editors

Federalism is failing

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

ANNA TRUPIANO
Opinion Columnist

Back to Top

© 2025 Regents of the University of Michigan