Opinion
Wednesday, January 11, 2023 — 6
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
This November, voters in
Michigan approved Proposal 1,
which changed the legislative
term limits for the Michigan
House of Representatives and
Michigan State Senate and
greatly expanded the financial
disclosure
rules
for
state
politicians.
These
are
two
very important changes that
will help to ensure ethics and
accountability in Lansing.
Prior
to
the
passage
of
Proposal
1,
legislators
in
Michigan
could
serve
a
maximum of two four-year
terms in the Senate and three
two-year terms in the House.
After the changes in Proposal 1,
legislators will be able to serve
12 years cumulatively between
either house. The hope is that
this will allow members to
hone their skills in one office,
while still further limiting
the time they can spend in the
legislature as a whole.
Critics of term limits have
argued that they contribute
to unnecessary turnover, as
legislators can only serve for
a few years. This means that
from the moment they get into
office, many legislators are
incentivized
to
immediately
begin
thinking
about
their
next career move. There are
also concerns that all this high
turnover
and
short
tenure
among legislators could make
it difficult for officials to
gain the experience needed to
successfully
tackle
complex
issues. The job of legislating
has a tough learning curve —
with strict term limits, right
as legislators come to fully
understand their jobs, they
must move on.
Term
limits
were
first
implemented
in
Michigan
30 years ago under a 1992
Constitutional
amendment.
The
original
argument
in
1992 was that term limits
would help reduce the number
of
career
legislators
and
increase diversity. Proponents
also argued that term limits
would help limit the power of
lobbyists and interest groups.
However, there are questions to
be raised about whether these
term limits were effective or
if they actually increased the
power of lobbyists instead, as
inexperienced legislators were
forced to rely on the recourses
and institutional knowledge of
special interests.
Concerns
about
inexperienced lawmakers and
lobbyist control have gained
prominence
recently
with
the investigation into former
Republican
House
Speaker
Lee Chatfield, who served as
speaker of the Michigan House
from 2019-2021. He was just 31
when he became speaker, and
had only been in the legislature
for four years when he was
elected to the position.
After he left office, Chatfield
came
under
investigation
by
the
Michigan
Attorney
General’s Office for a variety
of illicit activities, including
embezzlement,
campaign
finance violations and bribery.
Investigations into Chatfield
have also detailed how he relied
heavily on lobbyists, trading
access for money and trips and
had several family members on
his payroll.
While
Chatfield’s
alleged
actions are an extreme example
of corruption in Lansing, his
actions underscore the role
of lobbyists and big business
in our state capital. It is not
hard to see how these types of
things happen. With a constant
revolving door of legislators
with little experience, it is
easy for lobbyists and big
business to take advantage.
Having
these
short
terms
also means that there are also
fewer
connections
between
legislators;
this
lack
of
camaraderie might contribute
to more partisanship.
This is not to say that the
general idea behind term limits
is bad. It is undeniable that
our government is aging and
is often out of step with the
views of younger Americans.
For many young people, it can
be discouraging to feel that so
many of our representatives are
out of touch with our generation
and to know that they have been
serving for longer than many of
us have been alive. However,
we must ensure that in our
quest for a younger and more
representative legislature, we
don’t reduce the efficacy of our
lawmakers.
Proposal 1 also had the
important
provision
of
adding
financial
disclosure
requirements to the Michigan
Constitution. It requires that
members of the legislature
and
top
executives
release
financial disclosures, including
donations from lobbyists. This
is a major step forward for
the state, as it will hopefully
encourage more transparency
and place less influence in the
hands of select lobbyists.
Time will tell if the changes
in
Proposal
1
are
enough
to ensure that we have a
legislature that works for the
people, not special interests. If
the issues of legislator turnover
and lobbyist control continue
at high rates, then more actions
will be needed to possibly
weaken Michigan’s term limits
or further strengthen financial
disclosure and ethics laws.
A
legislature
that
works
effectively for all Michiganders,
without
the
influence
of
lobbyists, is something that we
can all agree is a good thing to
have. That is why we need to
continue to analyze the impact
of the state term limits on the
strength of our legislature, and
hold our legislators accountable
to maintain their independence
and integrity.
ISABELLE SCHINDLER
Opinion Columnist
Content warning; sexual assault
and harassment
I
am
writing
today
in
response to the Nov. 11
Op-Ed in The Michigan
Daily
that
advocated
for
steering away from reporting
misconduct to U-M Equity,
Civil
Rights
and
Title
IX
Office (ECRT). Its misguided
conclusions
were
based
on
inaccurate information and did
a disservice to our community.
Here’s what I want you to
know about reporting to ECRT:
ECRT’s primary role with
respect to sexual and gender-
based misconduct is to serve
the safety and equity of the
U-M community.
Reporting to ECRT allows
individuals to access accurate
information about the wide
range of support, resources
and resolution options unique
to the campus setting that are
available to them to address the
situation.
Not all faculty (or staff) are
obligated to report allegations
of sexual misconduct. That
is
a
requirement
only
for
individuals
with
reporting
obligations
(IROs)
under
University policy. Regardless,
and
more
importantly,
reporting to ECRT is a good
thing.
When individuals share
information
with
ECRT
(whether required to do so or
not), the University can ensure
that each person who reports
sexual misconduct to an IRO
gets
the
same
information
about resources and how to
make a formal complaint if
they wish to do so. Ensuring
that students have accurate
information and understand
all the options available to
them is as important as it is
delicate; we cannot rely on
each individual member of the
University community to know
how to respond to a person
raising concerns in an accurate,
appropriate, empathetic and
equitable
way.
ECRT
staff
members have specific training
to ensure each report receives
an appropriate and supportive
response in which individuals
can make an informed decision
based on accurate and complete
information. The University
also
offers
confidential
resources
such
as
the
Sexual Assault Prevention &
Awareness Center, staffed with
trained, expert professionals
who are also well-versed in
options internal and external
to the University.
As with many aspects of the
University’s response to sexual
and gender-based misconduct,
the University complies with
legal
requirements
related
to reporting obligations. The
University also exercises its
discretion to go beyond what
is required by law in order to
best serve the U-M community.
The
University’s
approach
to required reporting aligns
with many peer institutions
and with proposed Title IX
regulations that would require
all faculty to report. A full list
of IRO roles at the University is
posted here.
While the Op-Ed suggested
that
anyone
reporting
to
ECRT will lose control of the
situation, reporting to ECRT
does not mean that a case
will be automatically opened
or that the person impacted
will be directed to a hearing.
While it is always ECRT’s aim
to take action to effectively
address
sexual
or
gender-
based
misconduct,
ECRT
works with the complainant
— if identified — to explore all
options available to them. The
complainant is in control of
whether and how to engage with
ECRT and has a choice in their
next steps. While some choose
an investigatory path, the vast
majority
choose
alternative
options such as restorative
justice processes, educational
efforts or supportive measures,
or request that no action by the
University be taken.
ECRT
also
works
with
those who report a complaint
when a complainant may not
wish to engage with ECRT to
coordinate the least intrusive
and
most
appropriate
way
to provide the complainant
with information about other
resources and options. ECRT
does not compel those who may
have experienced misconduct
to share information about their
experience or to participate in
any resolution process.
In fact, this is the primary
reason for the difference in the
total number of reports and the
disciplinary outcomes cited in
the Op-Ed. ECRT publishes an
annual sexual and gender-based
misconduct report to provide
the public with transparent,
accurate information on how
these
matters
are
handled
while
maintaining
the
privacy of those involved. The
reports, publicly available on
ECRT’s website, consistently
demonstrate that complainants
retain options and a large
degree of control after matters
are reported to ECRT. The
report
also
demonstrates
ECRT’s
commitment
to
addressing sexual and gender-
based misconduct and outlines
the
fair,
thorough
process
used when an investigative
pathway
is
selected.
This
process includes the University
providing
parties
with
an
advisor, at no cost to them, if
they do not choose to use their
own advisor. Finally, the report
shows that when a University
community member is found
to have engaged in misconduct,
action is taken.
There also are options for
reporting misconduct outside
the
University.
Reporting
to ECRT does not preclude
anyone
from
pursuing
any
or all of these, and in some
instances, having reported to
the University is effectively a
precursor to seeking external
help. Ultimately, reporting to
ECRT provides for the most
immediate access to supportive
measures, such as academic
accommodations, housing or
employment
modifications,
and the greatest opportunity
for the complainant to make
informed decisions regarding
which, if any, processes they
wish to participate in to seek
the type of resolution outcome
that best meets their needs.
Letter to the Editor: Reporting misconduct to ECRT serves the University
community
ELIZABETH SENEY
Opinion Contributor
O
n Nov. 26, 2022, the
Michigan
football
team won its first away
game against The Ohio State
University in 22 years. “The
Game,” as it is dubbed by Ohio
State and Michigan fans alike,
is the culmination of one of the
biggest rivalries in the game
of football. With the raucous
crowd in the Horseshoe and
the consistent trading of blows
by both teams, the quality
of The Game lived up to its
intense reputation. In a way,
the quarterbacks of both teams
embodied generals, leading and
directing not only their team,
but the spirit of the schools that
they represented.
As is known by most students
of either school, the rivalry,
like
many
other
rivalries,
extends far beyond the scope
of football. The competition
between schools touches topics
including, but not limited to,
other sports, student journalism
and academics. Without a doubt,
the uncontrolled extension of
rivalrous competition into the
individual psyche can lead to
negative
consequences
such
as intense verbal or physical
violence. Just this year, after the
rivalry football game against
Michigan State University, a
fight between players broke
out. However, when controlled
and kept in good spirit, rivalries
have the ability to unify and
strengthen
the
communities
that participate in them.
No phrase better encapsulates
the spirit of the University of
Michigan than “Go Blue.” As
simple as the two-word saying
is, it can serve many purposes,
such as a rallying call to other
University students, an exciting
accent to the end of a fight
song or a means to receive
backlash from rival sports fans.
The connection, reaction and
accentuation that the expression
brings on is not simply due to its
purpose to express support, but
the spirit that it represents.
When
someone
says
“Go
Blue,” they encapsulate a spirit
that is omnipresent on campus.
When heard by sympathetic
ears, the phrase becomes a point
of connection, a bridge between
two people. School spirit can be
a means to that end: something
shared between some of the most
diverse identities on campus.
Rivalries
transform
a
permeating
sense
of
school
spirit
into
a
concentrated
stream of pride, turning weak
connections into stronger ones
and furthering a sense of unity
on campus. During rivalrous
times, “Go Blue” transforms
from a simple, spirited phrase
into a rallying cry of pride and
support.
Aside
from
its
unifying
aspects, the competitive spirit
associated
with
rivalry
is
undoubtedly one of its greatest
and most mutually beneficial
effects. The inherent drive and
added motivation characteristic
of a rivalry pushes both sides
to become the absolute best
that they can be. For example,
the sole existence of rivalry in
competitive runners has been
shown to shave at least four
seconds per kilometer off of
relative times clocked without
the presence of competition.
The spirit of competition is
not just exclusive to outwardly
competitive contexts like sports
or academia. Many times, the
spirit of competition and rivalry
can be manipulated in order to
reach positive outcomes for both
of the sides or for a third party.
An example of this could
be
the
annual
fundraising
competition
between
OSU’s
student
publication,
The
Lantern, and The Michigan
Daily,
which
raised
over
$30,000 this year. Other teams
have chosen to use their rivalry
to raise money for charity,
such
as
the
Broken
Chair
Trophy fundraiser between the
University of Nebraska and the
University of Minnesota, which
also raised over $30,000 this
year.
So what about the bad aspects
of rivalry?
There’s no avoiding the fact
that rivalries can get ugly,
become violent and be generally
regressive. The bad side of
rivalry is an uncomfortable
truth that most sports fans
have had to confront at some
point
or
another.
However,
what we normally determine to
be a bad aspect of rivalry is not
characteristic of rivalry at all,
but instead representative of
uncontrolled and uneducated
pride.
The pride that individuals
can feel for the groups they are
a part of can easily transition
into a distaste for those that
they feel are opposed to them.
Wanton pride and support for
any identity can lead to myopia,
where the common good for
both sides of the rivalry is
overcome by the need to induce
pain in the other.
This phenomenon is pervasive
throughout our political world
as well. The political division
that we see today is a direct
result of the spirit of rivalry
overcoming the common good.
In many instances, it seems that
politicians, parties and people
would rather push back on their
competitors than work toward a
common goal between them.
In order to have healthy
rivalry and competition, we
must
control
ourselves
and
monitor our actions. There is
nothing wrong with having
pride in your identity, but the
problem arises in the blind
superiority complex that can
arise with wanton pride. We
should realize our true power
comes not from thinking that
we are the best, but in realizing
that we have the capacity to be
the best. That is the essence of
rivalry.
We feel pride for a lot of
things. One might feel pride for
their culture, their country or
their school. The pride that we
feel for these communities is the
bridge between us. This is why
rivalries are so important.
A look into the positive
side of rivalries
ZHANE YAMIN
Senior Opinion Editor
Term limits or something else: How can we fix Lansing?
For the
campus
Design by Phoebe Unwin