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