In the previous introductory blog, the idea of student exploitation was explored under Young's philosophy. Students and the University have abused Greek Life's self-governance for their own needs: shifting-blame or liability. But the root cause of this exploitation is in the powerlessness of students rather than group-bias.
Liability under pretense of "Values" Undermines Student Safety
As more scrutiny falls upon Greek Life and its councils despite their efforts to meet University standards, a growing obsession over liability has taken over student safety. Today, safety policies and regulations are more concerned with liability than real, effective student safety -and liability allows the University to do whatever deemed necessary to avoid legal issues. The growing scrutiny and scapegoating of Greek life is only a side effect of the University's failure to educate and offer real solutions towards safety. Luckily, one solution can be found by eliminating student powerlessness.
"And you know now, if you did not before, that the police departments of your country have been endowed with the authority to destroy your body. It does not matter if the destruction is the result of an unfortunate overreaction. It does not matter if it originates in a misunderstanding. It does not matter if the destruction springs from a foolish policy...your body can be destroyed."
-Ta-Nehisi Coates
We left off my last post with a number of questions unanswered. All are important, but the true question at hand
relates to the use of violence between citizens in our society, and in my
county. Is there a place for violence enacted for the common good, and if so,
should there be equality in the capability for violence?
In “The Politics,”
Aristotle discussed the relationship that is to be maintained between all
members of a society. Aristotle stated that, “those regimes which look to the
common advantage are correct regimes…while those which look only to the
advantage of the rulers are errant…for they involve mastery, but the city is a
partnership of free persons” (Aristotle 95). It seems that the Aristotelian
conception of governance lends itself to a society wherein the people are the
equals of the ruler. Yet, it would also seem to be the case that if the ruler
were to have an excessive capacity for violence over the citizenry, this
relationship would crumble in the face of inequality.
If we were to
level the accusation that the police are enacting society-wide violence upon
the average citizen, we would be living in a world of hyperbole. The power of
American policing today is brought down not upon the head of Joe the Plumber,
but on Joe the Coke Dealer, or Joe the Arms Dealer—criminals, or, more
accurately suspected criminals. To
put it another way—innocent men and women. Let’s never forget that there is
always to be a presumption of innocence. So, we are left with a sect of society
made up of individuals who may or may not have committed a crime, but are still
fully citizens and members of the society, on equal grounds not only with the
common man, but with the police carrying out their duties. If they are
subjected to violence in some excessive manner, does the relationship between
the citizen and ruler not fall?
LaQuan McDonald's death recorded on dashcam. Note that McDonald was armed with a knife at the time.
Iris Marion Young,
in her seminal work on what she called the “Five Faces of Oppression,” noted
violence as the final form of oppression. To set the frame, it should be
understood that if there is an oppressed sect of our society, that is an
indication of a democratic failure. I also will note that in the context of
Young’s work I would like to utilize the term violence to mean excessive violence borne of an
inequality of defensive capabilities between the police and suspected
criminals. In Young’s words, “What makes violence a phenomenon of social
injustice, and not merely an individual moral wrong, is its systemic character,
its existence as a social practice” (Young 62). In other words, if we are
witnessing the sanctioning of violence (again, in excess) against suspected
criminals in our society, we are witnessing the oppression of members of the
citizenry who are in essence relegated to the place of the lesser. If this is
the case, the equality amongst citizens that the Aristotelian strives for is
gone.
So let’s take it
one step further. Let’s assume that we are able to curtail the enactment of
excessive violence against suspected criminals. Let’s imagine a situation
wherein the police simply held the capability
to enact this form of violence. Would this still constitute a democratic
failure? The short answer seems to be yes, but let’s look a little closer.
Locke held that, “the power of the Society, or Legislative constituted by them,
can never be suppos’d (sic) to extend farther than the common good” (Locke
353). What is the common good? It would
seem to be the realization of a society without oppression. Of note is the fact
that Locke describes not the actions,
but moreso power, or in other words
governmental capability to reach beyond the common good. It seems to be the
case that if the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department held equipment that
provided them with militaristic capabilities that went unused, their simple
presence in the inventory of the Sheriff’s department would still constitute a
democratic failure. The dominoes would fall like so: the police hold the power
of excessive violence, which, if it were to be used, would be brought down upon
the suspected criminals in society, which, if it were to happen, would
constitute a democratic failure in the Aristotelian and “Young-ian” sense as
stated above.
If we live in a society in which the powers of
the ruler and the ruled are unequal, we live in a society where democracy has
failed. If a single power between some sect of society and the ruler of said
society is unequal, we are witnessing a democratic
failure. If suspected criminals are subject to excessive violence or even
the possibility of excessive violence,
this would constitute a democratic failure. What is left to be discussed is the
question of whether or not the use of 1033 equipment leads to the
implementation of violence in excess. This question will be discussed in my
third and final post, as will the question of how we may resolve a democratic
failure of the sort herein described.
Author’s Note: I
believe that it is of the utmost importance that it is understood that this
post specifically is not intended to disparage or in anyway accuse the Sheriff’s
Department of Oakland County of causing a democratic failure. The purpose of
this post is simply to discuss the conditions under which a democratic failure
would have occurred in the philosophical sense. The full question of whether or
not the current situation constitutes a democratic failure shall be discussed
in my final post.
Bibliography
Aristotle, and Carnes Lord. The Politics. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1984. Print.
I'm a Respectable Citizen. N.d. AZ Quotes. A-Z Quotes. Web.
Locke, John, and Peter Laslett. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, n.d. Print.
Police in Combat Gear. N.d. Washington Times, Ferguson, MO. Washington Times. Web.
Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1990. Print.
The University of Michigan’s leniency when it comes to punishing perpetrators of sexual misconduct is by no means the result of a devious, sinister conspiracy to deprive alleged victims of justice and violate basic democratic principle. Granted, the fact that the University only issued formal sanctions in a mere seven of the 172 cases of reported sexual misconduct in 2015 is damning, but it is also short-sighted and lazy to rationalize that such an egregious statistic is the byproduct of apathy or corruption on the University’s part. When examining this problem from a more macro and holistic vantage point, an issue far more troublesome than the University’s much-maligned handling of reported cases of sexual misconduct comes focused into view: Title IX.
Enacted as part of the United States Education Amendments of 1972, Title IX is a law that is designed to combat gender-based discrimination in academic institutions. “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,” it reads. In a vacuum, these anti-discriminatory ethics at the core of Title IX seem logical, reasonable, and morally correct to everyone with a semblance of a functioning brain. All good, right?
Well, not exactly. The burden of justifying illegal discrimination taking place in a given academic institution rests on the shoulders of the institution itself, as opposed to the outside legal system. This may make sense from the standpoint of rectifying smaller, relatively mundane types of gender-based discrimination like name-calling, where detention, suspension, expulsion, etc. fit as a proper punishments. However, Title IX also files sexual assault under the broad umbrella of sexual discrimination, meaning that any reported on-campus sexual assault is subject to that university’s investigatory procedure and ultimate ruling as the primary means of seeking justice, while actual law enforcement assumes a marginal, backseat role.
What’s worse is just how unequipped universities are to conduct these investigations in the first place. In his February 19 editorial titled “Title IX Investigations Are a Total Mess,” attorney and FOX Sports correspondent Clay Travis writes, “schools don't have DNA testing or subpoena power over non-students, or access to scads of evidence that police departments can ensure are utilized to conduct a fair and impartial investigation.” I was fortunate enough to be able interview Travis further on the subject, and he reiterated to me his frustrations with Title IX’s application to sexual misconduct investigations. “A school, which has no history or legacy of investigating felonious activity, applying a civil court standard to a potential criminal act [is unacceptable],” he said. “Universities shouldn't be conducting investigations into sexual assault. They are being sued by the accused and the accuser because the systems in place are fundamentally flawed.”
One such flaw that Travis notices likely has John Locke once again rolling over in his grave: the lack of a standardized investigatorial procedure universal to all colleges. “The result [of this application of Title IX] is a hodge podge of different methods of hearings across the country, accusers and victims may or may not be able to cross-examine each other, rules of evidence may or may not apply, hearsay may or may not be admissible, appeals may or may not be fairly granted,” Travis says in his editorial. “It's a total crapshoot, and unlike in the criminal court system, there is no consistency.” Locke would certainly have a bone to pick with the lack of consistency in these processes. In his Second Treatise, Locke stresses that uniformity and standardization are necessary features of a democratic society’s legal system. “First, [legal procedure] is not, nor can possibly be absolutely Arbitrary over the Lives and Fortunes of people.” (357) So, the very fact that all universities abide by their own unregulated investigatory procedures when looking into reports of sexual assault is in of itself a failure of democracy, which becomes further compounded when these types of faulty processes yield unjust rulings.
In summation, so few cases of reported on-campus sexual assault at Michigan result in formal sanctions not because the University does not care or because of its seemingly lax sexual misconduct policy, but because it does not possess the tools to investigate such a serious matter with the attention, care, and precision that it requires. In my next blog, I will propose a way to (at least partially) solve this particular failure of democracy. Thanks again for reading!
Travis, Clay. "Weblog post." Outkick the Coverage. FOX Sports, 19 Feb. 2016. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.<http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/title-ix-is-a-total-mess-021116>.
In todays government, there are many times were government
officials have failed democracy. This was certainly the case, in the situation
of the Flint Water Crisis. The Governor and his peers, failed to do the
democratic thing, which ultimately led to this crisis to coming into being. How
exactly did he fail democracy? He decided it was necessary to appoint an
emergency manager who ultimately decided that it was necessary for Flint to
switch the location it receives its water, to the Flint river, in order to save
money. This would be fine, if it is what the people wanted, but many did not. In
fact, many people sought to remove the law which made this appointment of the
manager possible.
Many people are looking at this emergency manager law –
which allows the governor to skip over the elected government and appoint a
single person to control the city’s budgeting- as a huge reason why the crisis
happened. Many citizens from the community who are apart of a local coalition
are looking for this law to be repealed, and it is a top demand on there list
of community priorities.
Picture obtained
from http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Flint-water-crisis-reveals-rupture-democracy/
The people did not want this law so they acted with a veto
referendum, and they won. However, the government decided to go above that and
amend the referendum, going against the majority. One huge question that comes to mind is, how
is this possible? How can democracy allow for one man to ignore the wants of
the majority? Shifting the power from a group of elected officials to the hands
of one man is not democracy. This is far more similar to a monarchy, or a
dictatorship.With the ideas of direct
democracy in mind, how is it that a small group of people’s ideas can outweigh
the majority of the general population? This makes no sense.
If left up to the citizens, the law expanding powers of the
city manager and allowing for him to take emergency powers would have surly
gone unpassed. One quote from Mill that was seen in a lecture and in Essays on
Politics and Society, Mill says, “It is important that everyone of the governed
should have a voice in the government, because it can hardly be expected that
those who have no voice will not be unjustly postponed by those who have… it is
still more important as one of the means of national education…” (Mill 322).
While it is certainly true that Mill believes certain people should have more
say in politics than others, I believe that the fact that the original bill was
rejected by the public should mean that Governor Snyder should not have been
able to pass the law without consent of the public. This kind of power should
not exist in our democratic form of government.
In my freshman year of college, I had a roommate, Steven
Arquette, and he currently lives in Flint Michigan. He has lived there his
whole life and I asked him a short list of question about this topic, and his
answers are as follows:
Me:How has the water crisis impacted you?
S: “I cannot drink the water in my
own home, I have to wait for my mom to go out and buy water. We don’t get the
donated water because we don’t want to take away from people who are at a
greater need. Its was very inconvenient to not have access to clean water on a
regular basis. If it was hard for me, I can only imagine how hard it might be
for people who are less well off and don’t have access to water like I have. I
was lucky.
Me: Who do most people you know
blame for this problem?
SA: I think its pretty common for
most people to blame Governor Snyder.
Me: What do you think of the
government going against the wants of the people by amending their referendum?
SA:I don’t understand how this is
possible. How can the government, who is supposed to serve the citizens go completely
against what they want?
Me: Do you think the ability to go
against the majority, and shift power into the hands of one man is okay in a democratic
government?
SA: No it definitely isn’t. It doesn’t
make sense how he did this. I assure you most people here did not want the
water to be switched to the Flint river. It is gross. I would never want to
drink that water. I only wish I paid more attention to this issue as it was happening
so I did not ingest that water.
There are many things that can be pointed to as the cause
for this failure in democracy to occur. However, the most basic in my opinion
is too much power in the hands of one person. Our government allows for the
wants of the majority to be basically ignored. It allows for one person to
negate the effect of an elected body of officials, and shift its power to one
man. Our government contains these elements that do not belong in a true form
of democracy. This proves that representative democracy is not true democracy. Failure
in democracy will always occur because our government allows it to.
The aftermath of this issue leaves the people of Flint
wanting a referendum to remove the law responsible for making this possible in Flint,
and also to remove the man responsible. As a result, the people of flint are still
seeking justice, and it is unclear wear they will get what they want, but one
thing is for sure, the people have spoken and they do not like the idea that a
small group can ignore the wants of the majority. It is definitely clear that
the power of a referendum needs to be strengthened, and a small amount of power
needs to be taken for the people who represent the government. It should not be
allowed for the majorities opinions to be able to be overturned so easily.
In my last post, I interviewed Father Kelly about the Detroit Redwings Stadium Development. He was very much in favor of it, saying that it would bring many visitors as well as residents into the city, and by extension, his church. As I am writing about a democratic failure, I did not necessarily agree with him, but I wanted to include both sides of the argument. However, I have yet to discover any concrete evidence that this project will actually benefit the residents of the city of Detroit. In fact, all of the evidence I have found indicates a possibility of the city losing money, jobs, and residents as a result of the development. Additionally, the city is subsidizing men and corporations worth billions of dollars, diverting money directly from the Michigan School Aid Fund (about $15 million a year). In reality, the development is only good for the visitors and Mike Ilitch. The local people of Detroit are left picking up the bill, paying an estimated 60% of the $650 million arena.
I interviewed an instructor of social work at the University of Michigan named Shari – a graduate of the University of Alabama with a masters in social work and anthropology from Wayne State University. She has lived on the northwest side of Detroit all her life, and currently teaches a course at Michigan which educates social justice minors on the concept of urban gentrification versus urban renewal. I spoke to her about the development and what she believes it will mean for the current residents of Detroit. “I don’t think we need a new stadium”, she said. “There are other things Detroit needs, and this is the same conversation we had when he [Ilitch] was building the Detroit Tigers Stadium. They say it’s going to bring more people and more revenue, and where has it gone? This has been happening since the 70’s, and 80’s. People are still living in dilapidated, desolate areas within walking distance of downtown.” Stimulation of the local economy through urban development and stadium building is not a new idea and has been studied thoroughly. The results of these studies prove Shari’s point to be not just an informal observation, but a cold hard fact. Eighty-six percent of economists agree that sports stadium subsidies are detrimental, with an average loss of 1,924 jobs, and an extremely low rate of return for the cities on their investment.
Coffee shop in Corktown, renovated district of Detroit.
In addition to this, Shari went on to mention what she believes this project actually is. “It’s not urban renewal, it’s gentrification. Once gentrification happens it raises property values. The side effect of this is that the people who have been living there for generations are no longer going to be able to afford to live there.” This is a terrible deal for those of low socioeconomic status living the area, and it certainly won’t help the businesspeople of the Joe Louis arena (the current Red Wings arena which will be torn down for the new one). In addition to the wishful thinking of the development’s revenue projections and the ignorance towards the obvious gentrification occurring, the city will absorb most of the risk of this investment. Ilitch has decided to lease the Stadium, which allows him to walk away at any time. This way, he does not pay property taxes. Additionally, he keeps all of the profit from the sales in the stadium. This deal is unequivocally bad for the city, and yet people still buy the narrative that it will help. “Those are private businesses at and around the stadium. People just go with what sounds good, so if you’re a businessperson, and someone comes up to you with a plan to get people into the city, you’re going to go right along with it”, says Shari. Perhaps she is right, and perhaps the people are easily swayed by promises of a better future, regardless of whether those promises are feasible at all.
Something needs to change, and drastically. We need to have new checks and balances in place to prevent plans like these that help for-profit enterprises at the expense of the taxpayers. Not only this, but we need to look at the bad decisions the city council has made in the wake of Detroit’s municipal bankruptcy. The council should be restrained enough so that they can be financially responsible, while still giving them enough leeway to enact the will of the people. I have developed a plan that I believe solves these problems, though it may require a fundamental restructuring of the Detroit charter. To explain further would no doubt take me an entire post, so I’ll leave this one as it is, and start my work on the next one. See you in about two weeks.
