Does having a woman in charge of a country impact how that country is dealing with the pandemic? In the midst of the Covid-19 crisis, more than one commentator has noticed that it does. From Forbes to The Atlantic in the U.S., to think tanks around the world, “feminist leadership matters.”
Forbes Magazine wrote just last week that women leaders are saving lives. In the limited data that is available, researchers have already noted that countries led by women are, thus far, doing better in overall testing rates and in lower mortality rates. Why might this be so? One reason could well be how women make decisions, or as I and others have studied, how women are less susceptible to common decision errors including overconfidence, are less likely to take risks, and are more conscientious in their decision making approach. Women are more likely to consult others before deciding and less likely to go it alone. (I review this and other negotiation skills that women are more likely to have in What’s Sex Got to Do With It?)
A young woman during the coronavirus outbreak of 2020
Under Wisconsin Law, the governor possesses extremely broad power to issue any order that he or she deems necessary to protect lives and property during a state of emergency. When responding to an outbreak of a communicable disease, the governor has the specific power to prohibit public gatherings in any place within the state and for any period of time while the emergency is ongoing. The source of this authority is the power granted to the governor under the Emergency Management Act, which places a duty on the governor to issue orders coordinating the state’s response to a disaster, and the power granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health Services to issue orders forbidding public gatherings during an epidemic. As the top executive branch official in the State of Wisconsin, Governor Evers has both the statutory authority to direct the state’s emergency response efforts and the constitutional authority to make full use of the power of the state’s administrative departments.
On April 6, the Wisconsin Supreme Court — its members meeting under emergency procedures intended to protect their own health — issued an order that had the practical effect of requiring Wisconsin voters who had not already received an absentee ballot to visit a polling place on April 7 and vote in person if they wished to cast a ballot in the spring election.
The result of the Court’s ruling in Wisconsin Legislature v. Evers was to place Wisconsin voters in an untenable position. The ruling disenfranchised anyone who wished to shelter at home in order to avoid possible exposure to Covid-19, a deadly communicable disease, if that person lacked either a computer, internet access, a scanner for making a digital copy of their ID, or a witness to verify their absentee ballot. All of these prerequisites were necessary before a Wisconsin voter could obtain and cast an absentee ballot whilst still sheltering in place. The majority opinion was clear: for anyone who fell into this category, the price of casting a ballot was risking exposure to Covid-19.
The majority opinion in Wisconsin Legislature v. Evers has nothing to do with defending the Rule of Law, and it is a mistake to characterize it in that fashion. There is nothing in any law passed by the Wisconsin legislature that requires the result announced by the Court. Indeed, had the Wisconsin Supreme Court truly intended to uphold the longstanding statutory scheme relating to government powers in response to an outbreak of communicable disease, the Court would have arrived at a contrary result.
A. Background
The State of Wisconsin, like the rest of the country, has been engaged in a struggle to contain the spread of a coronavirus known as Covid-19. On March 12, 2020, Governor Tony Evers issued Executive Order 72, declaring a public health emergency in Wisconsin. This order was part of a series of executive actions taken by Governor Evers and other executive branch officials in order to address public health and safety concerns during the spread of this deadly communicable disease. On March 24, 2020, the Secretary-designee of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Andrea Palm, acting at the direction of Governor Evers, issued Emergency Order 12 (the “Safer-at-Home Order”). That order directed all individuals in Wisconsin to shelter at home, unless engaged in essential activities, until April 24, 2020, or until such time as a superseding directive took effect.
April is National Poetry Month, and this April, particularly, is a perfect time to discover poetry. One way to enjoy poetry is to read it; the other way is to write it.
“Poetry is just the evidence of life. If your life is burning well, poetry is just the ash.” — Leonard Cohen
I’ve found one of the most enjoyable ways to write poetry is to create book spinepoetry. Book spine poetry is considered “found” poetry; that is, a poem made up of words from other sources. You, the poet, aren’t writing the words, trying to fit a form, or looking for words that rhyme. Instead, with book spine poetry, you simply arrange books so their titles to create a poem.
Phil Shaw’s book spine poetry.
A timely book spine poem by Phil Shaw made its way around Twitter recently, though author Stephen King was “unconvinced . . . these are real covers.” (Why? The fourth book from the left on the top shelf is supposed to be King’s bestseller It. King points out that the artwork seems wrong and his name is misspelled.)
Still, Shaw’s quarantine project got me working on my own book spine poems. While I have a pretty full bookshelf at work, I have even more books at home. And more variety. I’ve had fun throwing together some poems. It’s easier than trying to find a word that rhymes with “quarantine.”
One of Professor Mazzie’s book spine poems.
What can you create? Send pics of your book spine poetry to me and we’ll create another post with all the submissions.
UPDATE (4/17/2020): Student Affairs Specialist Sarah DiStefano and I both had cats on the brain when we created these poems.
Professor Mazzie’s poem on “What Cats Think.”
Thanks for sharing, Sarah!
Poem by Sarah DiStefano, Student Affairs Specialist
countries led by women are, thus far, doing better in overall testing rates and in lower mortality rates. Why might this be so? One reason could well be how women make decisions, or as I and others have studied, how women are less susceptible to common decision errors including overconfidence, are less likely to take risks, and are more conscientious in their decision making approach. Women are more likely to consult others before deciding and less likely to go it alone. (I review this and other negotiation skills that women are more likely to have in What’s Sex Got to Do With It?)
