4A - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, October 11, 2006 U 1 E , llic 'rgttn 3 ttil OPINION DONN . FRESARD Editor in Chief i EMILY BEAM CHRISTOPHER ZBROZEK JEFFREY BLOOMER Editorial Page Editors Managing Editor EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 J . ;413 E. HURON ST. ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 tothedaily@michigandaily.com NOTABLE QUOTABLE There's no straight shots there - they're all bent." -Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos, when asked during last night's debate about which of his opponent's ads bends the truth most. English majors are people, too WHITNEY DIBO Shed the secrecy ack of transparency hinders senior society's reform he nameless senior society better known to generations of Univer- sity students as Michigamua was :hck in the news this week. Longtime Hillel executive director Michael Brooks acknowledged publicly that he is an advi- sor, or "Honorary Angell," for the group. Brooks's forthrightness comes after a series of reforms this year that has left the group far less divisive than it once was. For the organization formerly known as Michigamua to gain full legitimacy on campus, however, it will need to commit to greater transparency, even at the cost of appearing to compromise the group's stated commitment to "humble service." The organization formerly known as Michigamua generated controversy for decades due to its appropriation of Native "American imagery and symbols in its ritu- 's. Following sustained protest, the orga- ~ization has sought to reform itself and its image, while the University administration has distanced itself from the group. Reforms hs year included releasing the names of mnost members of the past two classes, as well the decision to retire the name "Mich- gamua' -- hopefully the last vestige of the group's racially insensitive past. But the group's remaining commitment to secrecy hurts its effort to rebuild legitimacy on a campus long skeptical of an elite and seemingly racist senior society in its midst. Though Brooks has come forward with his membership in the group, other honorary members affiliated with the University have not followed. The group's activities, what- ever they are, remain a mystery to most stu- dents and local media. Members of the group have argued that the organization exists to serve the Univer- sity community, and that its members prefer not to seek credit for their work. That may indeed be the case, but the aura of secrecy that remains works against any notion of humility, instead drawing further attention to its activities and membership. By choosing to reform an organization with a difficult past, the group's members have taken on an onerous task, and the burden is on them to gain trust on campus. Becoming more transparent is the swift- est means for the organization to show that it is nothing more than a well-mean- ing, if somewhat elite, service group. Other honorary Angells can come forward. The group can seek to go through the Student Organization and Recognition process. Its members can make the group's activities clear. Chances are, the society's member- ship and its inner workings will be of little interest once the mystery is gone. soft. Nike. American Air- lines. Coors. MTV. Magnet companies attracting tens of thousands of resumes. But your degree is in liberal arts - would a magnet company hire you? This is the question posed in an article titled "Road to Career Success for Liberal Arts Majors" by Robin Ryan of jobweb.com - a website of job-search information for college students and recent graduates. The article details the many obstacles facing most liberal arts majors as they enter today's competitive job market by chronicling the plights of specific-yet-generic college students identified only by a first name. Take Heather, the philosophy major, who was lucky enough to eventually land a career selling insurance. Or Sam, the ambivalent psychology major who picked liberal arts because "it was easier than his business courses." Don't fret over Sam's future, though - the website assured us he'd be OK because he previously did "excel at his job as a pizza delivery man." Well I have a confession. My name is Whitney Dibo (last name provided for potential employers), and I too am a liberal arts major. Back when I was an underclass- man, I remember feeling pretty scholarly sitting in the shade of the Diag, poring over "Invisible Man" and highlighting game strategies in my political science textbook. But now I'm a senior, and my liberal arts path has suddenly become my alba- tross - one that I find myself hiding behind phrases like "I might go to law school." It's clearly a punt, and I usually end up feeling like a fraud after- ward. I don't want to take the LSAT - at least not right now. So, in my quest to jumpstart my job search, I did what any dutiful senior does - I called the Career Center. After the obligatory greet- ings, the conversation went some- thing like this: "So what is your major?" "English and Political Science." "So you want a law adviser?" "No" "So, general advising." "Yeah, I guess." "I do have a law appointment open for tomorrow if you want it." It is hard to be a liberal arts major these days, to stand proudly amid the chemical engineers and B- School chosen and declare, "I am an art history major" without receiving knowing smiles that read: "You're not going to have health insurance." In the name of keeping my options open, I attended last week's Job Fair 2006. The Michigan Union was packed to the brim with button- down shirts, newly minted resumes and firm, look-you-in-the-eye hand- shakes. As I perused corporate America, I spotted a sign that read, "We accept resumes from liberal arts majors!" I suppose I should have appreciated it. But no - we liberal arts majors are not charity cases. The sign should have read: We covet liberal arts majors! We need liberal arts majors! But I kept my poetry-loving mouth shut. Most companies weren't nearly that open-minded. Throughout the fair I repeatedly was told by recruit- ers that their company was look- ing for more - how shall I put it - focused, analytical applicants. Well, I'm going to let these recruiters in on a secret: Liberal arts majors have the skills. The Univer- sity has taught us to write, to think critically, to speak our minds elo- quently and to discuss abstract con- cepts that most chemical engineers can't wrap their highly sought-after brains around. What I have realized is that the job fair is not representative of the job market. It can seem that way once you've scoured the Union looking for just one company that remotely sparks your interest. The truth is, though, that the magazines, publish- ing houses, TV stations, production companies, galleriestand thinkttanks of the world don't attend events like Job Fair 2006. Just because they aren't recruiting in the Union with a neatly designed three-panel poster from behind booths does not mean they don't exist. After my set of disheartening experiences, I called up Kerin Bor- land, the senior associate director at the Career Center. She offered some calming words of wisdom (and numbers) for liberal arts majors who are starting to feel their blood pressure rise as graduation nears: "It will take a bit longer ... but if you hang in there, 85 percent of liberal arts graduates reported back to us that, within six months of gradua- tion, they were in a job with career potential." CNN reported a 6.1- percent salary increase for liberal arts majors from 2005 to 2006. So tune out the naysayers and skeptics - apparently, there is life after lib- eral arts. I've always believed in Henry David Thoreau's advice: "Advance confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you've imag- ined." I believed it 3rd grade, I believed it freshman year, and I'm not ready to trade it for a 401(k). And I heard Thoreau didn't even have health insurance during that long, cold winter on Walden Pond. Dibo can be reached at wdibo@umich.edu. VIEWPOINT The malleable 'man': Redefining radicals BY JESSI HOLLER The new status quo for the American youth is 'baffling one - watered-down pop-culture radi- icalism and absolute political immobility. We have been left facing backward and waxing nostalgic, -imprisoned by the increasingly proscriptive model of purist radicalism that prefers doing nothing the mark of a politically moot generation - to 'orking for reform. The mode of political activism 'now synonymous with the youth counterculture 'of -the 1960s hangs ominously in the underbelly of the American university identity like a swollen appendix. While we wait for our generation's revo- lutionary ire to burst, we risk losing our chance to m-obilize within the bounds of political efficacy. 'I spent last weekend at what would appear to 1e a procedure-focused example of the docility of student social and political movements today, joining more than a hundred students at Yale Uni- -versity for the Roosevelt Institution's "A Seat at the Table;' a national conference on socioeconomic diversity and access to selective higher education l' America. The Roosevelt Institution touts itself as the "nation's first student think tank" and offers up'a new model for student activism in America: procedural activism. The RI operates under a suit- and-tie breed of progressivism: The national orga- 'aization is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and -the infrastructure of each campus branch mimics -the structure of national think tanks - no bombs, bongs or flowing hair required. Schmoozing with college administrators and political leaders within the mold of expected political behavior may seem to today's campus Left like an abandonment of the radical spirit. But those pop-culture-styled radicals should be reminded that the post-'60s revolutionary men- tality has become the ideological norm for the nation's university students. RI advocates instead a much quieter, less glorious and ultimately more effective route - pushing for legitimate proce- -dural reform, not revolution, by working within the structure of the democratic system. If would- be activists are concerned with the radicalism of the gesture, the organization of groups that put results above strict adherence to any sort of stick-it-to-the-man mentality constitutes a break with the outworn rhetoric that's now mainstream. Unrelenting, impassioned, procedural progres- sivism may well be the most radical thing that this generation has seen. The attitude of my fellow conference participants KIM LEUNG T uTAKE-0o.1- BX was lodged comfortably between the outright for- mality of the Model United Nations delegates - also gathered for a conference at Yale that weekend - and the raucous spirit of romanticized activism. Those whose felt that suffocating neckties would bolster their political efficacy sported them proudly, but Spencer Sherman, president of the Yale branch of the Roosevelt Institution, myself and many of the other fellows were able to command just as much respect in T-shirts. Appearances fell, perhaps disap- pointingly, on the side of "well-groomed," but the discourse in the break-out discussion sessions was anything but tame. The spirit of the event was the willing disman- tling of a system of exclusion and privilege from the outside - and from the inside. And while that fact alone seemsato be the largest reason for distrust of the campus progressive moment, I must confess: Speak- ing of the elimination of fiscal barriers to education at institutions like Yale with the dean of undergradu- ate admissions and finding him just as incensed by the problem as I am was exhilarating. While my radical, liberal sense of self may have suffered one or two blows because of my weekend concession to "the Man," my radical, liberal sense of self wasn't really doing anything to flesh out a solution to the challenge of increasing socioeconomic diversity at America's elite universities anyway. The Man may be real, but the Man can be trans- lated, explicated, written up, dissected, under- stood and ultimately - with a little bit of group policy-drafting, and a submission to the "Roosevelt Review" - changed for the better. Co-opting the revolution? Maybe. But the revolution doesn't seem to mind. Ensuring its survival into the future may well require the adoption of a different - and, dare I say, radical - form. The liberal student Left - hangers-on, Dylan devotees and genuine radicals alike - need to learn that the malleability of the established politi- cal order is a challenge that offers our generation the opportunity to change America's political land- scape. Will the guardians of that landscape listen? Perhaps this, too, is an outdated Vietnam-era model that could use a bit of "updating" from the New Deal-era "brain trust" model that inspires the Roos- evelt Institute. The challenge is not to find and woo a receptive ear, but to speak: boldly, innovatively and, more important, knowledgeably. Holler is an LSA freshman and a member of the campus chapter of the Roosevelt Institution. She can be reached at ohholler@umich.edu Looking through Jon Stewart RAFI MARTINA hate Jon Stewart. I imagine criticizing him will inspire the vitriol of numer- ous readers, provoking them to write me in caustic defense. I can take that; I obviously will have brought that fate upon myself. But please, imagine my horror - imagine the unsolicited blow - of seeing the preview for a movie, "Man of the Year," just drip- ping with encouragement and lion- ization of the likes of Jon Stewart. The premise: Tom Dobbs, played by Robin Williams, is a comic news- caster running for president (and, according to the trailers, seemingly winning). Ever the likable comic, Stewart - oops, I mean Dobbs - pokes fun at politicians in the pseu- do-serious manner we've become accustomed to seeing on "The Daily Show" and "Colbert Report." See- ing a news story on the current fad of Stewart/Colbert '08 T-shirts only compounded my anxiety. Could this actually be happening? Despite Stewart's denial that he's running, will my peers be casting votes for a . Stewart ticket in the near future? What's my beef with the lovable Daily Show host? In the first place, Jon Stewart always wants it both ways. In many respects, the show plays like "Saturday Night Live's" Weekend Update, offering fictitious or skewed news with comic appeal. But whereas SNL would feature a fake interview with Pakistani Presi- dent Pervez Musharraf - with, say, Darrell Hammond as a mustached Musharraf - Jon Stewart has the bona fide Musharraf sitting right next to him. Sure, it's funny to see Jon Stewart serve tea to Pakistan's head of state, and perhaps there's some comic appeal to Stewart's half-assed attempts at serious political inquiry. To be sure, Musharraf appeared on the show as an author (his new mem- oir "In the Line of Fire" was released the day before his appearance on "The Daily Show"), and Stewart con- ducted the show as if he were inter- viewing any other writer attempting to publicize a book launch. But this isn't Dennis Miller's book-launch, and if you're going to be a "real- enough" newscaster to host a real world leader, shouldn't there be a concomitant responsibility to ask insightful questions? A fake broad- caster has fake (or at least trivial) guests. A real broadcaster has real guests. And that real broadcaster has a journalistic responsibility to inter- rogate power if he has the privilege of winning an interview with one of its purveyors. Some hero of the Left: Stewart coddled a dictator with far more cajolery than our crooked Pres- ident could ever muster. What's more, I don't believe Stewart's self-deprecating approach to be sincere. Though he loves to highlight about his own lack of cred- ibility or his belief that his audience doesn't actually get their news from The Daily Show, his Peabody Award and ratings speak otherwise. Call- ing "The Daily Show" for this arti- cle, I was informed that Musharraf approached Stewart for the interview, not vice versa. Lack of credibility? Hardly. Should we expect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad next? When does the comedy stop and the serious politi- cal commentary begin? The prob- lem with "The Daily Show" is that you can never be sure. From show to show, Stewart goes anywhere from insightful and incisive to fatuous and flattering. It's a thrust-and-defend move - attack easy political tar- gets and then hide behind a reputa- tion for comic flippancy. It certainly works for Jay Leno and the rest of the late-night comics, though I have an inkling Stewart would be offended at that comparison. But Stewart knows the audience he commands and the power he wields; with them, he's inherited the prerogative to instruct other broad- casters. When I see him patronize a fawning Ted Koppel, when I see him excoriate Tucker Carlson (admitted- ly a pathetic joke of a broadcaster himself) but without substance or serious critique, merely feeding off a bored and easily engaged audi- ence, I lose faith in my generation. Isn't the act a little trite by now? A bit of satire makes for devastating critique, but isn't a daily version a little hackneyed by now? To any Daily Show fans: Haven't you discovered an ability to predict the laughs? Not that I think "The Daily Show" audience is dumb, just a little uninspired. They've given Stewart the gravitas he's always denied possessing, and gaze at him in reverence. Here's a sugges- tion: If you want witty take-downs of unscrupulous figures, read Jack Lessenberry's columns. If you want pithy satires scant on content, take a gander at Newsweek's cartoon sec- tion. But Jon Stewart goes long on form without corresponding sub- stance. Call me an asshole, call me a dilettante - at least I'm a gadfly, which is more than Stewart can say peddling a show soft on material to an apathetic audience. Martina can be reached at rmartina@umich.edu. s; z17 wt ~ L- 7ck~k/ /'EIZZZ! Editorial Board Members: Reggie Brown, Kevin Bunkley, Amanda Burns, Sam Butler, Ben Caleca, Devika Daga, Milly Dick, James David Dickson, Jesse Forester, Gary Graca, Jared Goldberg, Rafi Martina, Toby Mitchell, Rajiv Prabhakar, David Russell, Katherine Seid, John Stiglich, Rachel Wagner. JOHN OQUIST Lrv -N Y N IFEE1 Ao i o6 QQIOK 4W's # AL M Al~l ,, G. Myr a.'yo w ,uL, o- v, s 4t nvc IV mods. bm bo S S0 +7515:p wt It- . AV.