6
4A - Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
.d'-_.. v i V _ A
C 4tMicliganDail
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
MICHELLE DEWITT
STEPHANIE STEINBERG and EMILY ORLEY NICK SPAR
EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS MANAGING EDITOR
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Imran Syed is the public editor. He can be reached at publiceditor@michigandaily.com.
FROM THEf DAILY
More than entertainment
Students should pay attention to tonight's debate
Michigan's electoral votes have not been cast for a Republi-
can presidential candidate since 1988 when former Presi-
dent George Bush won the election. But the Michigan
Republican Party will play host to the slew of candidates hoping to
receive the GOP's presidential nomination in a debate tonight at Oak-
land University in Rochester. The debate will be the ninth of this pri-
mary season, and many people are, understandably, beginning to lose
interest in a race that often seems more like primetime entertainment
than politics. But Michigan residents, including students, should pay
attention to tonight's debate and seriously consider and discuss the
ideas of the presidential hopefuls.
The GOP debate will commence tonight at with each other and give meaningful answers
8 p.m. and air on CNBC. Tonight's debate will to the questions.
feature Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, While the style and content of these
Herman Cain, former Georgia Rep. Newt Gin- debates could be improved, it is also the
grich, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Texas responsibility of eligible voters to watch
Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former them with a critical eye. Young voters are
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former too often characterized as apathetic toward
Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. The dis- politics, and a debate not far from the Univer-
cussion will focus on jobs, taxes, the budget sity is an opportunity for students to become
deficit and the economy. active listeners and show they are seriously
While in Michigan, the candidates should invested in the nation's future.
focus on issues pertaining to the state. Michi- The debates are not just for conservative
gan has been hit hard by the economic down- candidates to pander to their base. They are an
turn and represents the struggle many states opportunity for Democrats and moderates to
face across the nation. If Republicans want engage with the opposition. People from other
to connect with Michigan citizens, they need parties should challenge the candidates to pro-
to speak to the obstacles facing the state and vide meaningful responses and well-thought
offer solutions. criticisms of the current administration. Forc-
The Republican debates are attracting a ing the candidates to face tough questions is a
large number of viewers, but not for the right crucial part of the election process.
reasons. Romney and Perry have spent more Students should watch the debate and
time bickering with each other than giving think seriously about what they hear, and the
Americans agood reason to believe that either candidates need to seize the opportunity to
of them could be a successful president. The engage in meaningful discussions. The Oak-
debates have received more attention because land University debate will bring necessary
of their shock value, and a nation that is facing national attention to the struggles of Michi-
serious unemployment and economic hard- gan residents, and the candidates should focus
ship deserves better than bickering for rat- on these issues rather than let petty disputes
ings. The candidates need to stop squabbling dominate the evening.
JUSTIN JALL I
U can do more to cut tuition
6
Prioritize political reform
Dr. Joe Schwarz will tell you
that he's part of a coalition
of conservatives who no lon-
ger feel they are
part of a political
party. Schwarz,
a Battle Creek
resident, served
in the Michi-
gan Senate from '
1987-2002 and
the U.S. House
of Representa- JEREMY
tives in 2005 LEVY
and 2006. I'm
a student in his
undergraduate policy class - called
Congress and State Legislatures -
and if there's one take-away message
from the course, it's that the current
state of gridlock and partisanship in
Washington is not tenable.
Undoubtedly, you've already
heard this prescription for our coun-
try'swoes. Butwecanall learnsome-
thingnew from a man who served so
long - not to mention a man who lost
his seat after sticking to his values in
a competitive primary.
For perspective on the issue,
Schwarz will first point you toward
Congressman John Dingle, the Dem-
ocratic representative of Michigan's
15th district (which includes Ann
Arbor). Dingle is the longest serving
member of the House, havingserved
since 1955, and often speaks of a time
when Democrats and Republicans
were actually cordial to one another.
In fact, members of opposing parties
used to form friendships and dis-
cuss issues over drinks. To our gen-
eration, such an image is completely
foreign.
When asked why these relation-
ships are no longer socially accept-
able, my initial answer was that the
two parties have grown further and
further apart ideologically in the
past three decades. Congressmen
Dingle and Schwarz point to some-
thing more fundamental. Most rep-
resentatives no longer live in D.C.
- the rent is absurd, and every week-
end, they are under enormous politi-
cal pressure to spend as much time
in their home districts as possible. In
the past, representatives often spent
weekends collaborating across par-
ties on important issues. Now, mem-
bers of the two parties hardly know
anything about each other. And it's
much easier to smear someone you
don't know personally.
Schwarz won't hesitate to tell you
that the extremism is worse on the
Republican side than on the Demo-
cratic side. But here is a point where
I think lots of liberals falter. Every
time we talk to each other about the
most recent shenanigans of Repub-
lican Texas Gov. Rick Perry or Min-
nesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, it
leads us to the conclusion that grid-
lock is the Republicans' fault, which
it's not (completely). It's a systematic
problem. Keep in mind that when
Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan rolled out
his plan for Medicare Reform, the
Democrats used many of the same
strategies that Republicans used
to fight President Barack Obama's
Health Care Bill.
While we can't revert to 1955
political conditions, there are many
fundamental changes that can make
the political system more responsive
to the public. Imagine what politics
would look like with all the following
changes: Candidates could not start
campaigning or fundraising for elec-
tions earlier than a year prior to the
date of the election, states held open
primaries instead of party primaries,
interest groups were legitimately
restricted in the size of their contri-
butions and the use of gerrymander-
ing and filibusters was curtailed.
Popular support for many of these
proposals is strong. The problem is
that there are few mobilized efforts
to ensure that they actually happen.
Average citizens do not devote much
time to politics, and when they do,
they are more likely to devote it to
issues they feel strongly about rather
than something as dry as political
reform. I, for one, have spent much
more of my academic energy learn-
ing about poverty and labor markets
than political systems.
Few efforts
actually create
real change.
But I'm beginning to question this
approach because issue after issue,
the pattern is exactly the same. Poli-
cy analysts, both liberal and conser-
vative, make proposals. that many
third party observers would consid-
er reasonable.Yet, when those issues
are brought into a political realm
that favors extremism, the propos-
als don't stand a chance. There are
too many good policy proposals
that would be considered poisonous
under current conditions. We can-
not continue on the current path in
which policy outcomes are dictated
primarily by office holders' re-elec-
tion strategies.
So as individual citizens, what
do we do? There's no quick answer.
One option is to participate in local
organizations that are seeking to
change political discourse. Two
organizations to which Schwarz
introduced us include the Center
for Michigan - a nonprofit think
tank - and Michigan Campaign
Finance Network - a nonprofit
focused on the need for campaign
finance reform. More ideologically,
we may need to change our pri-
orities as voters. Whether you are
truly passionate about deficits, tax
reform, abortion laws or climate
change, it's time to care about polit-
ical reform. As politics stand now,
reasonable debate on any of the
above issues is non-existent.
-Jeremy Levy can be reached
at leremlev@umich.edu.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
AidaAli, Michelle DeWitt, Ashley Griesshammer, Nirbhay Jain, Patrick Maillet,
Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley, Teddy Papes, Timothy Rabb,
Vanessa Rychlinski, Caroline Syms, Seth Soderborg, Andrew Weiner
JEFF LIU AND STEVE SU
Don't support Dream Nite Club
Earlier this year, the University's Board
of Regents called for a 6.7-percent tuition
increase for in-state undergraduate students,
citing Lansing's $47.5 million cut in funding to
the University. Of course, it's only fairto accept
these "necessary" tuition hikes because you,
the poor, debt-ridden college student, are sup-
posed to accept your role as the sole victim of
evil Republican Gov. Rick Snyder's war on pub-
lic education.
Yet, as Michigan students tighten their pock-
etbooks and take on record levels of debt to pay
for their education, the University is actually
getting richer - a lot richer. In fact, while your
education continues to get more expensive, the
University's endowment has grown a whop-
ping 18 percent from last year alone. Despite
what you are being told, the University's cof-
fers have never been more full. The endow-
ment now stands at a whopping $7.8 billion - a
several billion-dollar increase from when I was
a freshman in college in the fall of 2006.
If you're like me and find yourself wonder-
ing why the University isn't using all of those
billions of dollars to help cut the cost of your
tuition, then you may (or may not) take solace
in a response provided by the FAQ section of
the University's website:
"About 20 percent of the total is restricted
to direct student financial aid. Other endowed
funds have an indirect effect on tuition as
well... used to pay for faculty, academic sup-
port, research and building maintenance, so
that tuition increases are not required to cover
the full cost of faculty salary increases."
Twenty percent of the endowment is
restricted for student financial aid? Let's do
some math: 20 percent of $7.8 billion is $1.56
billion. If you divide that figure by the 42,000
graduate and undergraduate students cur-
rently enrolled, you will have given each stu-
dent $37,142 of financial aid. Sure, that figure
implies that the University will have to blow 20
percent of its endowment on its current student
population, but a lot of students don't qualify
for financial aid from the University or receive
aid from outside sources unrelated to the Uni-
versity.
So, where is this money really going? And,
when you factor in all that endowment money
the University is purportedly spending on its
students with the assertion that much of the
endowment is being used to offset other costs
that supposedly help keep the price of your
education down, then what's with the tuition
hikes?
Surely all that money is being spent on
improving the quality of a Michigan educa-
tion, right? We must be spending Big House-
sized loads of money in order to build upon the
value of a Michigan degree and increase our
competitiveness. You're getting the best public
education money can buy, right? Not exactly.
Accordingto U.S. News and World Report, the
most venerated authority on college rankings
in the United States, the relative quality of an
undergraduate education at the University has
decreased: The University went from being
ranked 24th in 2006 to 29th in 2010. During
that period, tuition had gone up approximately
15 percent (adjusted for inflation) for unde-
clared, undergraduate freshmen.
Furthermore, if you compare the University
to other top-ranked public undergraduate pro-
grams such as the University of Virginia, the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
University of California, Berkeley and Univer-
sity of California, Los Angeles, we have the
highestexpected tuition per student (excluding
financial aid). Their endowments? A fraction
of ours, excluding UVA's $5.2 billion, none of
the schools mentioned have endowments that
crack $3 billion.
The fact of the matter is that annual tuition
hikes shouldn't be the norm at expensive uni-
versities that sit on growing multibillion dollar
endowments and aren't doing much to improve
the relative quality of the education they offer.
Eastern Michigan University (yes, that Eastern
Michigan University) was able to completely
halt increases in fees, room and board and
tuition last year for its 23,000 students, despite
the fact that they, like us, also received a sig-
nificant funding cut from Lansing. In case you
were wondering, EMU was able to do this with
receiving substantially less tuition per student
and a $39 million (with an "m") endowment.
Unfortunately, the Board of Regents isn't
interested in using a fraction of our growing
endowment to ensure that the cost of your edu-
cation never outpaces inflation. The University
has shown it is more concerned with raking
in as much money as possible by making pub-
lit education as unaffordable as possible - all
while crying poor duringtimes of record finan-
cial growth.
Justin Jalil is a University alum.
Today marks the third anniversary of a blatant act
of discrimination in Ann Arbor. On Nov. 8, 2008, the
Chinese Student Association and Filipino American
Student Association hosted a club night at Studio 4 to
celebrate the organizations' events that weekend. The
student organizations had negotiated a contract with
the club's management to divide the night's cover: 50
percent going to Studio 4, and 50 percent to be split
between CSA and FASA.
Earlier that afternoon, CSA president Steve Lai dis-
covered the club was promoting another event that
evening. Lai called the club to confirm that this would
not impact their agreement. Reese Mangray, son of club
owner Jeff Mangray, told Lai that the cross promotion
would not affect their contract. Assured, the students
went through with their club night at Studio 4.
At the end of the night, Lai and FASA president Ash-
ley Manzano approached Mangray to collect their share
of the cover. Jeff, however, refused to pay Lai and Man-
zano the amount agreed upon in the contract. Instead,
he insisted he would only pay for the "SO Asians" there
that night, who he had tallied on his clipboard. Lai and
Manzano explained that not only did they bring non-
Asian friends to the event, but the contract stated that
the organizations were to receive 50 percent of the
entire cover, not just 50 percent of the Asians' cover.
Mangray countered that he believed many of the attend-
ees were there for the cross-promoted event. Despite
Lai and Manzano's repeated explanations, Mangray
refused to honor the contract and ejected the remain-
ing students from the club. Outside, the confrontation
escalated; Reese launched into a verbal tirade, spitting at
some of the female students and callingthem "skank ass
whores." The students chose to leave peacefully to avoid
an altercation.
Later that night, the younger Mangray called Lai,
threatening not only to shut down the student organiza--
tions, but also to find Steve and "settle this tonight." Lai
refused to respond to his comments and said they would
talk after things had calmed down. The following morn-
ing, Lai received a call from Jeff Mangray, who still only
wanted to pay for the "50 Asians" that he had tallied.
Eventually, Jeff Mangray agreed to pay the full amount,
but by then, Lai, Manzano and the Asian American orga-
nizations on campus were too offended and outraged to
accept any money from Studio 4.
Following the incident, CSA and FASA approached
the United Asian American Organizations, a coalition
of many Asian American organizations on campus,
to organize a formal response against Studio 4. The
response included a campus-wide boycott that was
supported by the Michigan Student Assembly, which
passed a resolution to refuse funding for events held at
Studio 4 and launched an investigation of the incident.
UAAO also worked with the Office of Student Con-
flict Resolution to mediate negotiations with Studio 4.
The club management, however, ignored requests to
engage in mediation. Since the incident, Studio 4 has
not offered any apology for its unprofessional and dis-
criminatory behavior that night.
Unsurprisingly, Studio 4's history contains a pleth-
ora of other incidents and complaints. On June 3, 2010,
Studio 4 was finally closed after the city of Ann Arbor
filed a lawsuit against the club, declaring it a "public
nuisance" to the city. A day earlier, police arrested three
people after a fight involving at least one suspect with a
handgun. The city also cited numerous liquor violations
and unpaid taxes in its suit. After two years of numerous
incidents with the police, this dangerous and noisome
landmark was shut down at last.
This is where you would expect the story to end. A
dangerous club with shady owners had finally been
brought to justice. Unfortunately, it wasn't meant to
be. The Mangrays ended up re-opening the club under
a different moniker: Dream. On Sept. 3, 2010, a mere
three months after the closing of Studio 4, Dream Nite
Club was open for business. What has since followed
is more of the same. On June 2, 2011, the city of Ann
Arbor filed yet another lawsuit against Dream. In the
suit, the city cites a fight where three people were
stabbed and another in which a man was shot, among
other grievances. Dream was again closed for a few
weeks but has since reopened.
We wrote this viewpoint because we fear that the
campus community suffers from a four-year short-term
memory. The current seniors are the only students who
were around when this incident occurred. We want to
ensure that even after they graduate, the campus contin-
ues to be informed of this bias incident and continues to
fight against discriminatory practices. If your organiza-
tion is planning a club night, please think twice before
hosting it at Dream. By hosting or attending an event at
Dream, you are implicitly supporting a business that has
no qualms with disrespecting its patrons and dishon-
oring its contracts. We hope that the next time Dream
is closed down, it will be for good. We also hope that
nobody else is racially profiled, verbally abused, spat on,
stabbed or shot in order for this to happen.
Jeff Liu& Steve Su are Engineering
seniors. They are writing on behalf of the
United Asian American Organizations.
FOLLOW DAILY OPINION ON TWITTER
Keep up with columnists, read Daily editorials, view cartoons and join in the debate. 0
Check out @michdailyoped
to get updates on Daily opinion content throughout the day.
A IP
A
'A'