4 - Friday, February 10, 2012 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 MaynardSt. f Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com ASHLEY GRIESSHAMMER JOSEPH LICHTERMAN and ANDREW WEINER JOSH HEALY 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. It's raining now Snyder's budget doesn't give enough to higher ed. In his State of the State address last month, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder spoke of Michigan's unacceptable 17 percent college read- iness rate among students - nowhere near his 100 percent goal. Unfortunately, Snyder's apparent dedication to higher education car- ries little weight in light of his administration's actions. Last year, the state cut an unprecedented 15 percent in funding to higher education - totaling a nearly 30-percent reduction over the last decade. This move prompted tuition increases at public colleges statewide. Yesterday, the governor unveiled his 2013 and 2014 budget, including a 3.1-percent increase in higher education funding. While Snyder's renewed invest- ment in higher education was well intentioned, the modest increase is only a drop in a bucket he already poured out. [The settlement will] begin to turn the page on an era of recklessness that has left so much damage in its wake." - President Barack Obama said during a speech yesterday about the $26 billion settlement between the federal government and five major banks over faulty mortage practices. Fairy representig miorities The budget calls for 60 percent of Michi- gan residents to have a "degree or credential by 2025." The 3-percent reinvestment is sim- ply not enough to achieve Snyder's lofty goal. A competitive education system cannot be sustained or continue to develop without the state's support. The proposed budget allocates $36.2 million more to higher education from last year. The University of Michigan, along with Michigan State University, will only receive 1.4-percent increases. The aid will be distributed based on a four-criteria formula: growth in degree com- pletion, the number of degrees in "critical skills areas," the number of Pell Grant recipients and a curbing oftuition increases. The burden of increasing higher education accessibility does not fall solely on the state. The measures the budget outlines are impor- tant factors institutions should be thinking about. The University has shown leadership in efficiency by working to cut millions from its budget each year. All colleges must seri- ously evaluate how to restrain tuition increases while providing an excellent education. The state doesn't have the power to force changes upon colleges, so it's instead using aid as an incentive. Snyder's sentiment is strange - if colleges fail to meet Snyder's goals, decreased funding would further tie their hands and potentially exacerbate problems. Tying the distribution of aid to "the num- ber of undergraduate completions in critical skill areas" is specifically troubling. These preferred degrees are all math, science and - health related. Obviously, continued excellence in these fields is vital for a variety of reasons. The lan- guage - along with Snyder's entire attitude toward higher education - seems to forget the worth of all types of education. Pushing fund- ing at specific programs in order to keep up with state regulations would detract from the University's mission. It would be wrong to sys- tematically devalue learning that doesn't result in immediate financial returns. Michigan's entire education system is hurting and appropriately investing in it will to secure a brighter future. The state govern- ment could raise revenue to offset education spending by raising taxes on the wealthy or looking closely at Michigan's inflated incar- ceration budget. The administration uses the budget to tout the $385 million they've put away in Michi- gan's rainy day jar - the Budget Stabilization Fund - in the past two years for future crises. Governor Snyder: It's raining now. As I sat in a packed room on Wednesday listening to the University's leading administrators, I felt frustration mounting in the crowd. We had gath- ered for a town hall meeting on underrepresent- ed minority stu- YONAH dent recruitment efforts. Nearly LIEBERM every seat in the room was filled. Not surprisingly, the crowd itself was very diverse. What does this tell us about the issue? Minority and white students deeply care about the utter lack of diversity on this campus and want to be heard. There are very few events like this one that compel top admin- istrators to be held accountable to the students they serve. Unfortunately, my peers and I were disappointed in the adminis- trators. During the first half of the meet- ing, the administrators praised the far-reaching recruitment and out- reach programs that the University has put into place. They discussed pipelines and summer programs, taskforces and centers. To their credit, they hit all the right points. As the mic was passed from hand to hand, each speaker spoke to the importance of diver- sity ina learning environment. They praised the University's history as a diverse institution of learning, and, well, you get the point. However, a quick look around campus reveals that these programs can't be called successful. Either there aren't enough of them - which is doubtful, since each speaker listed off multiple programs - or these programs aren't reaching their full potential. Nationwide, 16.3 percent of peo- ple are Latino/a but that number is only 4.3 percent on campus. In 2006, 7.3 percent of students were black, but today, while 14.2 percent of the state of Michigan is black, only a meager 4.4 percent of the University's population is black. This is a clear demonstration of the drastic drop in underrepresented minority enrollment. It's true that the drop can partially be explained as a result of Proposi- tion 2. Passed in 2006, Prop 2 banned affirmative action at publicly funded institutions, including public uni- versities in Michigan. But, instead of being creative in the face of this challenge, administrators are simply usingit as an excuse. During their opening remarks, not a single administrator owned up to the fact that the University is not as diverse as it should be. They were too busy saving face to talk about the issues at hand. Pamela Fowler, executive direc- tor of the University's Office of Financial Aid, said she believed the University has the best institu- tional infrastructure for diversity recruitment in the country. Clearly, there's a disconnect here. If our infrastructure is so strong, where is the on-campus diversity that should come with it? Only when pushed by the audience did the administrators finally recog- nize that something was lacking. One student noted that the number of black males on campus has dropped from the 600s to the 400s in just a few years. Ted Spencer, associate vice provost and executive director of Undergraduate Admissions, first chose to blame a national trend; ask- ing, "Where have all the black males gone?" John Matlock, associate vice provost and director of the Universi- ty's Office of Academic Multicultural Initiatives, came to his aid, introduc- ing further doubt by positing that the trend involved males of all races. Then, at last, Spencer said, the pipe- lines and programs are "not where we want them to be." No kidding. Another question came from a member of the Coalition for Tuition Equality. This growing coalition is made up of more than a dozen leading progressive student organizations on campus and fights, for in-state tuition for undocumented students in Michigan. The student asked the administrators if they supported the coalition's goal and what they could do to help accomplish it. 'U' officials must work to increase diversity. Notably, all of the administrators said they supported the idea. Allow- ' ing undocumented students from Michigan to pay in-state tuition - as they do at Western Michigan Uni- versity and at institutions in 11 other states - would immediately increase racial, ethnic and socio-economic diversity on campus. But, just as the supportive words came out of their mouths, the admin- istrators lamented that they could do nothing, giving the excuse that it's a procedure derived from national policies. On the contrary - this is an issue that can be easily addressed by our regents. After the 90-minute town hall meeting, it was clear to me that the administrators have their hearts in the right place, but are unwilling to put themselves on the line. In the final minutes, Matlocksaid, "Things tend to move when students force the issue." I reject this notion. Students should not have to organize on campus for administrators to do their job. But until they do, we need to stand up now to demand our diver- sity before it's too late. I urge all of you to force the issue to the fore- front of the University. - Yonah Lieberman can be reached at yonahl@umich.edu. Follow him on Twitter at @YonahLieberman. 0 0 0 EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Aida Ali, Laura Argintar, Kaan Avdan, Ashley Griesshammer, Nirbhay Jain, Jesse Klein, Patrick Maillet, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Harsha Panduranga, Timothy Rabb, Adrienne Roberts, Vanessa Rychlinski, Sarah Skaluba, Seth Soderborg, Caroline Syms, Andrew Weiner SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@MICHIGANDAILY.COM Jennifer Dibbern's claims are factually inaccurate TO THE DAILY: My name is Eric Zech, and I'm a GSRA working in Engineering Prof. Rachel Gold- man's research group at the University. I am writing this letter in response to the current issue regarding Jennifer Dibbern and her claim that she was wrongfully terminated from her position as a GSRA based on union- ization efforts. I began working as a student for my Ph.D. in January 2011. I worked directly with Dibbern in the same research group and laboratory. For the first few months, Dibbern was actually the student responsible for training me on equip- ment.Having worked with her for the first eight months of my program, I can confidently attest to the following: 1. Goldman has never intimidated her students, especially regarding unionization efforts. 2. Dibbern demonstrated a lack of commit- ment to her research (logging far fewer than the 60 hours she claims and often not showing up to lab or failing to respond to e-mails for a week at a time). 3. Dibbern was involved in other activities beside the Graduate Employees Organization, including the University's Sexual Assault Pre- vention and Awareness Center. 4. Dibbern was unresponsive to e-mails Students must make classes more engaging, as well TO THE DAILY: I agree with Harsha Nahata's "Take Notes or Temple Run?" that educators often ask the wrong questions of students. But her column begs the question: are today's students ask- ing the wrong things of their teachers? Nahata is absolutely right that professors and GSIs have a duty to make content useful and relevant. Students, meanwhile, are faced from both me and Goldman, making a working relationship impossible. 5. Dibbern didn't consistently receive posi- tive feedback related to her research. She was repetitively encouraged to come in to the lab to work and missed multiple abstract submission deadlines (over a period of many months from March/April 2011 until the time Goldman was no longer acting as her supervisor in Septem- ber 2011). 6. Dibbern didn't achieve Ph.D. candidacy, even after being a student for more than four years. (Achieving Ph.D. candidacy typically takes two years.) 7. Dibbern received GSRA funding through December 2011, though she wasn't actively working in a lab during that time. 8. Dibbern's research award wasn't based on scientific merit, but rather aesthetic appeal, and the submitted image was only used in the department calendar. The allegations Ms. Dibbern is making against the University and Goldman are com- pletely false and should not be passed along as fact. It's wrong that she is making false claims and is gaining support from many people based on no factual evidence. I am writing this letter on my own accord to help inform you of the facts, because I believe in standing up for the truth. Thank you for tak- ing time to read this letter and I sincerely hope it helps shed truth on the situation. Eric Zech Graduate Student Research Assistant with a great many distractions. But, there is a shared burden of responsibility. Learning, to use her analogy, is sadly not entertainment; it cannot always be riveting; it's often tedious and, yes, requires a seriousness and diligence from students that's beyond the teacher's control. Ms. Nahata's question to teachers - why aren't you doing more? - sounds not a little self-satisfied and entitled. She and many of today's students would do well to ask it of themselves. Ethan L. Menchinger Rackham Graduate Studentt CONTRIBUTE TO THE COVERSATION Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and viewpoints. Letters should be fewer than 300 words while viewpoints should be 550-850 words. Both must include the writer's full name and University affiliation. Send submissions to tothedaily@michigandaily.com CAITLYN KNOERR | Perpetuating unfair stereotypes The most-watched televised sporting event in America is the Super Bowl. Known for being a Sunday that annu- ally celebrates watching one of the nation's favorite pas- times, this year's Super Bowl commercial entertainment publicized the ugly side of the nation's history: racism. During one of the locally televised commercial breaks, U.S. Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra aired a campaign ad that currently has the Asian American community in heated debate. The brash ad features a young Asian woman riding a bicycle through what seems to be a rice paddy field. She then speaks about Hoekstra's opponent, Senator Debbie "Spend-it-Now" Stabenow, and the} state of the economy. Controversy sparked over the actress's monologue - she speaks in completely broken English with phrases like "your economy get very weak, ours get very good." Worst is the portrayal of Asians in their typically stereotyped role as uneducated peasants who can't speak proper English. The sexualized Asian female doesn't make solid eye con- tact with the camera, but chooses to avert her gaze while smiling coyly. The dialogue of the ad also doesn't specify the nationality of the actress, nor which country Hoekstra believes is taking American jobs. The ad just says: "We take your jobs," with no notion of who constitutes "we," what jobs are taken or low this is being done. This grouping gives potential voters a central enemy to rally against. The commercial plays on adverse stereotypes of Asians speaking broken English, and stereotypical Chi- nese music contributes to the atmosphere of the ad. Hoekstra's campaign also put up a website that featured a plethora of stereotypical Asian imagery and furthers the negative picture Hoekstra tries to paint about the flow of jobs to Asia. Hoekstra's campaign has since taken down the website. The ad emphasizes differences between the perceived stereotypes of Asians and quintessential American life. The rice paddy scene highly contrasts with Hoekstra's ambiance during his'monologue, attempting to mirror a more refined fireside chat with voters. The contrast of a young, unrefined Asian woman with that of an ambitious American politician depicts various forms of racism, sex- ism and socioeconomic discrimination. Hoekstra is blatantly attempting to prey on the grow- ing fears of Asian economic dominance. In the state of Michigan, the Asian American community has also been deeply affected by the economic struggles and job losses of the recession. It's sad to see a politician use campaign tactics reminiscent of the McCarthy era to make a state- ment. The anti-Asian sentiment that Hoekstra sews is offensive and wrong. Hoekstra has refused to issue an apology for the ad, and has paid for it to run in Michigan for the next two weeks. He has taken the firestorm of criticism and con- tinues to defend himself against allegations of racism. In an interview with CNN on Monday, he stated, "I don't think there's any element of [racism] at all ... The only stereotyping is of liberal Democrats and their spending policies." But the majority of the discussion surrounding the ad focuses on its overtly racist sentiment, not on the policy Hoekstra is proposing. Regardless of the audience, the commercial is racially charged in its setting, message and tone. This viewpoint has been written with the intent of bringing attention to the importance of fighting racial stereotypes and their portrayal in the mass media. It's the mission of the United Asian American Organizations to work in unity against instances of racism, discrimination and prejudices. We encourage all students to notice the subtle racist messages in all publicized materials, espe- cially looking out for propaganda fromleading politicians during this election year. Regardless of political affilia- tion, it's unacceptable for a politician to run for public office by relying on racism and xenophobia. After all, we are a country made up of outsiders. Caitlyn Knoerr is an LSA sophomore writing on behalf of the United Asian American Organization. 0 0 0 I