Opinion

JENNIFER CALFAS

EDITOR IN CHIEF

AARICA MARSH 

and DEREK WOLFE 

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

LEV FACHER

MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 

the University of Michigan since 1890.

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.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A —Monday, January 12, 2015

P

resumably (depending on 
one’s year of graduation) 
we 
have 

been graded for 
the past 15 years 
of 
our 
lives. 

Whether it’s an S for Satisfactory, 
a 4.0 for perfection or a B+ for you 
almost made it, most students have 
had an arbitrary numbering system 
attached to their name for as long 
as they can remember.

Upon my recent conclusion of 

undergraduate courses, I am unde-
niably reflecting on my time as a 
student. An adviser asked me the 
other day how it feels to be done. I 
said it felt good, but I wasn’t exactly 
sure why … I love learning, I love 
the University, I love my profes-
sors, my peers, Ann Arbor, etc. So 
again, why does it feel so good “to 
be done”? I thought for a moment 
and said, “It is liberating to not be 
graded for my work for, what feels 
like, the first time in my life.”

We are innately social creatures, 

we attempt to be well-rounded, 
and we strive for excellence, to be 
healthy and physically fit and to 
maintain close relationships with 
others, while also miraculously 
obtaining a 4.0. If the pursuits that 
I listed above are truly the essence 
of life, then this 4.0 pressure is 
not feasible and only marginal-
izes what one considers important 
about our existence.

Mentors often tell us grades 

cannot possibly calculate one’s 
improvement or a student’s knowl-
edge — yet their existence persists, 
and not only that, but grades con-
tinue to be a predominant factor 
in being admitted to most forms 
of collegiate education. If grades 
supposedly 
“don’t 
matter 
that 

much,” then why is it still the form 
in which we are reviewed? No one 
wants to be the student who craves 
the A- instead of the B+ or the B 
instead of the C, but we are living 
in a culture that grooms students 
to be grade grubbers. Professors 
similarly dislike this neediness for 
higher grades and often choose to 
stick to a bell curve. If grades don’t 
truly matter, then why not give 
the student an A or just a big P for 
pass? Perhaps it’s because there is 
a similar pressure from public uni-
versities to not inflate grades or for 
professors to appear tough. What-
ever the reason, the pressure comes 
from all angles.

It is not my point to direct fingers 

at a particular branch of education, 
but rather to show the vicious cycle 
and the paradox in which students 
are trapped. Maybe it’s not the fault 
of the students, professors or even 
universities as a whole, but more-
over the symbol of what education 
has grown to mean and the ideas 
that it perpetuates that underlie the 
real problem.

Perhaps I am suggesting abolish-

ing standardized testing or a refor-

mation of our system of grading, but 
what really must occur is a change in 
the system of education as a whole. 
In Ken Robinson’s video, “Chang-
ing Education Paradigms,” the nar-
rator discusses how the foundation 
of education began in a time when 
women didn’t have rights and slav-
ery existed. It is ignorant to think 
that the ideologies and structures 
that were created back then should 
be maintained nearly 400 years 
later, when we have progressed way 
beyond these confines. Robinson 
states, “The problem is they are try-
ing to meet the future by doing what 
they did in the past.”

Yes, this argument has been pre-

sented before, but it’s still difficult to 
find the change. In order to create a 
learning community where we prac-
tice what we preach, a huge shift in 
the paradigm of education is hope-
fully on the rise. If nothing more, at 
least for the time being, it is helpful 
to recognize the paradox and pres-
sure students face. As much as one 
can, we can individually attempt to 
live outside of the paradox: learn 
in classes, work hard and hopefully 
the arbitrary letter will follow in the 
right direction. And, if not, remem-
ber that this grade is flat, it has no 
breath, no heartbeat, no laughter, no 
passion and in no way can reflect the 
complexity of a person.

 —Dani Vignos can be reached 

at dvignos@umich.edu.

Going ungraded

Edvinas Berzanskis, Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Devin Eggert, David Harris, Rachel John, 

Jordyn Kay, Aarica Marsh, Victoria Noble, Michael Paul, Allison Raeck, Melissa Scholke, Michael 

Schramm, Matthew Seligman, Mary Kate Winn, Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

A

fter the results of the midterm elec-
tions poured in — a curt realization 
for the Democratic Party that the 

American people were all 
but 
impressed 
with 
the 

Democrats in office — Presi-
dent Barack Obama said on 
CBS’s “Face the Nation” that, 
“Whenever, as the head of 
the party, it doesn’t do well, 
I’ve got to take responsibility 
for it.”

Responsibility is what he’s 

been taking — issuing veto 
threats to Congress, restor-
ing diplomatic relations with 
Cuba, exercising his executive action power 
on immigration issues and reminding count-
less Americans in both red and blue states 
that the American economy is steadily and 
 

surely improving.

Last Thursday, Obama delivered a speech 

at the Ford Motor manufacturing plant in 
Wayne, Michigan. Behind the podium, where 
Obama delivered remarks, sat American-made 
Ford automobiles — red, silver and blue. On 
the left side of the podium, an American flag 
hung, stretched flatly and tightly, as if straight-
ened by a military bed-maker’s hand. Amidst 
the atmosphere created by an American auto 
plant cloaked in patriotic garb, it all felt very 
working-class American. This wasn’t surpris-
ing given the rhetoric Obama has consistently 
delivered while in office, one during his address 
in Michigan.

Obama’s speech commenced a three-day-

long trip to Michigan, Arizona and Tennessee 
— states that voted Republican for governor in 
the recent midterm elections. Given the new 
GOP Senate majority, Obama’s red-state stops 
were strategic reminders of the White House’s 
exploits since 2008. The three states on the 
agenda all exemplify initiatives taken in the 
economic, housing and education spheres. And 
further, on Jan. 9 in Knoxville, Tennessee, 
Obama announced a colossal initiative on the 
education front — America’s College Promise — 
making “two years of community college free 
to responsible students who are willing to work 
for it.” This promise mimics the Tennessee 
Promise, a similar pact for Tennessee residents, 
making Tennessee the spearheading force for 
free higher education.

In Michigan two days prior, amidst pipes 

and car parts, Obama discussed the revival of 
the American auto industry. In 2008, as report-
ed by the White House, the automobile indus-
try was “on the brink of collapse.” The same 
report, published June 2011, states that in 2009, 
“the president’s decision to save GM and Chrys-
ler was about more than those two companies. 
It was about standing by the countless workers, 
communities, and businesses — large and small 
— that depend on the automotive industry.”

Although Ford — the most secure of the 

Detroit three — was not among the companies 
that received a federal bailout, by aiding GM 
and Chrysler, America avoided a “cascading 
impact throughout the supply chain, causing 
failures and job loss on a larger scale.” Because 
of Ford’s tie to the same auto suppliers as GM 
and Chrysler, Obama’s decision to provide a 
bailout can in large part account for Ford’s 
 

current profitability.

When speaking to the people, plant work-

ers and apprentices-turned-professionals of 
Wayne, Obama manifested a tendency blatant 
even in speeches given during his first presi-
dential campaign: a deep appreciation and con-

cern for the middle class. “If we all do our part, 
if we all pitch in, then we can make sure that 
this rising tide is actually lifting all the boats, 
not just some,” Obama said. “We can make sure 
that the middle class is the engine that powers 
America’s prosperity for decades to come.”

After a very rough six years in office, Obama 

has turned a corner, taking a proactive stance in 
addressing his administration’s achievements 
and proposing new initiatives that have put lib-
erals on the edge of their seats. This stance is 
demonstrative of the fearless attitude seen in a 
younger, more optimistic Barack Obama — one 
that sparked a national movement toward the 
alluring concept of change.

But disappointment has become a national 

sentiment over the past six years, with Wash-
ington in gridlock and the Obama admin-
istration only grazing over issues with a 
moderate tone. I believe the new Republican 
Senate majority was almost welcomed in by 
some liberals, assuming that Senate majority 
leader Mitch McConnell sticks to his word to 
 

pass legislation.

As an advocate and lover of all things Obama, 

I’ve found myself defending his presidency for 
no other reason than that I see him as a moral 
person, a family man and a leader. I’ve clung 
to words shouted during his 2008 acceptance 
speech: “I will never forget who this victory 
truly belongs to. It belongs to you.”

But along the six-year road, the path that 

has lodged too many national and international 
crises to count, it began to feel like maybe the 
American people weren’t as victorious as we 
had once hoped we’d be.

However, once Obama began to announce 

shocking and almost radical new initiatives, 
such as restoring diplomatic relations with 
Cuba, I, along with the rest of the country’s 
Obama enthusiasts, were reminded of his will-
ingness and determination to change the free 
world. Obama’s speech in Michigan planted 
subtle hints at the administration’s victo-
ries — the federal bailout of the auto indus-
try is a big one — but I believe his words went 
 

beyond that.

He asserted that “this state proves that no 

matter how tough times get, Americans are 
tougher.” And what I believe is embedded 
within that statement is that no matter how 
tough times get in America, the Obama admin-
istration is tougher. Toughness is what he’s 
demonstrating in response to the GOP Senate 
majority. Action is what he’s proposing for the 
last two years of his presidency. Consistency 
is what he’s preaching when he comments 
on the middle class and its importance to our 
 

great nation.

Obama’s rhetoric, now reformed to become 

fiercely operative, is at the forefront an oration 
delivered to members of the middle class. His 
new policies and intentions aren’t uber liberal, 
and they aren’t on the brink of socialist either. 
They’re intended to fuel economic, personal 
and professional growth among the majority 
of Americans. Twice during his speech at the 
Michigan Assembly Plant, Obama noted that 
no matter what, we should never become com-
placent. Complacency is the touch of death to 
progress. Americans are resilient, and Obama, 
an American, is resilient. Given his consistent 
concern for those who need help coupled with 
a new drive to enact change, I will leave with 
words that probably put a fire in your belly back 
in 2008: Yes we can.

— Abby Taskier can be reached 

at ataskier@umich.edu.

ABBY 
TASKIER

More than a high-five

President Barack Obama stopped 

in Wayne, Michigan on Jan. 7 for 
his first speech in a three-day tour 
leading up to his State of the Union 
address. Held at a Ford Assembly 
plant, his speech highlighted the suc-
cess of his administration’s bailout of 
the auto industry in 2009. Michigan 
Republican Party Chairman Bobby 
Schostak, however, called the presi-
dent’s tour “another opportunity he’s 
taking to run all over the country and 
high-five himself.” Schostak contin-
ues to insist that the auto bailout was 
unnecessary, stating that there were 
 

“other options.”

Obama’s speech was more than 

just Obama high-fiving himself. It 
was ultimately a celebration of the 
middle class, the auto industry and 
Detroit. Obama did, however, high-
light the success of the auto bailout. 
The auto bailout used $80 billion 
of taxpayer money and, as Obama 
noted, as of last month “the auto 
companies have now repaid taxpay-
ers every dime and more of what 
(his) administration invested.” Being 
transparent about the use of taxpay-
er money was, in this case, inher-
ently self-congratulatory, but that 
doesn’t make it unnecessary. For a 
move that was so unpopular, it would 
be foolish not to point out its success. 
The president stuck his neck out 
for the auto industry, and showing 
America that he did the right thing is 
 

hardly deplorable.

The focus of the speech, however, 

was not the Obama administration. 
The emphasis quickly shifted back 
to the people who took the oppor-
tunity to save a newly revitalized 
auto industry that was given to them 
and ultimately made it successful. 
Obama made it clear that it was the 
workers he was addressing, and 
their counterparts at other plants 
throughout America, who made the 
bailout successful. To the workers, 
Obama declared, “because of you, 
manufacturing has a future in this 
country.” Repeatedly, he stressed 
that it was the autoworkers who 
saved America’s last bastion of man-
ufacturing. It was the people work-
ing in both management and labor 
throughout the auto industry who 
took the money from the bailout and 
turned the auto industry around, 
helping the economy to recover. Its 
success wouldn’t have been possible 
without the hard work and sacrifice 
of the autoworkers.

The fact that the speech was 

delivered at a Ford plant to Ford 
employees speaks to the necessity of 
the auto bailout. Ford never received 
funding from the bailout, so why 
would Obama go there to comment 
on its success? The bailout saved 
more than just General Motors and 
Chrysler. It saved an entire industry 
that would have fallen apart if GM 
and Chrysler had failed. Schostak 
used the fact that Ford was able to 
restructure on its own without gov-
ernment financing as proof that the 

bailout was unnecessary, but the 
Ford employees cheered for Obama 
when he spoke about the success of 
the bailout because they understand 
the basic economic structure of the 
auto industry better than Schostak. 
They know that Ford could not have 
simply restructured and become as 
successful as it is today if GM and 
Chrysler had failed. Should GM 
and Chrysler have failed, auto sup-
pliers could not have survived, and 
Ford would have suffered as a con-
sequence. The livelihoods of those 
employed by the Big Three and their 
suppliers depended on this bailout.

For Schostak to continue to 

deny the necessity and success of 
the auto bailout as the chairman 
of the Michigan Republican Party 
is pig-headed and misrepresents 
Republicans across Metro Detroit 
whose jobs were saved in the bail-
out. Furthermore, in his rush to be 
against anything and everything 
Obama-related, 
Schostak 
prema-

turely wrote off Obama’s speech as 
a mere self-congratulations, when 
it ended up being more about the 
triumphs of the auto industry, the 
middle class, Detroit and Michigan. 
After all, I think few Michiganders 
would disagree with Obama when 
he said, “this state proves no mat-
ter how tough times get, Americans 
 

are tougher.”

Mary Kate Winn is an Assistant 

Editorial Page Editor..

In defense of President Schlissel

Michigan Daily columnist Carly Manes 

wrote a bizarre and unfair criticism of Uni-
versity President Mark Schlissel in an article 
published January 6. As someone who has 
been impressed with Schlissel, I felt com-
pelled to respond. The strange assertions 
began early in the piece, when Manes wrote, 
“Based on his background in higher educa-
tion, his visible identities and his expressed 
intent in taking the most highly esteemed 
position at this university, I didn’t see what 
he could bring to a campus such as ours.” 
What does this even mean? His background 
in higher education (professor at Johns Hop-
kins, dean at University of California, Berke-
ley, provost at Brown) left him unqualified 
to be Michigan president? Would Manes 
have preferred a politician? His “expressed 
intent” to take the job? Did we want some-
one who accidentally took the job? Any fair-
minded observer has to conclude Schlissel’s 
experience makes him eminently qualified to 
lead the University, so Manes’ initial doubts 
are confusing and unfortunately not made 
explicit enough to take seriously.

Manes 
criticizes 
Schlissel’s 
handling 

of sexual assault because he objected to a 

framing of requests by an anonymous group 
of students as “demands,” which, he said, 
“makes it really difficult to have discussions.” 
Schlissel’s comment “dismisses and silences 
students’ feelings and experiences,” Manes 
wrote. “While Schlissel didn’t have to agree 
with any of the demands, he needed to affirm 
the feelings of those who wrote them, not 
mock his students.” I’d agree — if that was 
all he had to say on the topic. Had the author 
bothered to watch Schlissel’s interview in 
which he made those comments, posted on 
the Daily’s website, she would have also 
heard him say, “I’m impressed by people that 
develop this passion … to take the time and 
show up in public and talk about something 
they care about a lot. The kinds of things that 
the students who were discussing their feel-
ings about sexual assault and the way the 
University handles this were all reasonable 
things to think about and discuss.” The Uni-
versity needs the help of the student body to 
fix its poor approach to sexual assault; Schlis-
sel is welcoming a discussion on this issue 
much more openly than his predecessor’s 
administration did.

Her final grievance against Schlissel is 

Back to his roots

DANI
VIGNOS

MARY KATE WINN | VIEWPOINT

that, in meetings with students, 
“not once (has he), or anyone on 
his behalf, (taken) a single note on 
the ‘student feedback and input’ 
that was requested.” “Inexcusable,” 
she writes. Really? Given Schlis-
sel was able to recall several of the 
previously 
referenced 
demands 

specifically (seriously, watch the 
interview, he knew them all off 
the top of his head), we know he is 
absorbing what students tell him. 
And the lack of note-taking would 
be a small-time offense by Schlis-
sel — if it were true. As one recent 
fireside chat attendee told me, 
“he wrote his notes on the back of 
his name tag to ensure he would 
remember what a student said to 
him.” Additionally, I am told there 
is normally someone taking notes 
on a computer for him during fire-
side chats and other meetings with 
groups of students.

Schlissel’s engagement with stu-

dents in his first six months has 
been impressive. The first meeting 
he held on the day he was intro-
duced as president-elect was with 
students (at his request). He has 
held open and frank fireside chats 
with students and meetings with 
student groups at a greater fre-
quency than his predecessor. He 
has been visible in the student 
community, even inviting students 
over to his house for Thanksgiving 
dinner. He responded profession-
ally but quickly to the scandal and 
student outrage brewing over the 
mismanagement of Michigan Ath-
letics. Schlissel installed an interim 
Athletic Director who has already 
taken great steps to reform the cul-
ture of the Athletic Department. 
Schlissel is working with students 
on new efforts to promote diversity 
and sustainability on campus.

Six months is not nearly enough 

time to judge Schlissel’s tenure as 
President, and he is bound to hit a 
few speed bumps as he acquaints 
himself with the University. But 
his leadership has, so far, been a 
breath of fresh air for the Universi-
ty. I hope students continue to raise 
issues to Schlissel (hopefully more 
serious issues than “take notes”) 
and that he continues to engage 
with students. If he is the president 
I think he is, the student voice at the 
University will enjoy a bigger seat 
at the table than it has in a while. 
And Schlissel could become one of 
the most transformative presidents 
in our University’s history because 
of it.

Michael Proppe is a graduate 

student in the School of Business 

and former president of Central 

Student Government.

MICHAEL PROPPE | VIEWPOINT

ARE YOU YEARNING FOR CONVERSATION WITH INTENSE POLITICAL ANALYSIS? 
HAS RICK’S BEEN A DISAPPOINTMENT? IS SKEEPS NOT PROVIDING YOU WITH 
TANTALIZING CONVERSATION? DON’T WANT TO GET YOUR FAKE ID TAKEN?

 

Check out The Michigan Daily’s editorial board meetings. Every Monday and Thursday at 
6 p.m., the Daily’s opinion staff meets to discuss both University and national affairs and 

write editorials. Also, you might meet the love of your life. But probably not. 

E-mail opinioneditors@michigandaily.com to join in the debate. 

