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.