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.