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
4 — Tuesday, April 7, 2015
I
have spent this last semes-
ter sharing my experiences
of being an out-of-state stu-
dent.
But
just
how many of us
are there?
This year was
the first time in
15 years that a
majority of stu-
dents at the Uni-
versity were not
from
Michigan,
but just barely. Of
all the students
enrolled in gradu-
ate or undergrad-
uate programs at the University,
49.3 percent of students came from
Michigan. The other 50.7 percent
are a mixture of out-of-state and
foreign students.
Almost six percent of students
at the University are foreign stu-
dents from China. This is the high-
est represented region outside of
Michigan. The most highly repre-
sented state in the United States
is California, with 5.5 percent of
students hailing from the Golden
State. Another five percent are from
New York, followed by Illinois and
New Jersey as the next-most repre-
sented states.
So, there are tons of non-Mich-
iganders who call this place hoMe
for eight months of the year, and that
number has been steadily increasing
for the past decade. From 2000 to
2009, the number of in-state students
held at around 56 percent. When the
University switched to the Common
Application in 2009, the number of
out-of-staters jumped, causing the
in-state population to drop to 53.9
percent, and it has continued to
decrease since.
I find value in having a large
out-of-state population. I believe
that having out-of-state students is
important for any college campus.
In my opinion, college is supposed to
be about having new learning expe-
riences you could not have had in
your hometown and being exposed
to new and different people as well
as new and different ideas. College
is about breaking out of your bubble
and meeting people from differ-
ent backgrounds in order to learn
outside of a lecture hall. When I
made my decision to come the Uni-
versity, this was a huge factor in
that decision.
I wanted to live somewhere I had
never experienced, and I wanted to
interact with people who were dif-
ferent from the people I had spent
the past 18 years with. I wanted to
meet people from new places and,
because of the out-of-state popu-
lation, I have. From Michigan to
Georgia to Colorado to China, I
have interacted with and been
exposed to different lifestyles and
ideas.
Conversations
with
stu-
dents from different backgrounds
have required me to tweak some
of my own beliefs, but they have
also made me more assured of
other beliefs.
However, my reasons for appre-
ciating a large out-of-state popu-
lation may not be the same as the
University’s. As state funding for
many public schools started to
decline in the 2000s, many schools
have turned to high-tuition-paying
out-of-state students to make up for
this decline. A study showed that
a 10-percent decrease in in-state
monetary support correlated with
a 2.7-percent increase in out-of-
state enrollment. At public research
institutions like the University, the
increase jumped to 4.6 percent.
As an out-of-state student, I don’t
like the idea that I am being used for
my higher tuition costs. It makes
me question whether I would have
been admitted to the University if
I were an in-state student. Accord-
ing to the above data, my money
is going to make up for the lack of
state funding — going toward day-
to-day operations of the University
that used to be funded by the state.
I would hope that part of my higher
costs is going toward financial aid.
Giving the opportunity of educa-
tion, and hopefully the chance at
a better life, to a student of lesser
means is an extremely important
feature of our higher educational
system that I fully support. But the
idea that my higher costs are being
used for this purpose doesn’t seem
to be the case.
A study here at the University
showed that this increase in out-
of-state students is also associated
with a decline in low-income or
minority students who hypotheti-
cally would cost the University
money in financial aid.
A diverse student body comes in
many forms — not just from what
state you came from, but also a per-
son’s socioeconomic background.
I would hope that the University
would be able to create a student
body with both in order to give the
most qualified students, regardless
of paying ability, the best education
and college experience.
—Jesse Klein can be reached
at jekle@umich.edu.
Creating a diverse student body
JESSE
KLEIN
Women have been fighting for
equality for over a century, and
yet feminism is still controversial.
Women are still marginalized. Many
countries,
including
the
United
States, have roots in monotheistic
religions, which base their laws and
ruling concepts on religious texts
such as the Quran or the Bible. These
texts were written at a time at which
male-dominance over women was a
cultural norm.
There really is no reason for this
trend to still exist. We live in a world
where the value placed on brawn
has shifted to a value on brains.
The extra muscle won’t affect your
likeliness to survive anymore, nor
should it affect your salary — pro-
fessional athletes and lumberjacks
exempted. This shift to valuing our
thoughts and social abilities over
physical abilities should even the
playing field for women. Women
are equally capable of starting com-
panies, creating medical advance-
ments or running a country, but
the amount of opportunities to
do so, as well as the basic respect
women receive, is significantly less
than men. Whether subconsciously
or consciously, women are being
treated and taught that they are
less than and therefore, should be
subordinate to men. This thinking
lets men think they are entitled to
higher-ranking jobs, sex and power.
The disrespect and objectification
women face day-to-day is excessively
unequal to what men experience.
(Mind you, I’m not saying men do
not experience disrespect or objec-
tification, only that women experi-
ence this on a larger scale and more
often.) Just last year, a man by the
name of Elliot Rodger killed six
people and wounded 13 others to
seek revenge on women who had
“starved (him) of sex.” The shoot-
ing reminded women what they had
to fear for rejecting a man — a fear
that most men have never expe-
rienced when rejecting a woman.
Shortly following the shooting, the
hashtag #YesAllWomen erupted on
social media. Women all over the
world were coming forward with
their experiences of being hurt by
male entitlement. It was a powerful
movement and encouraged feminist
awareness and debates as a part of
social media culture.
I can rant about feminism and
why I think women are treated
unequally, but chances are those
who already agree will be the ones
raising their fists with me, and those
who already disagree will roll their
eyes and tune me out. Instead, I
would like to suggest that we begin
to think of the feminist cause in a
realistic manner, to allow for some
gray along with the black and white.
Many feminists wonder why they
face so much resistance. It would be
easy to chalk it all up to men not
wanting to give up their power, or
dismissing “feminists” as women
who simply hate men. While these
may be contributing factors, in my
experience, the primary objection
to feminism is that it tends to imply
that women’s rights violations are
more urgent than any other disre-
spect or human rights violation.
Feminists can make it sound like
disrespecting a woman is a larger
crime than disrespecting any man
or any other human, regardless of
race, gender or sexual identity.
Another critique used against
the feminist movement is the gen-
eralizations that occur so often.
This is the primary reason why
the #NotAllMen movement was so
popular. It gave men the voice to say
“I’m sorry you were disrespected by
a man, but it wasn’t my fault so this
isn’t my problem,” or “I did some-
thing nice for a woman once, so I’m
not disrespectful to women.” But
these generalizations that are so
strongly criticized by anti-feminist
movements are very difficult to
avoid. Just because a generaliza-
tion has an exception, these excep-
tions do not eliminate the validity
of the statement. Just because one
man always asks for consent before
having sex with a woman does not
mean that all men do, and does not
eliminate the fact that rape and
sexual assault against women are
far too common in our society.
As Nobel Peace Prize recipient
Jody Williams said, “When we rec-
ognize equality, we are recognizing
our common humanity.” Treating
women as sexual objects is just
that — treating them as objects or,
in other words, not as humans. That
should not be a cultural norm. Our
daughters should not have to feel
scared to be alone in a group of men;
they should not have to apologize
for voicing their opinions if dis-
agreeing with a man; they should
not be paid less for the same abili-
ties and the same amount of work.
These should also not be cultural
norms. I’m not going to pretend that
feminism is perfect, but feminism is
important.
Brenna Beltramo is an LSA junior.
BRENNA BELTRAMO | VIEWPOINT
Sugar, spice and some equality would be nice
FROM THE DAILY
O
n March 26, House Bill 4014, which calls for tying state
cash assistance benefits to student truancy rates, passed the
state House of Representatives with a 74-36 vote. The bill
simply legalizes what has already been practiced by the Department
of Human Services since 2012, which The Michigan Daily’s
Editorial Board criticized in an editorial in 2012. While admirable
in its goal to decrease chronic truancy in Michigan public schools,
the bill’s approach is misguided. This practice fails in four main
ways: It punishes the entire family for the actions of just one of its
members; it ignores many of the true causes of chronic truancy; it
places too much responsibility on the shoulders of children; and it
further hurts families who are already struggling financially, many
of whom are minorities.
Cash assistance on welfare amounts to about
$386 per month for the average family. Though
removing cash assistance does correlate with
decreased truancy rates in other states and also
in Detroit Public Schools, it is a policy that’s
flawed in principle. The bill blatantly ignores
the myriad of reasons for chronic truancy.
Aside from simply skipping school, students can
be chronically truant because they don’t have
adequate transportation to school, because
of a medical condition or because they have
to stay home and care for younger siblings. In
other words, chronic truancy is sometimes the
result of obstacles out of the control of children
and parents, making it unfair to punish entire
families for such obstacles.
Though it may be argued that the primary
reason for chronic truancy is students simply
choosing to skip school, if this is true, then
it’s not wise to place an entire family’s cash
assistance in the control of a student who
chooses to do this. Furthermore, it could
also be argued that the policy provides a
financial incentive for families to discipline
such rebellious youths. However, this doesn’t
account for conditions parents could be
facing, such as addiction and mental illness.
If the family’s cash assistance is removed
because of the actions of the truant child,
these conditions can worsen. This policy also
hurts families who are already struggling
financially, potentially worsening problems
— such as inadequate transportation — that
caused truancy in the first place.
Statistics also show that many families on
welfare are ethnic and racial minorities. By
making these families’ financial problems
worse, the mission of diversifying the state’s
educated population could suffer with the
passing of this legislation.
Not only is it evident that this bill
oversimplifies the complicated nature of
truancy, it also operates on shaky statistics.
Governor Rick Snyder (R), a proponent of the
bill, said in his January 2014 State of the State
address, “If we don’t know what the truancy
numbers are, how do you solve the problem,
and we’re not doing our data appropriately in
the state.” This suggests that the state doesn’t
truly have enough information to synthesize
legislation that attacks the roots of the problem.
Aside
from
these
issues,
the
bill’s
fundamental philosophy toward increasing
attendance and incentivizing education is
misplaced. Simple psychology shows that
positive reinforcement is more effective
in encouraging behaviors than negative
punishments for not performing the desired
behavior. Education should be incentivized
with an emphasis on positive outcomes instead
of an emphasis on fear of negative outcomes.
Additionally, arguing for this bill on the basis
that it provides a cash incentive for school
attendance effectively places a financial value
on education. This mentality undermines the
true value of receiving an education, which
extends far beyond the potential monetary
gains it provides.
Though removing cash assistance from
families who receive welfare benefits has
been an effective punishment in that it has
decreased truancy, it does not take into account
the complexities of truancy and is unfounded
in principle. Legislators need to gain a better
understanding of this problem before passing
laws that address it.
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller, Payton Luokkala,
Aarica Marsh, Victoria Noble, Michael Paul, Anna
Polumbo-Levy, Allison Raeck, Melissa Scholke, Michael
Schramm, Matthew Seligman, Mary Kate Winn,
Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Just let me know you care
A
strange phenomenon I’ve noticed
when I tell people about my mental
illness is that they instantly start
telling me what to do about
it. It usually starts with me
saying, “Sorry I’ve been out
of it lately — my depres-
sion’s been bad again,” and
ends with them asking what
medications I’ve been tak-
ing and telling me I ought
to try yoga.
In my experience, this
response is very specific
to mental illness. When
someone tells you they have
diabetes, your initial reac-
tion isn’t, “Have you tried taking insulin?”
Because chances are, if they have a diagno-
sis, they’re doing something about it, and the
person telling them what to do is a medical
professional.
So what is it about mental health that makes
everybody think they’re an expert?
Nobody thinks that scraping their knee
qualifies them to tell someone else how to cast
a broken leg, but people seem to think that
experiencing a range of human emotion quali-
fies them to give advice about mental illnesses.
I think this has something to do with how we
use certain terms colloquially. In normal con-
versation, “I’m so OCD” is a way to describe
yourself as neat and organized. It’s acceptable
to respond to disappointment by saying, “I’m
so depressed,” and someone acting moody
might be labeled “so bipolar.” As a result, it can
be difficult to talk about mental illness because
casual conversation is a place where its severity
is drastically downplayed. (As a general rule, if
you can add the word “so” in front of the men-
tal illness, it’s probably not being used in the
appropriate context.)
When I say I’m depressed and someone
tells me they’re also depressed because we lost
the basketball game the other night, it’s hard
to feel heard and understood. I’m not sure if
it’s possible to truly understand how someone
with a mental illness feels without personally
having that illness. I do know, however, that
it is possible to extend sympathy to someone
who is hurting even if you don’t understand
the depth of the hurt.
It’s important to keep in mind that the way
to express sympathy isn’t by telling someone
how he or she ought to cure his or her illness.
The kind of inexpert medical advice I have per-
sonally received ranges from “you’ll improve
with medications and therapy” to “just smile.” I
don’t believe these people actually think they’re
qualified psychologists. I think sometimes they
just don’t know how else to respond. Although
the social climate surrounding mental illness
seems to be improving, it’s still clear that by
telling people about my struggles, I’m opening
a door that ought not to be opened. It makes
people uncomfortable. The unspoken rule is
that we don’t talk about our own mental illness-
es because the topic falls into a category that is
private and extremely personal. Unfortunately,
when we don’t talk about mental illness that
often, other people don’t get much practice
responding appropriately to open conversations
about it.
I truly believe that people mean well when
they give me unsolicited advice about how to
handle my depression and anxiety. The people
A poor fix to truancy
Tying class attendance to state benefits not a fair option
I trust enough to talk to are people
who care about me. Even so, when
someone tells me to go try getting
more sleep or to go to yoga, it’s just
reductive. I enjoy yoga as much as the
next person, but when people suggest
I try something extremely simple to
fix a problem that weighs on me con-
stantly, it feels like they’re not taking
me seriously. It feels more like they’re
suggesting I downward dog my way
out of a coma.
There is evidence supporting
meditation and mindfulness as
exercises for good mental hygiene,
so the yoga thing is not technically
bad advice. It’s just that when I want
to talk about my mental health, I’m
not seeking medical advice at all.
I’m looking to talk to a friend about
how I feel, because it’s the only way
I know how to externalize what can
be a very lonely experience. It’s a
deeply personal struggle that can
lead to important people in my life
feeling shut out, and I’m actively
working on letting people in.
So when I come to you to talk
about my mental health, realize it’s
because I trust you. I’m not ask-
ing you for the sound advice of a
licensed clinician (I pay someone
else a lot of money for that). It’s OK
to feel awkward, and it’s OK to say
the wrong thing. Just let me know
that you care and that you really
hear me.
And for the love of God, stop tell-
ing me to go to yoga.
—Sydney Hartle can be reached
at hartles@umich.edu.
SYDNEY
HARTLE
— An elderly female passerby said in an interview with HBO’s Last Week Tonight. John Oliver delivered a 33-minute
segment on government surveillance during Sunday’s episode.
“
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
If my husband sent me a picture of his
penis, and the government could
access it, I would want that program
to be shut down.”