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, April 20, 2015
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
T
oday, information is more
readily accessible than it has
been at any point in history.
Academic faculty
— including pro-
fessors at the Uni-
versity
—
write
blogs and op-eds
for personal sites
and popular news
outlets. Cable info-
tainment — where
comedians
like
John Oliver spin
serious issues into
entertaining bits —
has made learning about national and
international affairs increasingly fun
for the average viewer. New online
news sites increasingly blend opinion
and reporting, producing content that
fits the site’s “brand,” in an era where
most readers reach content through a
Google search or Facebook post, not
paid subscriptions.
Meanwhile, the percentage of
people who read print newspapers
dropped 18 points between 2002 and
2012, according to a Pew Research
Center survey, and advertising reve-
nue dropped 50 percent between 2008
and 2012, according to the American
Enterprise Institute.
But, contrary to what those facts
alone might suggest, news media is
a long way away from its proverbial
deathbed. While traditional sources
have watched their profit projections
crash into the red, the industry has
provided sufficient incentive for new
entry into the market.
News startups are free to adapt to
the changing demands of the digital
consumer absent the constraints of
existing management and production
structures. This has enabled them
to more easily pioneer new ways to
inform readers.
It’s not that people don’t want to
know what’s going on in the world
around them — they just want to
learn about it in different ways than
they have in the past. This is sup-
ported by a 2007 Pew study, which
found that Americans are about as
informed about current events as
they were in 1989.
Further, those who got their
information from non-newspaper
sources were actually more likely to
be knowledgeable about the news.
Fifty-four percent of people who
regularly watched the Daily Show or
Colbert Report, 53 percent of people
who regularly read news websites
and 50 percent of people who lis-
tened to Rush Limbaugh’s radio
show had “high” knowledge of cur-
rent affairs. As a point of compari-
son, only 43 percent of people who
regularly read print newspapers had
“high” knowledge levels.
But while news sites and enter-
taining news shows are correlated
with higher information levels, they
are also more likely to present opin-
ionated content. Compare a site like
The Atlantic, Quartz or Vox with the
type of content you see in the news-
paper. It tends to advance a view-
point and certainly doesn’t give a
cut-and-dry, traditionally structured
depiction of events like many news
stories do. The same can be said for
Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and
Rush Limbaugh.
There’s nothing inherently wrong
with these sources, especially if
they are actually more effective in
educating readers.
Consuming opinionated content,
however, requires a whole new level
of media literacy. Based on what
I’ve seen in my classes, media lit-
eracy is hardly, if at all, emphasized.
Let me be clear — media literacy
has always been important. But as
media evolves in this direction, it
becomes increasingly essential to a
well-rounded education.
Several classes use news media
in class to connect course content to
real world issues — that’s awesome.
It makes school more engaging and
helps students make connections
between academic work and issues
that they might already have a bit of
background on.
One class of mine attempted to
show the “conservative” side of a
debate by playing a clip from the
Glenn Beck show. For a few minutes,
the class watched, eyes glued to the
projection screen, as the pundit stared
into the camera, telling his audience
that a particular piece of legislation
represented the decline of America, a
gross deviation from the vision of our
founding fathers and would allow the
state to take unprecedented control of
family life.
Representing the other side of
issue, we had read academic and New
York Times articles.
The professor didn’t say anything
about the type of video the class had
just seen. She said nothing of the emo-
tional ploys the speaker had made, of
the inherent differences between an
opinion-based cable show and the
other media forms we had read. The
video was an interesting addition to
class, but context was needed to help
students more effectively understand
how the media format structured the
information they had received.
This might sound like a lesson best
suited for a communications class, but
probably every student at the Universi-
ty will consume media products — and
the news articles, shows and blogs we
consume are products — throughout
their lives. As professors work to inte-
grate news sources into class materi-
als, it’s important that they also take
that opportunity to educate students
about the sources they use.
Our college education is largely
focused on learning course material
in preparation of work in business,
engineering, public service, medi-
cine, law or the wide variety of fields
University graduates work in after
college. But our education is also
meant to prepare us to be thoughtful,
critical and knowledgeable citizens.
Understanding how to critically
evaluate the information we receive
is a necessary skill — especially in
a world that increasingly provides
information that aims to influence
our thoughts about an issue.
—Victoria Noble can be reached
at vjnoble@umich.edu.
O
n May 5, Michigan will vote on Proposal 1, an initiative that
seeks to repair Michigan’s deteriorating roads. Proposal 1
aims to raise the sales tax from 6 to 7 percent, exempt fuel
sales from the sales tax and create an additional tax for fuel sales that
would go toward road repairs and public transportation, among a host
of other measures. The additional 1 percent in sales tax would help
cover the revenue lost from fuel sales that currently go to schools and
municipalities. Though overly complicated and a roundabout way to
obtain funding, voters should vote yes on Proposal 1 due to the necessity
of road repairs and lack of sufficient alternative plans.
Passing Proposal 1 would bring 10 bills
into effect, several of which go beyond simply
moving around taxes to raise funds for road
repairs. In addition to raising the sales tax
and creating a fuel tax for road repairs, this
proposal would also increase registration fees
for trucks, do away with discounts for new car
registrations and add surcharges on electric
vehicles. Additionally, some of the revenue
gained through the new fuel tax would be used
to pay off debt accrued by previous roadwork.
The Earned Income Tax Credit for low- to
moderate-income families would also be raised
from 6 to 20 percent, returning the rate to pre-
2011 levels.
According to a 2014 study by TRIP, a national
transportation research group, Michiganders
pay $2.3 billion each year in additional vehicle
operating costs associated with poor road
conditions,
which
includes
unnecessary
repairs. The Michigan Transportation Asset
Management Council deemed 38 percent
of Michigan’s roads to be in poor condition.
While staggering, these statistics can hardly
come as a surprise to anybody who has driven
in Michigan; Michigan’s roads are in dire
need of repair.
The hike in sales tax Proposal 1 would
allow is far from outrageous. As of Jan. 1,
2014, Michigan had the 13th lowest sales
tax rate in the country, and a one-percent
increase would hardly push Michigan to
the top. Furthermore, Michigan’s highway
expenditures per capita are the lowest in
the nation, at $126 per capita. Therefore,
increasing spending on roads seems not only
reasonable, but integral. Proposal 1 has the
groundwork in place to fix the roads, which is
crucial to the safety of Michiganders and the
state of our roads.
That said, Proposal 1 is not without flaws. It
is a complicated and bloated plan, which can
deter and confuse voters. The state legislature
should aim to draft bills that are concise and
accessible to voters; Proposal 1 clearly fails
in this regard. Additionally, sales taxes are
regressive taxes, and as such, the one-percent
sales tax hike and added fuel tax would
disproportionately target those on the lower
end of the socioeconomic spectrum. This is a
regrettable aspect of the proposal. However,
it should be noted that the reinstatement of
the EITC to 20 percent would help offset
this damage.
Furthermore, while Proposal 1 does include
wording that mandates local governments
create a system for tracking roadwork
projects, measures to ensure preventative
maintenance are vague. If Proposal 1 passes,
Michigan lawmakers must develop a plan to
guarantee the roads stay fixed.
According to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials,
“Costs per lane mile for reconstruction after
25 years can be more than three times the
costs of preservation treatments over the
same 25-year period.” Deferral is no longer an
option. Michigan roads must be overhauled
to prevent the continual accumulation of
costs from temporary repairs.
Proposal 1 is the only plan in place to
effectively fund and fix Michigan’s roads.
Although it might initially be perceived as
unfairly affecting those with lower incomes,
it accounts for this issue through its funding
for EITC. The necessity of road repairs
ultimately outweighs the proposal’s issues.
Vote Yes on Proposal 1.
Vote Yes on Proposal 1
Passage of state tax initiative will provide support for road repair
FROM THE DAILY
A ‘mild’ story
One recent evening, a friend and
I walked down Main Street. The
night was busy. Cars rushed; wind
rushed. Boots clucked. We touched
strangers’ elbows by accident as we
passed them down the street.
“Yeah, all the Michigan in Color
pieces recently just haven’t been …
that good,” my friend said, laughing,
as we passed the pasta restaurant
where inside, diners twirled curls
of spaghetti on silver forks. “I
mean, they’ve just been mild, like …
eh,” she made a dark noise with her
tongue, “It’s all just reiterations of
the same thing.”
Outside, dusk began to spill across
the pavement, and just as suddenly,
the streetlights snapped on —
automated and glinting across my
friend’s pale face.
I paused. In front of us, a small
dog peed into the brush, and I said
nothing, watching the black hairs on
my wrist rise in the wind.
As a writer, I have thought often
about “good stories.” What makes a
story “good,” as opposed to “mild,”
or, in simpler terms, bad?
In
my
English
classes,
we
learn that good stories require
a “driving question.” We learn
that good stories don’t “tell,” they
“show.” We read Virginia Woolf
and Chaucer; we learn how to use
metaphors and footnotes; we learn
how to craft.
But what we don’t learn, and
what, I suppose, some might never
learn, is what makes a story ours:
How do we pass judgment — and
how do we lay claim — over what
is inherently our own meat, our
own blood?
What do we do when our stories,
as People of Color, are dismissed by
others as too “easy,” “mild,” “the
same” — clumped together and
labeled as homogenous in anger, rage,
pain, shame? How do we still find the
humility and self-power to celebrate?
How do we still find the urge within
us to share, expose, listen?
At times, writing about how I
move through the world — Chinese
American, woman, black-haired,
with two fists and a pink lip — feels
risky. It feels frightening. It feels
like yanking out many thick threads
— pain and joy and violence and
loss — tugging them from my body;
threads which, sometimes, do not
want to be unraveled. They want
to sit, stuck. My stories contain as
much pain as they do joy: I have felt
used. I have felt trampled upon. I
have felt loved.
When I write, and choose to give
up my story to the world, it so often
feels precious and painful. To lose
a story outside of its safe nest: the
body. To let a story be bitten into by
other teeth.
How specific do I need to get to
make my stories “good” enough —
real enough — for an “audience”
to “believe”?
If I write that, my sophomore
year of college, at the intersection
between North University and
State, a woman rolled down her
window and blared, “Hey, CHINK;
What’re you lookin’ at, CHINK,”
and I did not make eye contact, and
the light changed, and I pressed the
balls of my feet upon the sidewalk
and kept walking fast, fast, away …
If I write that, at a retreat, another
woman told me, “I never even have
to think about your race; it’s just
not something I’ve ever noticed
about you at all … ” If I write that a
friend once asked me to show him
how to use chopsticks, and when I
refused, he laughed, “Are you even a
real Asian?”
If I write that I feel, so
often, pummeled and seared to
invisibility?
Or
brandished
as
exotic, alien, prop?
How much more bone do I need
to show to make myself visible?
My white friends and peers are,
at times, skeptical that the racist
experiences within my poetry and
my world can be so “tidy.” They ask
me to complicate my claims. They
do not believe the hurt in me. They
do not believe that the racism can
be the same knife making clean cuts
— again, again, again.
Oftentimes, I am deeply offended
when I hear my white peers speak
about “good” stories with regards to
race. Frequently, the conversation
revolves only around craft: how
“entertaining” a story is, how much
it lives up to their expectations
of what a PoC writing about race
should be…
But Michigan in Color was not
created for “craft.” Michigan in
Color — and spaces akin to it —
exist in order for People of Color to
voice their narratives — not because
we have “good” or “easy” stories to
tell; not because we have the desire,
frankly, to tell them … but precisely
because these stories thrash inside
of us. We are pulling them out of us,
which is, in itself, a revolutionary
act. These stories will not be killed.
They are alive; they are injured.
They are in love; they are tender.
They are fearful; they are brave.
So what if our stories are not
different “enough”? Why should we
have to dilute — or dress up — our
experiences for an audience? These
stories are not meant for outsiders,
who purport themselves to be allies,
to call “mild.” They are meant to
nourish ourselves.
I am tired of hearing white
“allies” and readers express that
every East Asian woman writing
for MiC has the “same story”; that
every Black man writing for MiC
has the “same story”; that it is all
“reiterations of the same thing”;
that acts of racism in literature
can be “overdone,” “too much,”
“too obvious.” I call: bullshit. You
cannot tell our hearts to shut up
when they cannot, instinctively,
shut out our lived histories of
brutality, rage, love, shame. Over,
over, over again. We will not shut
up. We will not shut up. We will
tell the “same” stories — and they
do not need to be made glossier
in order for them to be worth
your attention.
Of course, stories should always
be constructively critiqued. We
would not be made stronger sisters,
humans, or artists if our stories
were not questioned, or prodded at.
But I am reminded, again and again,
that the conversation needs to
center around storytelling not only
as “craft,” but also as tenderness
and as loss. All stories are, in part,
lived experiences, embedded into
our muscle and skin. It is unfair —
an act of erasure, even — to treat
them as otherwise.
Carlina Duan is a
Michigan in Color editor.
CARLINA DUAN | MICHIGAN IN COLOR
What are you reading?
VICTORIA
NOBLE
Stephanie Comai, the head of Michigan’s
Talent Investment Agency recently pointed
out a major flaw in Michigan’s economic
recovery: “the talent gap is one of the biggest
issues facing Michigan.” A key reason why
this talent gap exists is that almost 40 percent
of graduates of Michigan’s public universities
leave the state after graduation. Instead of
contributing to Michigan’s economy, our
graduates are taking their talents elsewhere.
In order to maintain the strength of
Michigan’s economic recovery, our state needs
to reverse this trend and strengthen the pool
of young talent that can help our businesses
develop. To accomplish this goal, Michigan
needs to create the right incentives for
graduates of Michigan’s universities to remain
in the state. That is why on Michigan’s House of
Representatives needs to pass House Bill 4118.
If passed, this bill would provide up to
$2,150 in annual tax breaks on student loans
for graduates of Michigan universities who
remain in the state for five years. Why, you
might ask, is this the best way to address
Michigan’s talent gap? Because there is one
thing that all millennials agree on: college
loans are a major burden.
The Class of 2014 was the most indebted in
history, and the average college graduate now
has nearly $30,000 in student loan debt. There
is widespread need to alleviate the pressure
of student loans among college graduates, and
Michigan needs these graduates to remain in
our state to help spur economic growth. This
presents our state with a major opportunity.
Signing HB 4118 into law would increase the
pool of educated talent that our state needs
while simultaneously reducing the burden of
student debt.
The importance of this issue is resonating
with millennials across the state. Earlier
this year, a group of Michigan State students
testified before the Michigan Senate Finance
Committee asking our legislature to address
this issue. It’s time for our campus to pull our
weight and make our voices heard. Students
on campus need to let our representatives
know we support this bill. The millennial
generation has the opportunity to change
the status quo in Washington. Now, we have
the opportunity to take ownership for the
policies that affect our state and our students.
Daniel Karr is an LSA sophomore.
Reversing Michigan’s brain drain
DANIEL KARR | VIEWPOINT
— Priscilla Salyers said Sunday at a memorial on the 20th anniversary of the
Oklahoma City bombing. Salyers is a survivor of the attack.
“
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
I hope we are an inspiration
to those who are starting their
own journey to healing.”