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.”