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.”

