5

Thursday, July 2, 2015

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com OPINION

The University of Michigan 

and Michigan State University, 
the two largest universities in 
the state, together purchase 
more than $2 billion of goods 
and services each year, includ-
ing 
everything 
from 
desks 

to 
high-powered 
computers. 

Much of this money is spent 
in Michigan, supporting local 
businesses, even through tough 
economic times. Unfortunately, 
state policies have prevented 
the University and MSU from 
fully using their purchasing 
power for the benefit of all of 
Michigan’s business owners.

According to the most recent 

census, only 30 percent of Michi-
gan firms are owned by women 
and 13 percent by minorities. 
One of the major causes of this is 
an unfair lack of access to capi-
tal: women and minority entre-
preneurs are less likely to have 
loans approved and more likely 
to pay higher interest rates, even 
after controlling for credit score 
and other factors. This lack of 
entrepreneurship opportunities 
hurts job growth and drives both 
wealth and income inequality.

Many universities around 

the country have recognized 
similar 
conditions 
in 
their 

communities and used their 
purchasing power to help give 
a fair shot to all entrepreneurs. 
For example, by focusing on 
local suppliers and increasing 
its purchases from minority-
owned firms from $41.4 million 
to $105.7 million, the Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania has gen-
erated about 200 jobs and $6 
million in local wages. Region-
ally similar schools like Ohio 
State University, the University 
of Illinois, Indiana University 
and the University of Wiscon-
sin have all set specific spend-
ing goals for businesses with 
women and minority owners.

However, two current state poli-

cies inhibit Michigan’s universities 
from making a similar impact.

In 2006, a state constitu-

tional amendment was passed 
banning affirmative action by 
publicly 
funded 
institutions. 

While much has been written 

about how the ban has affected 
minority enrollment in higher 
education, there has been far 
less discussion about how the 
ban has affected university pro-
curement departments. Point 2 
of Section 26 of the amendment 
states that “the state shall not 
discriminate against, or grant 
preferential treatment to, any 
individual or group on the basis 
of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or 
national origin in the operation 
of public employment, public 
education, or public contracting 
(emphasis ours).”

Because of this specific ban on 

affirmative action in public con-
tracting, universities in Michi-
gan are unable to systematically 
support disadvantaged business 
owners through their procure-
ment. This prevents both the 
University and Michigan State 
University from setting specific 
disadvantaged business spend-
ing goals, like many universities 
in the Midwest.

Additionally, 
unlike 
many 

states — both red and blue — 
there’s no comprehensive state-
wide agency that’s set up to 
support or certify women- and 
minority-owned 
businesses 

(WBEs and MBEs, respectively). 
While the Michigan Department 
of Transportation maintains a 
small 
transportation-specific 

database (as mandated by federal 
law) and the nonprofit Michigan 
Minority Supplier Development 
Council maintains an MBE certi-
fication, both of these programs 
include only incomplete listings 
that are not publicly searchable.

As a result, neither public 

nor private institutions have an 
available list of such businesses. 
So even if MSU, the Univer-
sity or another local enterprise 
believe they might be able to 
use a WBE or MBE for a spe-
cific contract, they have to rely 
on a variety of private groups 
for information. (MSU once 
maintained its own diverse ven-
dor database, but it was lost in 
a software switch and is only 
slowly being reconstructed.)

While other states’ diverse 

business programs vary, Michi-

gan’s lack of an agency or pub-
lic database is unusual. Every 
state that surrounds it in the 
Midwest, including Ohio, Indi-
ana, Illinois and Wisconsin, 
maintains a searchable data-
base. Some states, like Ohio, 
actually set benchmarks for 
state agency procurement.

There’s nothing partisan or 

left-leaning about these other 
states’ MBE and WBE programs. 
Alabama’s 
Republican-domi-

nated state government not only 
certifies 
businesses 
through 

its Office of Minority Business 
Enterprises, but also advocates 
for and offers training to small 
and diverse businesses. South 
Carolina’s Republican governor, 
Nikki Haley, maintains a Gover-
nor’s Office of Small and Minor-
ity Business Assistance. This 
office has established a data-
base of diverse vendors, works 
with state agencies to moni-
tor minority contracting, and 
offers policy guidance on issues 
involving small and minority-
owned businesses.

These states have recognized 

that creating entrepreneurship 
opportunities for all of their 
citizens creates jobs and com-
bats inequality in their commu-
nities. It’s time for Michigan to 
do the same.

Michigan’s legislators must 

support universities’ efforts to 
purchase from disadvantaged 
businesses throughout the state. 
A repeal of the state’s contro-
versial constitutional amend-
ment banning affirmative action 
would create lasting change, but 
is currently unlikely. Right now, 
however, our legislators and 
governor can work to establish 
an office that creates a data-
base of diverse firms. Doing so 
would allow Michigan universi-
ties to join with others around 
the country in creating more 
vibrant, inclusive communities.

Dominic Russel, Julius Gold-

berg-Lewis, Mario Gruszczynski, 

and Julia Christensen are mem-
bers of the University chapter of 

the Roosevelt Institute.

Investing in diversity

WANT THE DAILY ON THE GO?

Now you can access your favorite Daily opinion content on your phone. Keep up with 

columnists, read Daily editorials and join in the debate. Check out the Daily’s 

website at www.michigandaily.com.

ROOSEVELT INSTITUTE | VIEWPOINT

I 

went to the movies with a 
couple of friends on Satur-
day to see Pixar’s “Inside 

Out.” 
Having 

seen the trailer 
and 
thinking, 

“Wow! 
Who-

ever thought of 
this must have 
been on drugs,” 
I knew this was 
a movie I had 
to see (even if it 
meant being the 
only 
group 
of 

college students 
mixed in with 
parents and their 
pre-10-year-old kids fighting for the 
coveted middle seats that aren’t too 
high up).

After winning the battle against 

my tendency to fall asleep during 
movies, when the film ended, I knew 
I had seen something special. Sure, 
it was technically a “kids” movie 
because that’s what Pixar makes, 
but really it was anything but. It was 
a movie that I, a 21-year-old rising 
college senior, needed to see.

Without ruining it for anyone, 

the message of the movie is this: It’s 
okay to be sad.

Yes, it’s certainly more pleasant to 

be happy, but there are times where 
we need help to cope with what’s 
going on in our lives. And instead of 
pretending to be something we’re 
not and repressing our emotions, it’s 
simply better for our mental health 
to be honest and express our sadness 
(or anger, fear and disgust, though at 
least according to the movie, these 
emotions are less productive in 
helping ourselves).

For the most part, the people 

closest to me — my friends and fam-
ily — believe in this. We’re open 
with each other and tell it how it 
is. When we’re happy, upset, sad 
or frustrated, we make it known. 
Admittedly, this can sometimes 
go to the point of offending each 
other or just being annoying, but 
I wouldn’t have it any other way. 
“Inside Out” validated this lifestyle 
for me.

Over the past couple of years, 

I’ve come to terms with the idea 
that being “happy” isn’t my ulti-
mate goal. Because if it is, then 
I’m most certainly going to fail. 
Emotions come and go, so even in 
the best possible circumstances, 
feelings of joy are only temporary. 
Therefore, the goal is letting the 
negative emotions, like sadness and 
fear, happen, but not allowing them 
to latch on for too long and become 

overwhelming to the point of 
depression. Obviously, that’s easier 
said than done.

By no means is this philosophy my 

idea. I first came across it when my 
aunt recommended that I read “The 
Happiness Trap” by Dr. Russ Harris. 
Put simply, Dr. Harris presents the 
idea that most thoughts are random 
and uncontrollable. Therefore, it’s 
not worth trying to control what you 
think, but rather how much weight 
you put on each thought. In order to 
determine which thoughts are more 
important than others, you decide if 
they apply to your beliefs and values, 
the things we care about the most. If 
they do, you act on it. If not, instead 
of trying to actively eliminate the 
thought and getting upset that it 
exists, you let it wither away. Doing 
this successfully takes immense 
practice — it’s a daily challenge for 
me — but I am convinced it will help 
me live the life I want to live.

In my Public Health 300 course 

this past winter, Prof. Vic Strech-
er taught something similar. He 
preached the idea of living with pur-
pose, that when you live for some-
thing above yourself, whatever that 
may be, you will live not only a fulfill-
ing life, but a healthier life. To name a 
few benefits, studies have shown that 
having a purpose can help us sleep 
better and reduce obesity, as well the 
risk of a heart attack. So although I 
am still searching for my purpose 
(it’s not supposed to be easy), this 
concept has stuck with me.

The issue with these ideas is that 

they’re relatively new. There is a 
massive emphasis in this country on 
the “pursuit of happiness,” and right-
fully so. After all, we’ve been talking 
about it for nearly 239 years.

But perhaps we should take on a 

different approach, where we stop 
tricking people into believing that 
a happy life is a successful life. Per-
haps a life where we learn to balance 
our emotions and embrace the good 
and the bad is really what makes a 
successful life, that is, if we’re deter-
mined to define success. Maybe it’s 
time to start preaching, “life, liberty 
and the pursuit of purpose.”

“Inside Out” continued a needed 

conversation on the importance of 
mental health and how our society 
handles it. But it’s up to us to keep 
talking and educating ourselves — to 
change the outdated status quo.

And by the way, how cool would it 

be if there were actually little crea-
tures in our heads?

— Derek Wolfe can be reached 

at dewolfe@umich.edu.

DEREK
WOLFE

The pursuit of purpose