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, September 21, 2015
E
ver since I created my Face-
book profile in eighth grade,
I became vaguely aware
of the purported evils of social
media.
Teach-
ers warned that
it would reduce
attention spans,
decrease
face-
to-face interac-
tions and distort perceptions of
reality. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the
constant distraction of online com-
munication and therefore ignored
the skeptics. Until I disconnected
from technology for the better part
of a month this past summer, I had
no idea the extent to which I let
social media dictate my feelings of
happiness and self-worth.
As part of my job as a summer
camp counselor, I was not permit-
ted to use my phone during the day.
This rule meant that I was free
from the pressures of comparing
myself to the images with which
my peers presented themselves on
social media. Instead of devoting
energy toward creating a facade of
constant happiness and achieve-
ment, I now had more time to live
my life authentically.
Getting “likes” on social media
can make us feel good about our-
selves, but this feeling is short-lived
and compels us to rely on exter-
nal validation for our feelings of
self-worth. Prior to this summer, I
completely relied on other people’s
decision to press a button in order to
feel good about myself. I convinced
myself that if no one acknowledged
that I had an enjoyable day, my day
might as well not have happened. I
wasted countless brain cells won-
dering why my friends appeared
to be so much happier and more
popular than me on social media.
With little recognition in the form
of “likes” for the content I was
posting, I began feeling as if my
thoughts and ideas didn’t matter.
Working at a technology-free
camp allowed me to relearn how
to be happy on the inside. When-
ever I did something fun, I made a
point of telling myself, “That was
an amazing moment in my day. And
I didn’t capture it and upload it to
social media. But that doesn’t mean
it didn’t happen.” I felt warm and
fuzzy from the genuine connec-
tions I was making with the people
and places around me, and I knew
this was far more satisfying than
any “like” I could possibly receive
on social media.
Since refraining from social
media usage at the University is
unrealistic for me, I have instead
chosen to limit the amount of time
I spend online and to use that time
in a healthier, more constructive
manner. Whenever I feel distressed
from seeing all my happy-looking
friends, I step back and assess the
situation. I remind myself that I,
too, am happy, and that there is
enough happiness to go around for
everyone. No one else’s experience
of joy can possibly negate my own
positive feelings about my life.
I also remind myself that the
content people upload only reveals
a tiny sliver of their realities. After
all, what does a post of happiness
and achievement convey about a
person? A profile picture of some-
one looking radiant and flawless
tells me that this person had access
to good lighting and a high defini-
tion camera. An Instagram post of
someone holding a Michigan flag
atop a mountain in a foreign coun-
try tells me that this person trav-
eled to a foreign country, ended
up on top of a mountain and took a
picture. A status in which someone
shares an acceptance letter tells me
that this person applied to a pro-
gram and was admitted.
What these posts don’t tell me
is how my friends were actually
feeling at the time. There have
been numerous occasions when
I assumed that my friends were
happy but later found out they
struggled with body-image issues,
had unfulfilling summer adven-
tures or received hundreds of rejec-
tion letters before finally hearing
good news. While not everyone
struggles equally, we all have bur-
dens to bear that we might not
feel comfortable sharing online.
Those who appear happy, success-
ful and popular on social media are
not immune to these issues; they
often simply aren’t sharing the
full picture.
Now that I partake in social
media more mindfully, networks
like Facebook and Instagram hold
less weight in my life. I see them
as additional ways to communicate
with friends and acquaintances
rather than the main determinants
of my feelings of self-worth. Because
I no longer try to compare my life to
those of my peers, I am able to feel
genuine happiness for others when
I see my friends post about their
achievements. And if I ever become
overwhelmed with anxiety while
scrolling through my feed, I know
it’s time to exit out, put down my
phone and go make some authentic,
happy memories.
— Annie Humphrey can be
reached at annieah@umich.edu.
No longer needing “likes”
Who’s Charlie now?
ANNIE
HUMPHREY
DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY?
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION.
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor
and viewpoints. Letters should be fewer than 300
words, while viewpoints should be 550-850 words.
Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
FROM THE DAILY
T
he Department of Education has finally released its new College
Scorecard website — three years after it was first proposed by
President Barack Obama — just in time for the current college
application season. While organizations like U.S. News & World Report
dominate the field of college rankings, the White House intends to
have its newest program shine light onto factors such as student loan
debt, financial aid packages and graduate salary, which typically are
ignored in traditional rankings methodology. Obama envisions the
scorecard as a tool that will “help all of us see which schools do the
best job of preparing America for success.” It is a breath of fresh air
in the tedious process of choosing a college, especially when schools
are more likely to advertise their reputation and endowments and less
likely to mention important statistics like graduation rate and average
post-graduation salary.
College rankings are often pulled into
controversies as their systems are accused of
preconceived biases and skewed weighting
systems. With the data coming straight
from the federal government, students
can rest assured, knowing that college
evaluations are derived from an objective
source.
Additionally,
through
compiling
thousands of schools into one source, the
College Scorecard has the potential to save
students time and energy that could have
been wasted scrolling through endless
“college information” websites. The College
Scorecard website streamlines the college
searching process by displaying information
about a particular school alongside national
averages, stepping away from arbitrary
rankings. No first place, no 46th place — just
a practical, straightforward report. Users
are able to immediately view three pertinent
statistics: average annual cost, graduation
rate and salary after attending. The site’s clear
navigation also allows users to easily access
other statistics and information important to
their specific needs.
Alumni salaries, debt and loans finally
take center stage over average standardized
test scores or high-school GPA. That kind of
information is included in a given school’s
profile, but it’s not emphasized heavily; these
statistics are at the bottom of a school’s profile
page and are fairly simplistic. Some critics of
the new program may attack this relative lack
of data concerning the “academic strength”
of students attending a certain school, but by
focusing more on the financial aspect of going
to college as well as graduation and retention
rates, the federal government has reiterated
its position in the conversation of higher
education: Schools need to be affordable and
effective. Hopefully, the scorecards will work
as a positive step in finding a solution to the
ever-growing issues of college affordability
and the student debt crisis. For low-income
or first-generation students, this information
can be necessary in cases where attending
college is not just another step in life, but a
step out of a life.
The College Scorecard is not without its
caveats (which is understandable, given the
website launched barely a week ago). For
example, currently, the University’s own
scorecard on the website lists the annual
average cost as $16,287, a number that would be
scoffed at by out-of-state students, who make
up more than half the combined undergraduate
and graduate student body, and, on average,
pay more than $43,000 per academic year, not
including housing costs. This information is
not meant to be misleading; hovering over the
question-mark icon above the listed average
cost provides a small explanation that says that
the number generated only reflects “average
cost for in-state students” at the University.
But instead of trying to compensate for only
listing in-state tuition with this explanation,
the College Scorecard should aim to include
statistics for both in- and out-of-state students.
Additionally,
the
report
lacks
any
information regarding the cost of room and
board at the University, which can come close
to matching the price of tuition for in-state
students. In defense of the White House,
room and board fluctuates more dynamically
than annual tuition rates and varies based
on housing situation. Because housing costs
can vary widely depending on an individual
student’s living situation on campus, the
website’s creators may have chosen to simply
omit respective information. If this is the case,
the website should include a brief explanation
acknowledging this fact.
Ultimately, while the College Scorecard
should not be the only tool used to evaluate
colleges,
students
should
embrace
the
program as a new mode of evaluating schools
and push colleges to be more transparent
about affordability and life after graduation.
With growing competition in the job market,
colleges need to ensure that their students are
not only prepared academically, but can also
thrive financially after graduation.
A good way to keep score
College Scorecard is a better tool than college rankings
E-mail JoE at Jiovino@umich.Edu
JOE IOVINO
T
he French satirical maga-
zine Charlie Hebdo, which
made international head-
lines after being
attacked
for
its
depictions
of the Prophet
Muhammad, has
made the news
again. Their latest edition features
drawings of Aylan Kurdi, the Syrian
child who drowned off the coast of
Turkey, juxtaposed with images of
Jesus and a McDonald’s billboard
advertising “two kid’s meals for the
price of one.”
These publications have sparked
outrage from people across the
world, who accuse its editors of
mocking the child’s death, in addi-
tion to being xenophobic and insen-
sitive. This stands in stark contrast
to the public’s reaction to the ear-
lier drawings of Muhammad, which
was overwhelmingly supportive
of Charlie Hebdo’s right to free
expression and began the move-
ment, “Je suis Charlie.” What can
explain this discrepancy?
Some people have argued that
Charlie Hebdo’s latest drawings
have overstepped their bounds and
no longer constitute satire, whereas
the drawings of Muhammad did. I
find this distinction arbitrary, but I
can see where it comes from. It’s a
pervasive misconception about sat-
ire that it aims to make you laugh
— the sort of neck-whipped-back,
bellowing laugh that the likes of
John Oliver solicit. And in a cul-
ture brought up on “The Colbert
Report” and “The Daily Show with
Jon Stewart,” it’s easy to believe
that this is the only kind of satire
that exists. But despite its macabre
subject matter, these recent car-
toons are clearly satirical in nature.
The one featuring a McDonald’s
billboard is captioned “so close to
his goal ... ” and attacks European
consumerism and ridicules the
idea that refugees are willing to
risk their lives for simple economic
gains. Hilarious? Not really. Satiri-
cal? Undoubtedly.
Another argument I’ve heard
is that the latest drawings are so
deeply offensive that freedom of
expression should be checked.
But who, exactly, is the victim of
offense? Kurdi? Kurdi’s family?
Anyone who has children Kurdi’s
age? It also is not at all obvious that
Kurdi is being mocked, as many
articles have claimed.
A level-headed interpretation
of the cartoons would reveal that
it is Europe’s attitude toward the
refugee crisis that is the object
of ridicule. The cover featuring a
proud-looking Jesus walking on
water proclaims: “proof that Europe
is Christian: Christians walk on
water, Muslim children sink/run”
(a play on words: the French word
“couler” can mean to sink or to
run). This is a scathing critique of
European hypocrisy, specifically,
recent Slovakian legislation which
would allow the country to accept
only Christian refugees and not
Muslims. To this extent, Kurdi’s
image is simply being used to rep-
resent Muslim refugees who are
the victims of this double standard
— hardly mocking at all.
This position also reveals a sub-
tle hypocrisy which should not be
ignored. Why is it that these draw-
ings have been widely interpreted
as
being
excessively
offensive,
whereas the drawings of Muham-
mad were not? I argue that this is
simply due to cultural upbringing.
You may not have grown up in a
society where this one man has
been revered as a prophet — whose
name is invariably followed by the
complementary phrase “peace be
upon him” — and who is consid-
ered a supreme example of piety
and morality. To a person with
this upbringing, the cartoons of
Muhammad, which often depicted
him in a demeaning and derogatory
manner, may even be more offen-
sive than the cartoon of Kurdi. It’s
all a matter of perspective.
And this brings up a vital point.
Personal opinions about offensive-
ness can vary dramatically from
culture to culture, and person to
person. So when it comes to a con-
cept as important as freedom of
expression, taste cannot be a con-
sideration. Why should we care
about
some
obscure
magazine
across the Atlantic? Because the
freedom to speak also means the
freedom to listen. For some of you,
this column may have been the first
time you heard about Slovakia’s
deplorable laws regarding refugees.
If we had let public perception of
taste dictate what is and isn’t OK to
publish, you may have never heard
about it. We should never trust any-
one to make that distinction for us.
— Farid Alsabeh can be reached
at falsabeh@umich.edu.
FARID
ALSABEH
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller,
Payton Luokkala, Aarica Marsh, Adam Morton, Victoria
Noble, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Melissa Scholke,
Michael Schramm, Stephanie Trierweiler,
Mary Kate Winn, Derek Wolfe
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS