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