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, October 5, 2015
Why I don’t read the news
WANT TO JOIN THE OPINION SECTION?
Check out The Michigan Daily’s editorial board meetings. Every Monday and
Wednesday at 6 p.m., the Daily’s opinion staff meets to discuss both
University and national affairs, and write editorials.
E-mail tothedaily@michigandaily.com to join in the debate.
J
unior year of high school, I
took up a simple but effec-
tive habit. Accompanied
by my morning
coffee, I would
open a collec-
tion of five tabs
labeled
“news”
on my internet
browser.
After
about an hour
of
browsing
Reuters,
BBC
and other media
outlets, I had a
nice
introduc-
tion to the day’s
major stories.
For a while, my newfound practice
was sustained by the many advan-
tages it offered. I loved finishing my
friends’ sentences when they enthu-
siastically began, “Did you hear
about …?” Breaking news headlines
rarely surprised me; I had already
read about them hours before. Most
of all, I learned an incredible amount.
Each article led to a frenzy of Wiki-
pedia pages as I tried to decipher the
complicated backstories needed to
understand them.
But these perks soon reached a
point of diminishing returns. I grew
exhausted of my morning routine,
despite an abundance of exciting
current events. Did it simply lose
its novelty over time? No, there was
something more meaningful at play.
I had learned a valuable lesson: The
news is overrated.
Let’s overlook, for a moment, the
irony of this criticism appearing in a
newspaper. I’m actually in very good
company. Nearly 150 years before the
24-hour news cycle, Henry David
Thoreau insisted: “I am sure that I
never read any memorable news in
a newspaper. If we read of one man
robbed, or murdered, or killed by
accident, or one house burned, or
one vessel wrecked … we need never
read of another.” What was true in an
age of typewriters is doubly true in
an age of smartphones, where tech-
nology has ushered in an explosion
of information.
This abundance is not as useful
as it may seem. We are not unbiased
readers, rationally swayed by current
events. We consume the news through
the lens of our social and political
beliefs. Because of this, we tend to
read what we want to read. If some-
thing conflicts with our worldview, we
are more than happy to blame journal-
istic bias or misreporting. As a result,
the news is more a source of validation
than it is knowledge.
Moreover, the news tends to be
tragic by its very nature. You’ll read a
story about a new anti-cancer therapy
one day, but never hear about it again.
On the contrary,
tragedies
bring
with them dozens
of
corroborating
stories: “Who’s to
blame?
Update:
casualty
count
rises. Could this
happen
to
us?
Casualty
count
rises again.” This
is, no doubt, partly
because
major
networks like to fulfill our morbid
curiosities. But this curiosity comes
at a heavy emotional price. Scroll-
ing through such heartbreaking sto-
ries is mentally taxing, and can be
a huge source of anxiety for college
students who have enough stress to
begin with.
Finally, it’s important to under-
stand the news in its greater context.
I again refer to Thoreau, finish-
ing his previous quote: “…If you are
acquainted with the principle, what
do you care for a myriad instances
and applications?” He makes a valu-
able point here. Stories that we hear
from around the world are merely
symptoms
of
larger
principles,
whether they be social, geopolitical,
etc. They reside on the surface; some-
one who is familiar with the deeper
issues involved would, in theory,
learn nothing new from them. Of
course, the exception is game-chang-
ing events, which threaten to alter
or even turn our principles on their
heads. But the proportion of news
stories that fall under this category
is miniscule. Once you understand
the principles, a staggering majority
of current events become irrelevant.
What, then, is the alternative? My
morning routine has since changed.
I tend to read articles from analyti-
cal publications like the Brookings
Institute
and
reputable think
tanks. I find
myself
learn-
ing history in
an attempt to
explain
the
present. Like-
minded friends
and
I
come
together to dis-
cuss the news
— rarely the
stories themselves, but their global
contexts. You might find your own
alternatives. Whatever they are,
they will be healthier — and more
effective — than keeping up with the
news religiously. Open your smart-
phone and you will find a sea of
headlines. Take care not to drown.
— Farid Alsabeh can be reached
at falsabeh@umich.edu.
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
FARID
ALSABEH
I was disappointed to see several
of my colleagues, under the pen
name “Concerned Medical Students
at the University of Michigan Medi-
cal School,” criticize the invita-
tion of Dr. Tom Price, a Republican
member of the House of Represen-
tatives and alum of the University
of Michigan Medical School, in an
opinion piece published on Sept.
24, before Price was scheduled to
speak. Price spoke at the Medical
School as part of the “Conversations
with Leadership” series, where
medical students are able to learn
from notable Medical School alum-
ni who have become leaders in their
fields. Because he is a congress-
man, chairman of the House Budget
Committee and an alum, Price cer-
tainly qualifies. But my colleagues
apparently disagree, not because of
any lack in leadership credentials,
but because they disagree with his
political views.
In unintended irony, the authors
largely criticize Price for “(main-
taining) partisan lines,” although
these lines are, by definition, main-
tained by both political parties.
They then criticize Price’s votes
on various issues (unfairly para-
phrased by the authors), which
were often in line with the over-
whelming majority in the House
of Representatives. My colleagues
state they were “not (rebuking)
Price’s invitation to speak to our
medical school,” but they question
whether individuals like Price can
be promoted as a “model of leader-
ship” given his conservative voting
record, thereby tacitly implying
that neither Price nor any other
conservative should ever be invited
as a speaker. Furthermore, and per-
haps more dangerously, the authors
imply
that
conservative
medi-
cal students are not qualified to
serve as future physician-leaders,
because conservatism is allegedly
at odds with medical ethics.
My colleagues insinuate that
Price encourages violence against
women because he voted against
the deeply flawed Violence Against
Women Act, that he supports gun
violence because of his support for
the Constitutional Concealed Carry
Reciprocity Act, and that he seeks
to deprive the poor of irreplaceable
medical services by voting to trans-
fer the public funding of Planned
Parenthood to other community
health centers that provide vital
services to poor women.
Many
conservatives
opposed
the Violence Against Women Act
because they believed the bill
would have the unintended con-
sequence of increasing violence
against women. A 2007 study from
the National Bureau of Economic
Research found that in states that
implemented
mandatory
arrest
laws, where police are required
to arrest someone if they receive
a domestic violence complaint,
domestic violence homicides actu-
ally increased, possibly because
abused women were more reluc-
tant to report domestic abuse out of
the fear that their partners would
be arrested.
The gun bill that my colleagues
cite, the Constitutional Concealed
Carry Reciprocity Act, does nothing
to reduce the number of guns. Rath-
er, it seeks to apply a uniform stan-
dard of enforcement to a patchwork
of state gun laws. It was proposed in
response to cases like that of medi-
cal student Meredith Graves, who in
2011 was arrested in New York City
for self-reporting her concealed
weapon (which was legal in her
home state of Tennessee) to police
when she learned that guns were
prohibited at the 9/11 Memorial. At
the time, she was charged with a
felony that, if convicted, would have
ruined her medical career.
Many who watched the recent
videos released by the Center for
Medical
Progress
believe
that
Planned Parenthood was selling
fetal tissue for profit (which would
be a violation of federal law) since
Planned
Parenthood
executives
were shown apparently haggling
over prices for fetal organs and jok-
ing about using money to buy luxu-
ry cars. For this reason, the House
of Representatives voted to transfer
the public funding of Planned Par-
enthood to other community health
centers that provide vital services
to women that Planned Parenthood
does not provide directly, such
as mammograms.
Certainly, my colleagues have the
right to express displeasure with
Price’s politics. The ability to freely
express and challenge ideas is the
cornerstone of an open educational
environment and a free society. But
to suggest that individuals are unfit
for leadership, or even to speak and
be heard, simply because they dis-
agree with one’s extremely parti-
san policy positions is antithetical
to both free speech and the spirit of
diversity at the University. A large
part of being a successful physician
is having the ability to work with
patients who may have views and
experiences very different from our
own. I applaud the Medical School
administration for inviting a strong
conservative voice to our campus,
allowing students to hear from
distinguished individuals with dif-
ferent worldviews. I believe that
interacting with individuals with
whom we may disagree will make
us all more thoughtful students and
citizens. We should promote a cul-
ture where all students are heard
and encouraged to become Ameri-
ca’s future leaders.
Benjamin Long is a
second-year Medical student.
Conservatives should not be excluded
from leadership
I grew exhausted of
my morning routine,
despite an abundance
of exciting current
events.
BENJAMIN LONG | VIEWPOINT
T
he annual Mud Bowl is a time-honored tradition valued by
the University’s Greek life community. However, this year’s
tournament is in peril after the Interfraternity Council
threatened sanctions to any fraternity that participates, as doing so
would violate a policy that prohibits IFC fraternities from participating
in events with so-called “rogue fraternities.”
Sigma Alpha Epsilon — the host of the game
for more than 80 years — is considered to
be “rogue” after being de-recognized by the
IFC four years ago and for having its charter
revoked by its national organization over the
summer for repeated unruly behavior, such as
a stabbing at a Halloween party in 2013 and
numerous other health and safety issues. Given
this reputation, students should understand
the risks of participating, but the recent
decision by the Office of Greek Life and the
IFC to effectively attempt to end the event is an
overreach into private student affairs.
Now organizing under the “Flying Eagles,”
the former members of SAE have planned for
the charity event to continue, and it should. The
Mud Bowl is a cornerstone of philanthropic
events on this campus, having generated over
$100,000 for C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital over
the past five years alone. It would be a shame to
lose that contribution.
It is beyond any doubt that the Mud Bowl
has been, and always will be, associated with
the University’s chapter of SAE — a new, avian-
inspired name can’t change that. However, if
the members of the defunct chapter organize
the event independently, then the tournament’s
nominal and official connection to Greek life
is broken. As long as there is absolutely no
mention of the event using the name “SAE,”
then there can be no official connection drawn
by the Office of Greek Life and the IFC. If
the participating teams, most likely other
fraternities, also avoid participating under the
names of their respective organizations, then
the event effectively becomes one that isn’t
part of Greek life at all. That should render
any sanctions by the IFC ineffective, since it
obviously has no jurisdiction over non-Greek
groups. An attempt to overstep this jurisdiction
to forestall the Mud Bowl is a clear violation of
students’ individual rights, since the University
has no control over the philanthropic events of
private individual parties.
Beginning with the mass Greek life meeting
in September, there has been a host of publicity
devoted to the administration’s mission to tame
troubling trends within Greek community,
such as high rates of sexual assault and binge
drinking. Therefore, it is concerning that of all
things, the Mud Bowl — a relatively harmless,
extensively planned charity event — would
lead to the University’s first tangible action
this semester against Greek life’s behavior.
This isn’t to say, though, the “Flying Eagles”
can be lax regarding safety. Since this event
will now be held with no University affiliation
at all, it is imperative that the “Flying Eagles”
be as transparent as possible when it comes to
details and policies to ensure the community’s
trust. Thus far they have been, having made
clear that safety measures will be put in place,
including a risk management policy, insurance
and hired security.
Furthermore, the group occupying SAE’s
former chapter house should consider opening
the event to teams made up of non-Greek
members. Not only would this potentially
increase donations, but it would also help unite
the student body around a football tournament
that was previously reserved for one-fifth of
the school. Ultimately, assuming the interest is
there, it is events like these that can potentially
start bridging the gap between the Greek and
non-Greek communities. Efforts like that should
be endorsed, not threatened by sanctions.
The Mud Bowl must go on
IFC participants should not face punishment
W
hen I arrived at the University
three years ago, I planned to
make the most of my college
experience. Having grown
up doing music and theatre
my whole life, I decided
to continue on this path
by auditioning for seven
a capella groups as well
as the UM Educational
Theatre Company. I knew
these groups were competi-
tive, but I reasoned that if I
auditioned for everything,
I should at least get one
callback
for
something.
Instead, all eight groups
flatly turned me down. As rejection e-mail after
rejection e-mail flooded my inbox, I began to
feel a mixture of disappointment, shame and
inadequacy. To comfort myself, I watched Demi
Lovato’s “Skyscraper” music video on loop
while my roommate pretended not to notice the
tears streaming down my face.
According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,
feeling accepted is a key driving force behind
human behavior. When we experience rejec-
tion, we feel anxious and unhappy because our
sense of belonging has been jeopardized. Rejec-
tion can be so distressing that we stop putting
ourselves out there so that we can avoid the
pain of being repeatedly turned down.
After facing multiple rejections early in my
college career, I lost all self-confidence and
retreated back into my shell at a time when I
should have been putting myself out there the
most. I fell into a mentality of learned helpless-
ness. I passed up opportunities to apply to pro-
grams that interested me because I assumed I
would never be chosen. It took until my junior
year to find the courage to audition for another
singing group; this time it was the Women’s
Glee Club. I was completely shocked to receive
an acceptance e-mail, and I immediately attrib-
uted my admittance to some sort of fluke in the
audition process. It wasn’t until completing the
first rehearsal that I realized I had earned a
spot on my own merits.
As a current executive board member for the
Women’s Glee Club, I am gaining a new perspec-
tive on rejection by learning about what goes on
behind the scenes. Part of my job this semester
was to help run auditions. My heart broke when
we proofread the rejection e-mail aloud as an
executive board. I thought back to all the fresh-
men I had met earlier that day, eager to become
involved on campus and find a sense of commu-
nity. I pictured how their faces would fall as they
read the e-mail, feeling the same disappointment
I had felt during my own freshman year.
My biggest takeaway from running auditions
was realizing how arbitrary the cutoffs were. The
unfortunate reality is that there are always more
talented, capable individuals interested in con-
tributing to any organization than there are open
positions available. Rejection is never meant to
be a malicious attack on someone’s character;
it is merely an unavoidable byproduct of most
application processes, especially at such a large,
competitive university. Lines must be drawn
somewhere, and often the only thing separat-
ing those who are rejected versus those who are
accepted is luck. With this knowledge in mind,
I am now able to face rejection without taking
it personally.
Another way I learned to remedy the pain of
rejection is through rejection therapy. A recent
NPR piece interviewed Jason Comely, who was
so afraid of rejection that he created a game to
face his fear. Every day he completed a task that
he knew would prompt a rejection, such as ask-
ing a stranger for a ride. By making rejection his
goal, he became desensitized to the unpleas-
antness associated with being denied. He also
found that he was rejected far less than he
assumed, and instead began connecting with
more people. He created playing cards listing
various challenges, such as “Convince a strang-
er that you know them,” and “Before purchas-
ing something, ask for a discount.” His game
became so popular that others began using his
tactics to find dates.
This year, I am starting to practice my own
form of rejection therapy. Every day I take at
least one risk, whether it’s talking to a stranger,
trying a new activity or applying to a new pro-
gram. Rather than feeling ashamed each time
I am rejected, I am learning to laugh at myself
and roll with whatever happens. Like Comely,
I have been pleasantly surprised by how many
times things have gone my way, allowing me
to meet more people and take advantage of
new opportunities.
I regret wasting my first three years at the
University internalizing my rejection letters and
letting them determine my decisions to apply to
future programs. Now, as a senior, I realize that
if I want something badly enough, I shouldn’t
let one little “no” cause me to give up on myself.
Instead, I will turn rejection into a laughing mat-
ter and keep pushing forward until I achieve my
dreams. Go on and try to tear me down; I will be
rising from the ground. Like a skyscraper.
— Annie Humphrey can be reached
at annieah@umich.edu.
Taking rejection head-on
ANNIE
HUMPHREY
FROM THE DAILY