Opinion
SHOHAM GEVA
EDITOR IN CHIEF
CLAIRE BRYAN
AND REGAN DETWILER
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
LAURA SCHINAGLE
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
4 — Tuesday, January 12, 2016
A
sk any Michigan student
what their most visited
website
is during finals
week and you’ll
be sure to hear
one
answer:
ctools.umich.edu. It is the site for
late-night cramming, last-minute
panicking and hopeful (or hopeless,
depending on the class) dreaming.
It is also the site that induces
expletive-filled rants about missing
grades and randomly organized
PDFs. For the longest time, CTools
has been the go-to source for my
academic frustrations.
But this past fall, students at
Michigan
were
introduced
to
CTools’ replacement, Canvas, and
soon we will use this new website
for all of our schoolwork.
With Canvas comes a new hope for
students and teachers alike. Where
CTools often seemed like a dated
side project that still ran on dial-up
Internet, Canvas is supposed to be
a modern, efficient and constantly
improving educational resource.
Rather than being locally stored
on the University’s servers (like
CTools of yore), Canvas runs off
cloud-based computing systems that
are managed by a group of universi-
ties, collectively called Unizin. This
decreases the risk of server over-
load and hardware failure that has
occurred within the CTools frame-
work in the past.
Other features detailed by the
University’s
Canvas
transition
guide include peer grading, learn-
ing
outcome
mapping,
online
rubrics, learning analytics, stream-
lined instructional workflows and
a speed-grader system. All of these
improvements
will
undoubtedly
lead to a better user experience for
both students and teachers.
But, ask me about Canvas next
year during finals week and you’ll
surely hear CTools-esque rants.
Despite Canvas’ fresh new look
and exciting new features, nothing
about the new site addresses the big-
gest problem we all had with CTools
in the first place: the people actually
using it.
Thousands of professors and GSIs
maintain the everyday workings
of systems like Canvas and CTools.
Because every class is different,
every Canvas page is, understand-
ably, very different; an EECS profes-
sor will likely use their Canvas page
differently than a linguistics GSI.
While flexibility is good for adapt-
ing to course needs, the openness
of Canvas often leaves everybody
involved searching for answers.
One primary problem area that
Canvas didn’t solve is professor
resources, such as PDF assignment
documents, syllabi and announce-
ments. Many professors place their
class resources under the “Files” tab
and organize subcategories within
this location. However, syllabi, along
with assignment documents, often
make their way into this tab, despite
each having their own respective
Canvas tabs.
Even more confusing are assign-
ment documents that are attached
solely
to
class
announcements.
Professors have the ability to send
announcements to their entire class
instantly, which encourages many
professors to use these announce-
ments
as
assignment-updating
mechanisms. But in doing so, assign-
ments and other attached resources
are stored separately from other
class materials.
When you factor in an average of
four classes and one discussion sec-
tion for every student each semester,
you are left with a jumbled mess of
PDFs, Word documents, folders,
subfolders and headaches. Related
complaints focus on instructors
failing to update grades routinely,
underutilizing discussion sections
and leaving large portions of Canvas
completely untouched (my room-
mates can attest to my shouting and
frustration the night before I have a
midterm).
All of these issues point to the
ways in which users are interacting
with the site. Users are ultimately
responsible for how Canvas looks
and feels. Nothing about Canvas
caters to users and mitigates the
issues CTools had.
Information Prof. Barry Fishman
spoke with the Daily about the intro-
duction of Canvas this past March.
Despite his general approval of Can-
vas, he concluded his thoughts by say-
ing, “(Learning management systems
are) the plumbing. Good teachers are
doing the normally good things that
they’re doing around here. Particu-
larly exciting teachers, I have seen no
way in which Canvas is holding them
back. It’s not about Canvas, it’s about
what you do with it.”
Until we address the manner in
which we collectively use learning
management systems like Canvas,
nothing will change. Educating pro-
fessors on best practices and general
management skills is a good first
step to fixing the issues at hand.
Teaching students how to effective-
ly traverse Canvas is a coinciding
step that would also likely improve
the educational process.
Both of these processes take time,
though, and cannot be fixed with
a software update. Professors are
understandably very busy, as are
college students. Making the effort
to collectively address users’ issues
with employing a new system is nei-
ther a simple solution nor one that
many would identify as the Univer-
sity’s top priority. It is, however, the
necessary solution to a problem that
deeply affects students and faculty
alike.
Canvas is not holding us back —
if anything, it is a step in the right
direction. But if the only step we
take is making Canvas the new stan-
dard platform without any sort of
user prep, you will surely hear the
same expletive-filled rants from me
this time next year.
I just won’t be able to blame
CTools anymore.
Don’t blame CTools
A nation without charity
I
f I were to ask you what you
think
about
charity,
you’d
probably
respond
with
something
positive.
Charity
work
aids
important
sectors of society
including health
care,
education
and the economy.
It
stimulates
communities,
promotes human
development and
remains
within
the
private
sector, where it can be “purely”
devoted to the cause.
And you’d probably rejoice in
learning that donations to char-
ity organizations from individuals
increased by 7.1 percent from 2013
to 2014. You’ll maybe even fist-pump
the sky when you hear that chari-
ties received more than $358 billion
during the same year — the fifth con-
secutive year giving to charity orga-
nizations has increased in America.
With this framework, it appears
that the generous American public
has found its panacea for human suf-
fering. As charities grow, it won’t be
long before stories of homelessness,
truancy and inequality wither; the
economy will continue to expand
and people will give more until no
one else is in need. Issues like pover-
ty will eventually appear antiquated
and somewhat abstract, something
we only read about in textbooks and
share with our kids when telling sto-
ries of the days when we were young.
But unfortunately, for all the dif-
ference charities make in the social,
economic and communal develop-
ment of our nation, they don’t seem
to alleviate life for the poor: In
2014, poverty remained unchanged,
affecting 14.9 percent, or 47 million
Americans.
For all the energy charities
devote to revitalizing communities,
I wonder: Why does charity exist
at all? And, for that matter, why is
it the responsibility of charities to
solve our nation’s ills, and further,
why should these problems even
exist in the first place?
Charity’s
operative
goals,
it
seems, are reactive. That is, its
function is a response to current
or future misery experienced by
many citizens. Billions of dollars
are poured into these organizations
to combat future trends of poverty,
violence, drug addiction, hunger and
illiteracy, or to gain access to health
care benefits. They are rehabilitative
efforts to our system. But if that’s all
they are — inherently reactive mea-
sures — why not just change the sys-
tem itself?
In order to do this, we should be
investing in proactive public insti-
tutions as to prevent people from
(what we hope are) non-normative
behaviors:
drug
abuse,
under-
ground economic activity and vio-
lent crime — things that cause them
to be rejected by society. We should
be bringing people into mainstream
institutions — providing pathways
to health care, education, jobs and
social inclusion — thereby closing
gaping holes in America’s system.
Excuse my Marxism, but episodes
of human suffering persist because
poverty is systemic: It’s based on how
we redistribute wealth (or don’t).
Thankfully, our economy is expan-
sive: We manufacture enough prod-
ucts and create enough services to
ensure that no one has to be homeless
or go hungry. With an economy GDP
of about $17 trillion, we can trim our
incredibly high poverty rate, which is
15 percent. To put this in perspective,
China’s economy is worth approxi-
mately $10 trillion, but they main-
tain a 13-percent poverty rate, even
though they care for about 1 billion
more people. Like putting a bandage
on a gunshot wound, charity is not a
comprehensive approach and there-
fore cannot resolve the issues it may
seek to.
A more comprehensive alternative
is some form of redistributed wealth.
This means viewing our world as
interconnected, not individualistic —
something the American public has
a hard time accepting, its ideal self
being the archetypical John Wayne
character, riding across the prairie
on horseback, fulfilling his manifest
destiny.
Maybe government has a respon-
sibility aside from just landing on
the moon, fighting wars halfway
across the world and allowing peo-
ple to roam the wild wild west. The
role of our government includes
uniting society — integrating those
of different classes, races, creeds
and backgrounds — to improve the
economy, health and general well-
being of citizens. This philosophy
means our government and the elec-
torate are responsible for each oth-
er’s successes and failures.
To be sure, our country can have
its cake and eat it, too, promoting
economic liberalization — privatiz-
ing and (at times) deregulating —
while upholding human dignity by
reallocating some of that capital to
others as an opportunity for many
to enter mainstream society. Other
nations with much less wealth cer-
tainly do this. This has been the
policy of countries from Norway and
Canada to Singapore. They invest
in their citizens because they know
the results are advantageous. It’s no
wonder they’re more often included
in “best countries to live in” lists.
For those capitalist-minded, Mil-
ton Friedman-types, one possible
solution can come in the form of a
guaranteed basic income. In this sce-
nario, certain subsidies can be cut, or
wealthy banks and oil companies can
be taxed more heavily in order to pro-
vide a basic income for low-socioeco-
nomic-status families. If more people
have a basic income, they may be able
to spend more, which stimulates the
economy.
Who knows? Maybe our country
is moving in this direction. One Ver-
mont democratic socialist senator
has gained much popularity because
of his government-interventionist
beliefs. Presidential hopeful Bernie
Sanders wants to expand health care
coverage, make higher-level educa-
tion affordable and provide family
paid leave — all to invest in human
capital and contract inequality.
He’s adopting a new American
mentality. A mentality that holds
the state accountable so that more of
its citizens — no matter their creed,
sex, race, socioeconomic status or
ethnicity — have the opportunity to
live with dignity and maintain a rea-
sonable standard of living in the 21st
century. By adopting this thinking,
Sanders knows he must first reform
the “rigged” financial system.
Until more Americans follow his
leading mantra, charity is the best
thing we have in a broken, unbal-
anced system.
— Sam Corey can be reached
at samcorey@umich.edu.
ELLIOTT
RAINS
W
hile University President Mark
Schlissel’s Diversity, Equity &
Inclusion
strategic
planning
initiative is admirable, its prospects for
success are questionable. The President’s
charge calls on each campus unit to develop a
five-year strategic plan to promote diversity,
equity and inclusion. We are excited to see
this new momentum in the wake of the
#BBUM campaign, and to see this effort
come from top University leadership. The
current dialogue is absolutely necessary
for us to continue to foster awareness of
historical and ongoing institutional biases at
the University, and to move beyond a purely
academic
understanding
of
structural
racism. Unfortunately, the initiative falls
short in a profoundly important way.
To date, there has been no explicit alloca-
tion of resources to make diversity happen at
the University. Other educational institutions
have recently funded large-scale diversity pro-
grams: Brown University announced plans to
spend $100 million to promote diversity on its
campus, and Yale University launched a $50
million initiative to increase faculty diver-
sity. These financial pledges are a testament
to their commitment to social equity. We are
waiting to see whether efforts at the Univer-
sity will be supported by funds commensurate
with their degree of importance.
Funding for the President’s charge remains
ambiguous, even as two mechanisms for diver-
sity funding opportunities have been described
in disseminated documents. First, departments
are encouraged to submit “requests for funding
for innovative initiatives … through the annu-
al budget process,” according to a frequently
asked questions document distributed to cam-
pus groups in November. However, there is
little transparency surrounding how much will
be made available within the annual budget,
or how competitive it will be to secure these
funds. Secondly, the campus-wide initiative
is being overseen by an executive leadership
team that “will allocate resources throughout
the planning process and ensure that the effort
is appropriately supported and staffed.” Again,
the level of support and direct provision of tan-
gible funds remains vague. In order to address
climate and bias issues effectively, allocated
budgetary line items are needed to develop,
implement and sustain strategic plans.
Without dedicated funding, there are three
major vulnerabilities in the President’s Stra-
tegic Planning Initiative that put diversity,
equity,and inclusion efforts at risk for failure:
1) The task of “doing” diversity has been
assigned to individuals with limited or no
expertise on the topic, and who may not share
our sense of urgency. In theory, there are 92
individuals serving as “Strategic Planning
Leads” across campus, but in practice depart-
ment chairs, deans and other administrators
have been granted a great deal of discretion
over what types of diversity activities will take
place, and the amount of resources dedicated
towards them. The initiative expects school
units to “allocate funds within their (own) bud-
gets for plan-related activities” according to
the FAQ; however, this approach assumes that
chairs and leaders of those units are willing to
commit sufficient funds to support this work,
and sacrifice precious resources (including
staff time) that would otherwise go towards
existing programming. Furthermore, the ini-
tiative depends heavily on administrators’ per-
ceptions of what can and should be done. These
assumptions are cause for concern.
To put things plainly, many of the individ-
uals being called upon to develop and imple-
ment strategic plans have directly benefited
from systems of oppression within academic
spaces. These individuals were never criti-
cally evaluated on their understanding of
race and inequality before assuming their
roles, let alone their ability to address climate
issues in their respective units. Consider-
ing that we have dealt with years of delays,
inaction and at best superficial engagement
with initiatives to address race and climate
at the University, why should we believe that
administrators are both knowledgeable about
and committed to social equity? The Michi-
gan Mandate of the early 1990s, a University
initiative to recruit and retain faculty of color,
failed to do so. Like the current initiative, the
mandate was largely unfunded and used a
decentralized approach that gave high-rank-
ing administrators within each department
much discretionary power. History must not
repeat itself. A dedicated funding pipeline for
the President’s Initiative would equip admin-
istrators with support and much needed
expertise from trained professionals.
2) The development of strategic plans
requires a high level of engagement from cam-
pus units that may lack the capacity to imple-
ment them. Time is just as important a resource
as money, and anyone at the University can
speak to its scarcity. No new staff are being hired
to support diversity initiatives within school
units. Instead, the day-to-day tasks required for
planning and implementing diversity initiatives
are being added to the duties of existing faculty
and staff. Changing the climate at the University
is a shared responsibility and all members of the
community should indeed contribute. But the
reality is that when diversity responsibilities are
tacked on to existing job descriptions, they are
not given the time and attention they deserve. So
long as faculty and staff are burdened with new
job responsibilities but no additional resources
to meet their requirements, diversity and inclu-
sion plans are bound to fall short of expectations.
Departments need resources to increase their
faculty and staff capacity to take on diversity ini-
tiatives and engage with them meaningfully.
There are many centers at the University
that could partner with departments to fur-
ther the goals of the President’s initiative.
Centers such as the Office for Institutional
Equity and Services for Students with Dis-
abilities, among others, are equipped with
trained staff who are knowledgeable about
equity issues. Nevertheless, these centers
cannot be expected to adequately support
school units with strategic planning on such
a large scale. Allocated resources for diversity
and inclusion could increase the capacity of
existing centers on campus to connect with
school units and provide them with expertise
and practical guidance.
3) Strategic planning activities are devoid
of incentives and continue to rely on the uncom-
pensated labor of minority faculty, students and
staff. When responsibility for diversity efforts is
spread across the entire community, it becomes
very easy for those with the least to gain from
them to remain complacent, and allow others
to carry the burden. Rhetoric surrounding the
initiative emphasizes shared responsibility, but
does not acknowledge the reality that behavior
change rarely occurs in the absence of concrete
incentives. As long as engagement with stra-
tegic planning activities continues to be vol-
unteer-based, the volunteers themselves will
suffer for it. University leaders must recognize
that those who generously provide their exper-
tise and unpaid labor to leaders and admin-
istrators pay a price for it, both professionally
and psychologically. Faculty, staff and students
of color are routinely called upon to educate
and train their respective units on topics of
equity and power at their own expense, while
their more privileged counterparts are able to
invest their energies into activities that reward
them professionally. In this way, counter to its
intentions, the Strategic Planning Initiative’s
over-reliance on the voluntary contributions
of faculty, students and staff of color actually
exacerbates disparities at the University.
Contributors to diversity efforts must be
compensated and rewarded with opportuni-
ties for professional advancement. Staff and
students who do this work should be paid
to do it. Service contributions that address
issues of equity and climate should be weight-
ed accordingly when faculty are being evalu-
ated for tenure.
Equally as important, there must be strong
disincentives to discourage complacency and
penalties imposed upon negative contribu-
tors to climate. If diversity is indeed a shared
responsibility, then entire departments should
face ramifications when discrimination occurs
on their watch. As long as the current charge
remains volunteer driven, and no consequenc-
es are imposed on poor performers, the ini-
tiative will be ineffective. Simply asking the
community to care about diversity, without
providing them with incentives to do so, will
fail to transform the campus climate.
The President’s initiative has succeeded
in increasing dialogue related to diversity
and equity at the University. However, these
campus discussions have been ongoing for
decades; our communities are fatigued by
“diversity talk” and have little hope for
change at the University. We question how
the contemporary rhetoric differs from that
of the past, particularly when the current
initiative is unfunded. Without an infusion
of resources to 1) build expertise, 2) increase
capacity and 3) compensate and incentivize
engagement, diversity efforts will continue
to fall to the bottom of departments’ lists of
competing priorities. Funding is far more
critical than dialogue, and its presence or
absence will dictate whether we succeed or
fail as a community. We want to see Univer-
sity leadership rise to the occasion and earn
the trust of minority students, faculty and
staff by giving diversity its own budget.
—Michigan in Color is the Daily’s designated
space for and by students of color at the University of
Michigan. To contribute your voice or find out more
about MiC, e-mail michiganincolor@umich.edu.
Diversity initiatives might fail
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala,
Aarica Marsh, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke,
Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung, Stephanie Trierweiler, Mary Kate Winn, Derek Wolfe
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
JAMIE TAM AND VELMA LOPEZ | MICHIGAN IN COLOR
SAM
COREY