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

