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, March 22, 2016

“Y

our Time, Your Voice, 
Your Michigan”

Election season is 

in high gear on campus as we take 
to our annual tradition of deciding 
who will lead the student body in 
the upcoming school year. The six 
words quoted at the beginning of this 
article have no doubt been seen by a 
significant portion of our campus. 
These six words are the words being 
used by one party, Your Michigan, 
to campaign on a platform of unity 
on our campus. These six words, 
I fear, are a campaign promise by 
this party’s leaders that will go 
unfulfilled.

Last 
week, 
Central 
Student 

Government hosted its presidential 
and vice presidential debate. As the 
School of Education representative 
on 
CSG 
and 
as 
a 
concerned 

student, I attended to see if the 
debate would sway my vote in the 
election. Both parties, after all, 
offer solid platforms based on real 
changes needed to improve our 
University. From safety and mental 
health to minority representation, 
both 
mainstream 
parties 
are 

represented by a presidential and 
vice presidential candidate who 
have done amazing work to make 
the University of Michigan better. 
This article, I hope, is seen not as 
an attack of their character, but 
rather a discussion of their ideas. 
After hearing their ideas in the 
debate, I now believe that only one 
party’s leadership has a conception 
of leadership that will truly let it 
represent Michigan in full, and that 
leadership is David Schafer and 
Micah Griggs of newMICH.

Now, mine is an opinion that is 

but one voice. However, after being 
on this campus for five years, being 
a student leader for three of those 
years, having worked in and with 
University administration, and now 
looking forward to becoming an 
alum in just a little over a month, I 
believe I have gathered a perspective 
that can be viewed as valuable. Over 
my time at Michigan, I’ve learned 
how to think about the narratives 
people use to discuss issues facing 
communities 
— 
including 
our 

community of Michigan — and it is 
precisely those narratives that, for 
me, distinguish the groups most.

Take the narrative on working 

with administration. At the debate, 
Thomas 
Hislop, 
presidential 

candidate 
for 
Your 
Michigan, 

made a clear distinction between 
how he would “work with” the 
administration 
instead 
of 
just 

“demanding” things as newMICH 
planned to do. Where I believe this 
narrative fails is that the history of 
our own University demonstrates 
that the changes that have most 
greatly affected students on campus 
have only come when students 
demanded 
them. 
Some 
prime 

examples 
are 
female 
students 

working to build the league and 
the Black Action Movements only a 
few short decades ago and even the 
#BBUM movement currently.

Demand does not have to be 

combative — in fact, it can be 
cooperative — but what demand 
does 
is 
hold 
our 
University 

accountable to a student body that 
changes every year. Student leaders 
can have demands and still be 
cooperative and accomplish many 
great things, which the #BBUM 
campaign has surely demonstrated. 
Surely, many — if not most — of the 
great things about this university 
have come from such demands on 
the parts of students. Michigan’s 
students make Michigan great. 

Then there were the narratives 

concerning 
representation 
on 

campus. In terms of discussing 
identity, I honestly believe both 
party’s leaders have a long way to go, 
but I do believe David and Micah are 
much better equipped to handle this 
topic from their first day in office 
than Thomas and Cam.

One way these narratives were 

demonstrated in the debate was 
the discussion about increasing 
minority enrollment. Thomas and 
Cam both discussed their plans 
of outreach to “urban” or “inner-
city” schools. While these outreach 
programs may certainly be helpful, 

they do ignore the fact that a student 
being from an urban city implies 
nothing about their race or other 
identities. Their narratives also 
spoke of these students in very 
privileged ways, assuming that they 
merely lack motivation to succeed 
and decide to come to a place like 
Michigan. As a future educator in the 
city of Detroit, a narrative like this 
is not one I would want my students 
exposed to from college leaders they 
would otherwise admire.

Rather, I would elevate the 

narrative both David and Micah 
discussed 
of 
improving 
the 

environment on campus where 
students 
from 
all 
backgrounds 

would feel welcomed, a theory the 
administration would do well to 
consider in addendum to its current 
initiatives. Minority students do not 
come to this university to appease 
our ideals or bolster our image, 
they come for an education. The 
conversations on campus sorely 
need to shift from what we can 

do to get students from different 
backgrounds here to what we can do 
to make them want to come and stay 
and be proud to become a Michigan 
alum. Schafer and Griggs made it 
clear to me that they understand 
that. Hislop and Dotson made it 
clear that they did not.

This lack of true reflection on 

identity was apparent numerous 
other times in the debate as well. 
When discussing Greek life, all those 
debating generalized our Greek life 
community in problematic ways. 
Both parties seemed to forget that 
numerous identities are present 
within and between Greek life 
organizations.

For instance, Schafer and Griggs 

made the point of CSG not seeming 
representative because of its heavy 
Greek life presence; however, the 
issue is significantly more complex, 
as there are plenty of Greek life 
students who most likely don’t 
feel represented by the Greek life 
students on CSG. While CSG does 
need diversification, looking solely 
to lower the proportion of Greek life 
students present is an essentialist 
rhetoric that does little to solve the 
true problem of representation.

The same issue of missing the 

true problem was present in the 
discussion on mental health. All 
four candidates wanted to discuss 
increasing resources — something 
truly and definitely needed — but 
only the Defend Affirmative Action 
Party candidates discussed working 
past these reactive measures and 
finding proactive ways to improve 
mental 
health 
on 
campus, 
in 

addition to working to figure out 
what on our campus is causing our 
mental health to worsen.

So 
while 
Your 
Michigan’s 

leaders may want their campaign 
to be based on your voice, the 
narratives they use to describe 
the University’s students and their 
experiences make me question 
whether that voice is simply one 
of a majority or one that is truly 
inclusive of all the University’s 
students. Who would be leading 
if they were to be elected: the 
leaders who think all voices 
should be heard or the ones who 
actively 
silenced 
some 
voices 

during our last assembly meeting? 
If we want our fellow Wolverines 
to feel “heard, protected and 
empowered” — as Hislop and 
Dotson have claimed they want 
to — erasing their experiences in a 
guise of unity is merely a negative 
peace which removes contention 
instead of a positive peace which 
promotes inclusion. So as we take 
to the polls, I ask our student body, 
who will lead CSG?

—Michael Chrzan is a gradu-

ating senior in LSA and the 

School of Education.

E-mail JoE at Jiovino@umich.Edu
JOE IOVINO

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan, 

Jeremy Kaplan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, 

Payton Luokkala, Kit Maher, Madeline Nowicki, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Anna Polumbo-Levy, Jason Rowland, Lauren 
Schandevel, Melissa Scholke, Kevin Sweitzer, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung,
Stephanie Trierweiler, Hunter Zhao

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

A 

month ago, I signed up for a 
30-day trial with Tidal, a new 
music streaming platform, 

to listen to the 
new 
Kanye 

West album The 
Life of Pablo. I 
spent those 30 
days 
forming 

my opinions of 
his new music 
before 
ending 

my 
trial 
with 

the 
streaming 

service. 
I 

already pay to 
stream 
music 

with 
Spotify, 

and I don’t need a second monthly 
subscription payment for this one 
particular album.

But then, Kanye announced he 

would be making adjustments to 
the album, tinkering with songs and 
fixing instrumentals. This is great 
news for Tidal as it may cause fans 
like myself to return to the platform. 
These adjustments to the album are 
hardly surprising — given Kanye’s 
recent manic behavior — but equally 
unheard of. Changing an album after 
its release hasn’t been possible to this 
extent before the age of streaming.

TechCrunch is calling Kanye’s The 

Life of Pablo the first “Streaming as a 
Service” album. What that means is 
by adding bonus tracks and updating 
existing songs, Kanye can transform 
The Life of Pablo from a static 
product to a fluid service. Treating 
albums like software — with minor 
updates, new artwork and additional 
content — redefines the album 
experience. Instead of streaming 
simply being a more convenient way 
to listen, its convenience enables 
albums to live and grow in real 
time on these platforms. It took an 
overconfident, experimental artist 

to show us an opportunity that’s 
been here all along. We’ve been too 
focused on streaming as a means to 
greater efficiency, rather than what 
that efficiency can make possible.

However, there are questions 

that need to be answered: How will 
this change consumer habits? Does 
having multiple versions of an album 
improve or detract from the value 
of an album? Could this be applied 
to playlists as well? In my opinion, 
the most important question is how 
to effectively display each version. 
Should new versions replace the 
old ones or exist concurrently? 
Should you be able to identify new 
updates similarly to annotations via 
SoundCloud and Google Docs? The 
answers are not intuitive because we 
haven’t historically thought about 
music in this manner.

Such a model, if it catches on, 

could mean that we are entering a 
more interactive era of music. At a 
time when experiences seem to be 

valued more than material objects, 
an interactive model could very 
plausibly have large-scale appeal. I 
expect some amount of resistance 
toward such a large philosophical 
shift.

People 
will 
argue 
that 
it 

diminishes the art in some way, 
evidenced by the fear that iTunes, 
for example, would disrupt the 
recording industry. However, if we 
can embrace a contemporary way to 

engage with the creative process of 
music, the economic implications of 
adoption are large.

This is good news for streaming 

services. Tidal has an opportunity 
to lock in subscribers and guarantee 
return users. This is even better 
news for artists if they can generate 
revenue throughout the process of 
building an album. This would not 
only potentially impact the way 
we perceive albums, but also how 
we think about album releases. 
Kanye is showing us that artists 
need not complete an album before 
capitalizing on it financially — that’s 
the untapped power of streaming.

Kanye is known for treating 

each album as an opportunity to 
do 
something 
completely 
new. 

His previous albums (i.e. 808s & 
Heartbreak and Yeezus) each took 
risks sonically that influenced how 
hiphop sounds. The Life of Pablo 
may change music in a much larger 
way. It’s possible that his decision to 
publicly change the album’s name 
and tracklist multiple times was part 
of an attempt to frame this album 
as the first of its kind. He has even 
acknowledged the project as a “living 
breathing creative expression.”

If Kanye were aware of the 

implications this innovation could 
have on the album format and 
contemporary music in general, 
perhaps 
his 
manic 
behavior 

was more calculated than we 
thought. Maybe his rants about 
the greatness of this project were 
not alluding to lyrical content 
or instrumentation — he’s still 
updating those elements anyway. 
I think Kanye knew what he was 
doing all along and we’re just 
realizing it now. 

 
—Zach Brown can be reached 

at zmbrown@umich.edu.

The untapped power of streaming

MICHAEL CHRZAN | OP-ED

Who will lead CSG?

“Treating albums 

like software... 

redefines the album 

experience.”

“Minority students 
do not come to this 
university to appease 

our ideals or bolster our 
image, they come for an 

education.”

O

n Feb. 1, 2016, I heard the words 
coming from presidential candidate 
Donald Trump’s lips on national 

television:

“I want to thank the 

people of Michigan,” after 
he won the Michigan 
Republican primary.

Seeing 
the 
popular 

support for Trump in my 
home state sparked my 
curiosity to answer the 
question: Why do people 
support 
Trump? 
What 

I discovered was many 
Trump supporters want 
security for themselves, 
a strong leader who does 
not walk on eggshells and/or economic 
prosperity from a leader they think cannot 
be bought by lobbyists. Trump gives people, 
at face value, exactly the type of anti-
establishment rhetoric they look for and he 
always has a solution for problems presented 
to the public, but at what cost?

Trump supporters highlight that his hate-

filled rhetoric and hasty generalizations 
are not the source of the problem, but are 
instead simply the manifestation of fear that 
U.S. politicians and mainstream media have 
perpetuated 
for 
years. 

He puts the blame on 
minorities, which causes 
an increase in the negative 
portrayal of minorities 
— a cost that has great 
ramifications in Black and 
brown communities. This 
also encourages people 
to 
express 
themselves 

using 
hateful 
speech, 

essentially normalizing it. 
This is dangerous in itself 
because instead of taking 
a nuanced approach to each issue, people 
look for action and quick solutions.

As Trump supporters use the slogan 

“Make America Great Again,” we should 
think about the implications of such a 
statement and what it means to go back to 
an America of the past. Trump’s rhetoric 
really is not so far from what people have 
been hearing in the past years, but what he 
is doing is offering solutions that are hard-
lined and to the point. As Islamophobia 
in America is perpetuated by the media, 
illegal immigrants are used as a scapegoat 
for America’s economic problems and Black 
youth are portrayed as thugs, the American 
people are left with the fear of seemingly 
imminent threats with no tangible solutions. 
Trump is thus seen as the savior from the 
same chaos that has been prophesized by 
the very media and the very politicians who 
speak against him now. When the foundation 
of fear has been built up this high, it is 
possible that there is no stopping the chaos 
from unfolding if Donald Trump becomes 
president. As many of us try to separate 
ourselves from the comments that Donald 

Trump makes, we should see him for what 
he is, which is a reflection of what America 
has become today. As we try to separate 
ourselves from his words, we should take a 
good look in the mirror and ask ourselves:

Are we all Trump?
Do we, even to a small extent, all 

embody what Donald Trump portrays on 
international news stations? Do we fear 
those who are different from us or hold 
implicit prejudice views of others, which 
Donald Trump is simply stating without 
apologizing for it? Do we really do things 
only for our own monetary success without 
thinking of the consequences of our actions? 
If we are Trump, then how is it that we can 
point to Trump supporters as bigoted or 
outliers in the American viewpoint? After 
all, these supporters claim themselves even 
more American than say, a small Muslim 
woman from the suburbs of Oakland County, 
Mich. And maybe they’re right, maybe they 
are just more American and we cannot blame 
them for wanting Donald Trump to become 
president — they just want someone to give 
them what politicians and the media refuse 
them: A secure future.

People are tired of living in fear, but the 

people they blame for their problems are 
their American neighbors. Donald Trump 

runs the slogan “Make 
America Great Again,” 
but what does that really 
mean? Is it back to the 
time 
when 
blackface 

was worn in theaters 
and put in headlines? 
Is it one where we have 
a 
president 
that 
the 

Mexican president and 
Pope liken to Stalin?

Progress 
is 
about 

moving 
forward 
and 

recognizing 
mistakes, 

and Donald Trump is just showing us what 
those mistakes are. What Americans are 
brought up to believe is that this nation was 
built on ideals of liberty and freedom, but the 
truth is that the constitution was not written 
to include minorities or women. Since that 
time, great progress has been made in the 
way of obtaining rights for these groups, but 
in a time when police brutality, racism and 
Islamophobia are on the rise, the movement 
to rid political correctness is a dangerous one.

As people begin to believe that hate speech 

is an acceptable form of freedom of speech that 
should be upheld as something progressive, 
more and more people are harmed by the 
rhetoric of Donald Trump and find it acceptable 
to unleash the part of us that is Donald Trump 
— the part of us that lives our lives based on fear 
of one another and clings to an old glorious past 
that never existed.

On the chance that Donald Trump does 

become president, I will not live my life in fear.

I will not let myself be Donald Trump.

—Rabab Jafri can be reached 

at rfjafri@umich.edu.

Are we all Donald Trump?

RABAB 
JAFRI

“Progress is about 

moving forward and 

recognizing mistakes, 

Donald Trump is just 

showing us what those 

mistakes are.”

ZACH 
BROWN

