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