A

s the school year came to a 
close last spring, I had an 
idea for a column. A tirade, 

really. 
Rather 

than study for 
the impending 
finals 
week, 

make headway 
on the 14 papers 
that 
would 

be due in the 
next week or 
even make the 
rare proactive 
choice to begin 
packing, I was 
going to write 
an 
article 

about my take on Central Student 
Government elections.

I knew that I was not alone in 

thinking participating in CSG is a 
ludicrous exercise of the most self-
important students quibbling over 
the minutia of what little change 
they 
could 
actually 
facilitate 

on 
campus, 
while 
annoyingly 

flooding me with Facebook event 
invitations and beating the drum 
of a made-up political party that 
will exist for all of six months. 
But on Sept. 15, I very well may be 
proven wrong.

When the Board of Regents 

meets that night, it will consider 
an addition to the bylaws that 
would 
provide 
for 
the 
vice 

president 
for 
student 
life 
to 

“assist 
students 
in 
promoting 

the establishment of effective 
mechanisms 
for 
such 
student 

participation” 
in 
recognition 

of the importance of “student 
participation 
in 
University 

decision-making.” 
For 
this 

revision, CSG, and in particular 
new CSG President David Schafer, 
should be applauded.

For 
reasons 
passing 

understanding, the language above 
was removed in February 2011. As 
the bylaws stand today, the most 
substantial forum the student 
body has at the Board of Regents’ 

monthly meetings comes in the 
form of reports delivered by the 
CSG president on current student 
government projects. Even with 
this statement’s proposed return 
— reaffirming the importance of 
student voices in decision-making 
— the Board of Regents is just 
talking about talking. Simply put, 
that is not good enough.

Now is the chance for CSG 

and the host of elected student 
representatives (the same people 
who chased me down in the 
Diag and covered my dorm room 
door 
in 
quarter 
sheets 
with 

platitudes about change) to use 
this momentum, and the spirit of 
this vote, to induce radical change 
in the way students relate to the 
Board of Regents. If you want the 
student body to truly care in the 
next election cycle, get a seat at 
the table.

The first step in this process is to 

use accurate language. The bylaw 
states, 
“Student 
participation 

in 
University 
decision-making 

is 
important 
to 
the 
quality 

of the institution and will be 
sought and encouraged.” No, our 
participation is vital. Schafer said, 
in relation to this vote, “Students 
are 
certainly 
a 
very 
major 

stakeholder at Michigan.” No, we 
are the ultimate stakeholder. The 
decisions that are made at the 
Board of Regents level are about 
how we live, what we study, how 
much we pay and the University 
community to which we belong. 
And right now, these decisions are 
being made without us.

Just in case, at this point, you 

think real change is a long shot, 
student bodies around the country 
have adopted functioning and 
sustainable 
infrastructure 
for 

student voices to be heard at the 
highest level. At the University 
of Hawaii, a current student is 
appointed for a two-year term 
as a full, voting regent, and has 
been since the practice began in 

1997. The University of California 
system has benefitted from the 
input of a student regent since 
1974. Real change is possible. It 
has happened. It works.

Tuition at the University rose 

once again in June, passing at the 
Board of Regents by a vote of 5 
to 3. The cost of room and board 
rose with it, and ultimately, the 
University now expects to raise 
$1.31 billion in tuition and fees, up 
from $1.28 billion last year. Why? 
To make college more affordable, 
cycling some of that money back 
into 
financial 
aid, 
lowering 

the new cost of college. If that 
argument seems counterintuitive 
to you, that’s because it is. And I 
want a student in the room, saying 
that. 
Regent 
Andrea 
Fischer 

Newman (R), who voted against 
the tuition hike, asked, “Are we 
raising tuition because we can, 
rather than because we need to?” 
I want a student whose voice can 
join hers.

Now maybe a student regent 

is not the answer. Maybe it is 
not feasible, or cannot happen 
until years down the road. But 
the idea in itself is a start. The 
purpose of student government is 
to represent our interests. At the 
Board of Regents meeting Sept. 
15, for the first time since I began 
studying here, it seems as though 
that idea may become a reality.

To CSG and to the students 

who have chosen to represent 
me: Prove me wrong. Set change 
in motion that will, at the very 
least, give our student body the 
possibility to discuss what student 
representation at the Board of 
Regents might look like. I will 
happily eat my words and suffer 
through the onslaught of Facebook 
invites and quarter sheets when 
elections roll around again in 
March with a smile on my face.

—Brett Graham can be reached 

at btgraham@umich.edu. 

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

DO YOU LIKE DISCUSSING 

CAMPUS ISSUES?

STATE AND LOCAL POLICIES? 

MAYBE EVEN THE ELECTION?

JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD.

The Daily’s Editorial Board meets Mondays and 

Wednesdays at 7 p.m. in the newsroom at 

420 Maynard St. If you’d like to contribute to our 

editorials, join us one night. We’d love to talk to 

you about becoming a part of our staff.

4A — Tuesday, September 6, 2016

 Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Gracie Dunn, 
Caitlin Heenan, Jeremy Kaplan, Ben Keller, 
Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala, Kit Maher, 
Madeline Nowicki, Anna Polumbo-Levy, 

Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, 
Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung, 
Stephanie Trierweiler, Hunter Zhao

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

The ultimate stakeholders

BRETT 
GRAHAM

Maybe we needed a Trump
D

onald 
Trump 
announced 
his 

presidency 449 days ago. Today, Mr. 
Trump is the Republican nominee, 

one who will not easily 
be forgotten. Trump’s 
odyssey to the top of the 
ticket was first viewed 
as a dinner table joke for 
most, but now it’s a fact: 
Donald Trump has garnered the nomination 
surely and swiftly. His erratic, beyond-the-
pale tactics had many predicting a quick 
exit from the race. Instead, with each 
primary, the tan-faced, unpredictable and 
undoubtedly blunt Trump knocked his 
fellow Republicans off the ticket. However, 
now the comedy of Donald Trump’s 
candidacy has faded, replaced by the 
powerful reality that the popularity of Mr. 
Trump has both exposed and expanded the 
polarity of America. But maybe we needed 
that to happen.

Many, including myself, question how 

people could vote for someone who lacks 
all traits of a — to put it simply — normal 
politician. Well, the answer seems to be in 
the question. Some people in this country 
are done with the traditional leaders. 
As many experts have said in the past 
months, Trump’s appeal is derived from the 
displacement of specific sects of Americans.

The Times’s David Brooks described 

Trump’s supporters as “a coalition of the 
dispossessed,” citizens who have seen 
nothing but hardship from the current 
system. Trump’s stray from conventionality 
is not only a beacon of hope, but also a 
seemingly quick fix to the faulty system 
they see. Whether Trump truly intends 
to help these working class populations is 
not relevant. His unpredicted garnering 
of support reveals the unrest of unheard 
Americans, and, to some extent, it is needed.

As we are caught up in expanding 

economies, 
advancing 
technology 
and 

gentrification of cities, we forget who 
we are leaving behind. According to the 
Washington Post, Trump’s supporters tend 
to be uneducated, male and making less 
than $50,000 a year. For them, hardship 
rather than success has come from the ever-
changing America of the last 10 years.

The presidential election has seemed to 

polarize Americans, as most visibly seen 
in The New York Times’s video of Trump 
rallies, where angry Americans cheered, 

“Build the wall,” and participated in 
offensive rhetoric. It was a scary sight. Yet, 
it needed to be seen; it needed to be heard. 
These Americans are no longer tossed 
aside or hidden under greater issues; this 
time, thanks to Mr. Trump, they share his 
spotlight. This has resulted in a polarized 
nation, yet an unlikely group has come 
together to make a change against a Trump 
backdrop: politicians.

While neighborhood politics has become 

polarized, in one way Washington has 
seemingly taken steps to come together. 
It’s not often you see Republicans publicly 
endorsing Democrats. This slew of GOP 
members includes not just members of 
Congress, 
but 
foreign 
policy 
leaders, 

business donors and previously elected 
Republicans. This isn’t to say that all 
Republicans have become die-hard Clinton 
fans, but this degree of support is unheard 
of, especially during a presidential election. 
In past years, it has almost been taboo for 
Democrats and Republicans to agree on 
anything, yet the Trump phenomenon has 
done what 20 years of conventional politics 
has failed to do: bring politicians (slightly) 
closer together.

It’s a wake-up call for politicians, and it 

is two-fold. For one, it shows how different 
parties can come together. And second, it 
shows the unacknowledged vulnerability 
of displaced Americans. I’m not saying 
those who thoroughly support Trump 
aren’t supporting a man who has insulted 
almost 
every 
demographic, 
but 
their 

support represents their discontent with 
the status quo. It has brought to center stage 
an unhappy population that has shown it 
is a threat to traditional politics. And the 
traditional politicians have seen what this 
mass of Americans can do.

A possibly naive thought: I think the 

Trump experience could ultimately bring 
politicians together and, in turn, create 
policies that address the silent majority who 
fervently support Trump. Trumpism has 
revealed the faults of the American system, 
a system politicians and citizens alike are 
responsible for. We have heard the unrest 
of our neighbors and Washington has heard 
the unrest of its constituents. Maybe we 
didn’t want a Trump, but we needed one.

—Anu Roy-Chaudhury can be 

reached at anuroy@umich.edu. 

ANU ROY-
CHAUDHURY

Breeding the leaders and best
“C

ongratulations, Jason 
— You’re in!”

Much to my delight, 

I was officially 
the 
newest 

member 
of 

the Wolverine 
family. 
If 
I 

didn’t 
know 

what that entailed before, the rest 
of my acceptance letter laid it out 
clearly. I wasn’t “simply being 
offered a place in a college,” as the 
admissions office put it; rather, 
I was joining a community full 
of people “making a difference 
everywhere in the world.” I was 
joining the Leaders and Best.

After my first year in Ann 

Arbor, I can truthfully say that 
the letter did not exaggerate. My 
freshman year was spent living in 
West Quad — the same dormitory 
that James Earl Jones and Gov. 
Rick Snyder called home when 
they were students. I took a class 
in the Ford School of Public Policy, 
named after former president and 
fellow Wolverine, Gerald R. Ford. 
I attended a lecture by the former 
CEO of Twitter and University 
of Michigan alum, Dick Costolo 
— and then personally asked him 
a question afterward. And I am 
fortunate enough to have the 
opportunity to write for the same 
student newspaper that Thomas 
Dewey, Sanjay Gupta and Arthur 
Miller contributed to during their 
time as Michigan students.

However, the pressure to succeed 

at that level — to truly become one 
of the Leaders and Best — can be 
overwhelming 
at 
times. 
While 

the atmosphere at this university 
(at least inside the classroom) 
is often more competitive than 
collaborative, 
competition 

tends to breed excellence, right? 
Competition also breeds unwanted 
side effects, though — including, 
but not limited to, the unsolicited 
byproducts of a poor-quality-of-
living and high-stress lifestyle. And 
allowing those byproducts to take 
over your life often comes at the 
expense of your academic success.

During 
my 
freshman 
year, 

especially in the fall, most of 
my closest friends were either 
in the College of Engineering or 
enrolled in STEM-related majors. 
As a result, I often found myself 
comparing my schedule to theirs. 
“Am I taking classes that are too 
easy?” or “Maybe my major won’t 
make me enough money” are two 
common thoughts that plagued 
me throughout the semester. As a 
result, I enrolled in courses that 
I knew I wouldn’t enjoy and, of 
course, didn’t end up enjoying — all 
because I feared I was not achieving 
at the same level as my peers.

Consequently, 
my 
grades 

suffered. It’s little wonder I did 
well in the classes I liked and 
poorly in those I didn’t. I had a 
false conception that the only way 
to become one of the Leaders and 
Best was to push myself tirelessly 
in classes I hated. This revealed 

a bigger flaw in my mindset — I 
assumed that there were only a 
few rigid paths to reaching success. 
While there’s something to be said 
about stepping outside of your 
comfort zone, there is a fine line 
between expanding your horizons 
by exploring untapped interests 
and being constantly stressed about 
work you dread doing.

One of my biggest lessons 

from my first year was that I 
can be successful in whatever 
field I choose, as long as I try 
my best. Despite the competitive 
atmosphere that the University 
sometimes produces, I shouldn’t 
adjust my plans for anyone but 
myself, and neither should you. 
Michigan produces the Leaders 
and Best because it excels in 
almost every field across the 
academic 
and 
professional 

spectrum — from engineering 
to history and from business to 
biology. Almost all of the alumni 
“Leaders and Best” forged their 
own paths to reach the places 
they did, which is an important 
fact to remember when you catch 
yourself 
comparing 
yourself 

to your peers. I promise if you 
don’t forget that, and if you 
plan your class schedule and 
extracurriculars with that in 
mind, the University will be a 
much less competitive place and 
a much more enjoyable place.

—Jason Rowland can be 

reached at jerow@umich.edu. 

E-mail michEllE at shEngmi@umich.Edu
MICHELLE SHENG

JASON 
ROWLAND

