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