M y adolescent years were weaned on Tumblr, a website that stole too much of my middle school free time and taught me words and phrases such as “queer,” “neurotypical” and “social justice warrior.” These were the days before celebrities such as Halsey and Zendaya took social justice from the hid- den corners of the Internet and made it trend on Twitter. Back in middle school, there was no Amy Schumer to tell me I could love my body even though stretch marks painted my thighs, no John Legend to explain to me that #BlackLivesMatter doesn’t mean that other lives don’t matter, just that Black lives matter, too. No, social justice and political correctness were self-taught classes back in middle school, and I was the star student in my class of one. Yet, as the world began waking up and social issues found themselves on the front cover of renowned magazines and newspapers, it seemed the people immediately around me were still fast asleep, Sleeping Beauties stuck in a past era. Din- ner table conversations were hopelessly lopsided as I struggled to educate my family on topics they just couldn’t understand. There was no malice in my friends’ voices when they expressed shock about a fellow classmate’s change in pronouns or their fabulous fuchsia dress at prom, just confu- sion. “I just … don’t get it,” my friend said once, upon learning that Laverne Cox was transgender. “How can you just feel like a different gender? Isn’t that just being, like, a tomboy? What’s the differ- ence between being a tomboy and a transsexual?” “Transgender,” I corrected gently. Teaching my friends and family to think oth- erwise was a challenge. After all, they’d grown up in conservative homes in a perfect cookie-cutter Midwestern town: Troy, Mich. Cis and trans were chemistry terms, and gender was as binary as a base-two number system. I’d learned in Troy that it was easier to stay quiet and “stick to the status quo.” Online, I could safely rock the boat and dis- cuss police brutality, but in real life, it was easier to just nod with a tight smile when my co-worker condemned abortion and “homosexuals in the government.” I was waiting for my community to catch up to the social activism on the internet, but it just seemed hopelessly stuck. Stepping foot onto the University of Michigan’s campus during Summer Orientation was like Tumblr coming to life around me. As my orienta- tion leaders introduced themselves by their names, majors and preferred pronouns, my jaw dropped to the ground. I’d never heard anyone state their preferred pronouns in person before. This min- ute detail made all the difference in welcoming anyone who may not identify as male or female with open arms. The Educational Theater Com- pany performance only reinforced the culture of inclusion and diversity as the players danced and sang about topics I’d always considered “taboo” in real life: mental illness, gender roles, racism, sexism and feminism. Awestruck in the dark auditorium, I realized that staying quiet wouldn’t inspire change in the community around me. I couldn’t just wait around for my family and peers to “catch up;” change needs a catalyst, and a voice is the first spark. Emboldened by the spirit of activism on the University of Michigan’s campus, I returned home a bolder woman. The change was small, but it was a flicker where previously there was none. When my co-worker denounced abortion, I replied to him, offering many reasons women choose to abort and control their own bodies. I may not have changed his mind, but I offered him the perspective of a woman in the pro-life debate, a necessary viewpoint which he lacked. When my mother fretted over the length of my skirt before I left to hang out at a boy’s house, I ques- tioned why promiscuity by females is so condem- nable but promiscuity by males is celebrated. And when my well-meaning friend called a celebrity “weird” because “she tweets stuff like ‘hashtag feminism,’ ” I, with the help of another friend, explained to her that feminists aren’t all angry, man-hating monsters. These steps are little, but they are the result of a single weekend on campus. I can only imagine how much more I’ll learn after one year, and then four years. “College makes students liberal,” my government teacher had stated as if it were some- thing terrible, but I don’t think college pushes students one way or the other. Rather, college students are allowed, for the first time, to experi- ence social issues unfolding right in front of them. On a college campus, students can form their own opinions and views without the overhang- ing influence of family, and they are wowed to see that they, too, can inspire change. —Ashley Zhang can be reached at ashleyzh@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 4A — Thursday, September 8, 2016 T he city of Detroit has long been a great American city that has gone through a lot as our nation has developed. Over the past few years, Detroit has had its fair share of struggles, having filed for bankruptcy in 2013 and seen a monumental decline in population over the last few decades. Pundits and writers from as close as Michigan and as far away as other countries are always lining up to take shots at Detroit and its identity as a city. However, the problems with Detroit didn’t start in the last 10 years. Decades of systemic racism and inequality have allowed privileged white people to move to suburbs as far away as Ann Arbor, while stranding low-income minority populations inside the city with less and less resources available to serve the city. Even this last year, Detroit Public Schools were reborn as the Detroit Community Schools as part of a deal worked out in the Michigan legislature — a deal that I have already spoken out against. Despite the fact that Detroit is the largest city in Michigan, enrollment at the University of Michigan features a sparse population of Detroit residents. To add onto all of this, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump still found a way to call Michigan, specifically the manufacturing sector of Detroit, a “disaster.” Michigan students frequently have a litany of bad things to say about the city. Even students who have never been to Michigan ask if they are safe to visit the airport, which is located 20 minutes outside of Detroit city limits. Despite all of this, I still have hope. Detroit is an amazingly diverse city, with pockets of areas made up of a majority of Muslim or Latino people. The culture and spirit of Detroit can’t be crushed, and I firmly believe that things will only go upward from here. All across the city, people are coming together to do what the city motto has instructed the city to do for hundreds of years. “Speramus meliora; resurget cineribus,” the Latin mottos on the city flag, say we shall hope for better things, and that those things shall rise from the ashes. That motto is something I can believe — not for a “new Detroit” only for wealthy suburban residents or downtown trustafarians, but for a Detroit that rises from the ashes for all Detroiters. I highly urge all Michigan students to visit Detroit via the free Detroit Center Connector and to explore all that the great things the city has to offer. Finally, I urge everyone to keep abreast on issues in the city. While it may be easy to ignore developments about the ongoing school concerns or the unfair tax foreclosures that are taking place across the city, it is incredibly important to stay up to date on what is happening. — Kevin Sweitzer can be reached at ksweitz@umich.edu. Just 40 minutes away M y sister is sitting straight up on the end of our living room couch, her eyes refus- ing to waver from our large flat-screen TV. She’s been binge-watching “House of Cards” for nearly four hours now, and in this particular episode, President Underwood is threatening his own wife in the most overdramatic, Machiavellian manner I have ever witnessed. My sister is hanging on the fictional president’s every word in pure awe of what she believes is a dramatical- ly accurate picture of the dark side of American politics. Meanwhile, I sit there in utter disgust at the almost insane depiction of Ameri- can politics. I hate political dramas. In total truth, I have seen nearly every major political drama put to TV, Netflix and HBO. Being high- ly interested in politics naturally leads me to watching a fictional- ized version of my obsession. Yet the current political climate has brought me to begin to despise these shows. Americans distrust our govern- ment, and our current election cycle clearly shows that. Candidates on both sides of the aisle have vowed to work against the establishment and the typical government bureau- cracy that they say has failed the American people. To add to this distrust, the public also lacks a basic understanding of the functions and responsibilities of our government. For example, the Annenberg Public Policy Center reported that a little more than a third of Americans could name all three branches of the U.S. government. This funda- mental lack of understanding of our complex government, paired with a growing distrust of politicians, leaves us in today’s chaotic presi- dential election. The public’s “imagination” of what politicians do within the upper echelons of government can be somewhat attributed to the emergence of American politi- cal dramas. Shows like “The West Wing,” “Scandal” and “House of Cards” are truly terrible guides to the way our government operates and how our politicians work. Yet these shows are extraordinarily entertaining and addictive. They carry massive audiences through multiple seasons, winning awards, securing excellent ratings, all at the expense of shaping false mis- conceptions of the politicians of our country. The shows person- ify politics to a crippling degree, oversimplify the policy making of our massive bureaucracy, and most importantly, cast politicians as these scheming sociopaths who manipulate and warp the system for their own benefit. These fac- tors culminate to a false representa- tion of our government within the minds of millions of Americans, and as the current election cycle shows, unorthodox candidates can capital- ize on this ignorance. America got its first taste of political drama in 1999 with the NBC series “The West Wing.” Though the show was well received from an entertain- ment standpoint, many of the more politically informed view- ers were disappointed with its “personality-driven politics,” to quote an article from The Atlan- tic. It portrayed a false image of what happens within the levels of bureaucracy in our government. Individual characters tackled mas- sive responsibilities and challeng- es that have been unsolvable for decades. For example, the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is solved in a matter of a few episodes, prompt- ing this idea that major conflicts can be solved through some per- sonal “heart to heart” negotiation and compromising policy between understanding individuals. But who could blame NBC? “The West Wing” was only entertaining when the cast was able to solve the unsolvable through their hard work and dedication. What audi- ence wants to watch an Israeli- Palestinian compromise descend into failure? Or see a debate over what entitlements to cut for poor- er Americans? Or listen to presi- dential candidates speak about banning entire religions or how much the United States will tor- ture its military prisoners? Well unfortunately, that is the reality, and these dramas only add to mak- ing that reality worse in the fact that viewers are led to believe in a false possibility within the over- personified and simplified politics of shows like “The West Wing.” Yet, the more prevailing effect that TV political dramas have on their misinformed viewers is con- vincing them of a darker reality in which politicians operate. To put it simply, to be a politician within this country, one must also be a socio- path. The political drama “House of Cards” bludgeons this point to death. Within America, Kevin Spac- ey’s character seems to have molded the archetype for politicians: an apolitical madman who uses pol- icy and his position solely for the advancement of his power. What’s more is the contrast between the U.K. and U.S. ver- sions of “House of Cards.” In the U.K. version, the main protago- nist’s self-interest and desire to gain and hold power is rooted in the fact that he believes his poli- cy agenda and legislative ability will come to benefit the country. His ruthless acts are thereby a means to a rational end. In con- trast with the U.S. version, the protagonist comes off as almost apolitical throughout the entire show. His ambitions are simply to become the most powerful man in the world. This presents the idea that the problem with American politics is not borne of a particular party or ideology, but rather the American political system itself — that, in fact, our political land- scape is dominated not by partisan hawks or doves, but by a power- hungry class of elites competing for influence and domination. Yet these shows are made for one purpose, for my sister to sit on the edge of our couch hanging on every word. Is it the responsibil- ity of TV networks and producers to ensure an accurate representa- tion of American politics is deliv- ered to their audience? Of course not — these are TV dramas meant to capture massive audiences and achieve high ratings. The writers and producers of these shows are simply capitalizing on the igno- rance and disdain toward the American political machine. Besides, some may argue a posi- tive effect is that these shows have helped push more people to become involved in the political landscape of America, due to their newfound interest these shows have fostered. Does not the benefit (a more politi- cally interested public), outweigh the costs (a few inaccuracies and over dramatizations)? No. Though these shows indi- vidually may have a few inac- curacies or oversimplifications, their aggregate effect relates to the overall problem that is the reason why these dramas have become a success. These shows capitalize on how the present- day American citizenship is too misinformed, untrustworthy and divided toward its government and politicians. Add in the rising intensity of partisanship, and this lack of pragmatism leads to strict, often ignorant, blind party ideol- ogy alignment. Most importantly today, this phenomenon allows for the emer- gence of unorthodox candidates capitalizing on this growing hatred. These shows that add to this negative perception can only lead to further missteps within our political system. How much will the misrepresentations and inac- curacies affect the voting decisions of the general public? It appears as if the presidential election cycle of 2016 has answered that. —Michael Mordarski can be reached at mmordars@umich.edu. Against political dramas MICHAEL MORDARSKI 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, Kevin Sweitzer, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung, Stephanie Trierweiler EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS KEVIN SWEITZER No longer in a class of one IN CHAN LEE Email in Chan at tokg@umiCh.Edu 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. Stop by sometime — we’d love to talk to you about joining our staff. “The more prevailing effect is convincing viewers of a darker reality in which politicians operate.”