100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

September 19, 2016 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.



M

ack
Avenue
is
a

14-mile-long street in
Detroit and provides

one of the most unique views of
the city imaginable. Starting at
Woodward Avenue in Midtown,
this road cuts across the east side
of Detroit. This street is one of the
most
controversial

streets in the nation.
For three miles on
the city’s east side, Mack Avenue
forms the eastern border of the
city of Detroit. On the west side
of the street is the predominantly
Black city of Detroit, and on the
east, the five municipalities that
make up the wealthy suburb of
Grosse Pointe.

While the conversation about

life around such a marked division
line is largely up for debate, many
people have argued that being
from one side or the other allows
for a greater or lesser quality
of life. In August, EdBuild — a
nonprofit dedicated to school
funding equity — rated the
Grosse Pointe-Detroit border the
“most segregating school district
boundary” in America. It is an
undeniable fact that being a child
in Grosse Pointe allows for much
more opportunity than that same
child’s counterpart who lives on
the other side of Mack Avenue.

When I went to the border line

on Mack Avenue, I was shocked.
Less than a mile from Detroit,
charming
houses
reeking
of

wealth lined the streets, and
middle-aged white people were
walking their dogs on every
block. The premier high school,

Grosse
Pointe
South,
has
a

campus fit for an Ivy League prep
school, with restaurants across
the street advertising “house
accounts” for the students, paid
for by their parents. One resident I
interviewed, Mr. Cornell Walker,
has two children in the Grosse

Pointe school district
and
admitted
that

children on the Grosse

Pointe side have more opportunity
than students in Detroit.

These
differences
aren’t

simply chalked up to how each
municipality divides up its money.
On the Detroit side of Mack, the
median income is just more than
$26,000 per year. However, the
Grosse Pointe side has a median
household income of more than
$90,000 per year. The differences
don’t stop there, as the youth
poverty rate is 49 percent on the
Detroit side and only 7 percent
on the other. Keep in mind that
these two cities are neighbors,
neighbors who share a common
border and are in the same county.

So why care? It’s no secret

that suburban schools have more
money and can afford nicer things
for their students than inner-city
schools, isn’t it? The alarming
fact here isn’t simply that there is
a difference between one school
and another; it’s the size of the
difference. Many Detroit Public
Schools
are
underperforming,

and, for many families, there are
no other options for their students
short of risking placement of
their child in a charter school.
However,
for
Grosse
Pointe

residents, having the eighth-best
high school in the state as the
default option affords unlimited
amounts of educational potential.

Additionally,
Grosse
Pointe

schools play an active role in
these
segregationist
policies.

The school’s official policy bans
students who do not live within the
district, which is 93 percent white,
from enrolling and says that any
students “found to be ineligible
to be enrolled shall be promptly
removed.” It’s as simple as that.
If you live on one side of the line
but go to school on the other and
the school finds out, you’re kicked
out of school, back across Mack
Avenue into Detroit. This isn’t a
niche concern of residents either;
Walker expressed concerns about
“students from other districts
(who) falsely use a Grosse Pointe
address to go to the schools, and
when you put it like that, it is not
fair to the taxpayers (of Grosse
Pointe).” Many residents feel this
way and even feel as though the
presence of students from Detroit
is more of a problem than the
students of Detroit having less
opportunity and lower quality of
education than in Grosse Pointe.

The days of “white only”

schools may have been declared
over by the famed Brown v. Board
of Education decision of 1954,
but segregation is far from over.
East English Village Preparatory
Academy, a DPS high school,
is more than 99 percent Black,
however, just two miles away,
Grosse Pointe South High School
is 84 percent white. Two miles.

That’s the distance from the
Hill neighborhood to Michigan
Stadium. Anyone who claims
that there is no segregation of
the schools by this line is not
grounded in reality.

It is unacceptable that Detroit’s

urban schools have come to this
point. Brown v. Board of Education
may have been a good starting
point for the desegregation of
schools, but that mission has
grossly failed. This problem isn’t
simply limited to the Grosse Pointe
and Detroit border either. Many
University of Michigan students
come from areas similar to this
one that are equally as segregated.
I strongly urge my readers to look
back upon their own experiences
in their own schools and think of
times that school segregation has
caused them an unfair chance
at success. Furthermore, as the
future generation of policymakers
and parents, we need to find a way
to genuinely desegregate schools.

How can students from these

districts,
known
as
“island

districts,” take pride in their
accomplishments knowing that
the deck is stacked in their favor
so grossly? The extreme levels of
hypocrisy and racism that play out
here every day is unacceptable in
any society, nonetheless a society
that frequently calls itself free of
racism and segregation. We must
do better than segregated schools,
and we must face the reality of the
problem that we have created.

4A — Monday, September 19, 2016
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

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.

SHOHAM GEVA

Editor in Chief

CLAIRE BRYAN

and REGAN DETWILER

Editorial Page Editors

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.

Carolyn Ayaub
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

FROM THE DAILY

Sexual misconduct education is key
S

ince the U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation into
the University of Michigan’s handling of sexual misconduct cases in
2014, the University has made multiple efforts to protect students from

sexual assault on campus. Last year, the University surveyed the student
body in the Campus Climate Survey, and revised and released a new sexual
misconduct policy — renaming it “The University of Michigan Policy and
Procedures on Student Sexual and Gender-based Misconduct and other forms
of Interpersonal Violence.” Changes to the policy included an expansion of the
definitions of consent and intoxication, a restructuring of the appeals process
within the reporting process and the promotion of a multitude of resources for
survivors on campus. The one call behind all these efforts, by both students
and administrators alike, has been and should continue to be increased
education about sexual assault prevention and the reporting process.

JOE IOVINO | CONTACT JOE IOVINO AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU

Brown v. Board is dead

L

ast year, as a poor college
kid desperate for extra
cash, I stupidly decided

to start playing DraftKings — a
daily fantasy sports site where
you are able to win money by
spending as little as three bucks
to win much, much
more
than
your

buy-in. I played for
weeks, not winning,
and finally told my
girlfriend to hold me
accountable — that
if I ever mentioned
playing DraftKings
again, she should say
no or slap my wrist.

Don’t
get
me

wrong

I
love

football. My fondest
memories
of
childhood
are

watching games every Sunday
on the couch with my father. In
fact, I still played fantasy football
in multiple leagues. I didn’t
play for the money, though, but
just for the thrill of beating my
friends when my players — who
are risking their lives every time
they step on the gridiron — play
better than the athletes (who are
also risking their lives) on my
opponent’s team.

That’s why I’m not playing

this year. In my point of view, if
you really think about it, those
who play fantasy football are
getting angry at players if they
perform terribly, making money
and jeering friends when a life-
threatening sport is involved.
We’re capitalizing — earning
money and bragging rights —
off players essentially risking
their lives.

The sport of football is not

being taken as seriously as it
should be. There are far more
laughs and cheers when we should
be wincing as men are engaging
in one of the most dangerous
sports. The reality of the sport
should not be glossed over.
Instead of throwing fits over poor
performance, we should be more
upset about the jarring concussion
statistics that have become all too
associated with the sport.

Concussions in the NFL and

the impact they have on players

during and after their careers are
too haunting for me to participate
in fantasy football for now. I
simply cannot be invested in how
someone performs for my virtual
benefit when something could
happen on Sunday that could

change their life. Yes,
I know they’re making
millions of dollars. Yes,
I’m aware that most
players aren’t hurt in
life-threatening ways
in a typical game, but
who knows what the
health
of
today’s

Aaron Rodgers and
Cam Newton will be
like decades down
the road? And yes,
concussion protocols

are stricter in the NFL (leading
to better player safety) and
hits to the head are now being
called
as
major
penalties,

but a study released in April
by the American Academy
of Neurology said that more
than 40 percent of retired
NFL players showed signs of
traumatic brain injury.

Even some current players

are choosing to leave the game
early because of the reality that
head injuries are very common.
After one year in the NFL, star
rookie Chris Borland decided
to retire, citing a concern that
he could sustain head injuries
if he played any longer. One
of the NFL’s all-time greatest
linebackers,
Junior
Seau,

committed suicide almost four
years ago and it was found
that he suffered from chronic
traumatic
encephalopathy,

a
progressive
degenerative

disease in the brain that
results from large or repeated
hits to the head.

So much of the focus is on

that one big hit that knocked
someone
out
cold,
when

arguably the same attention
should be given to the lineman
who might smash helmets
every single play. Even non-
head injuries take a toll on
players. The Lions’ beloved
wide receiver Calvin Johnson
retired this offseason when

everyone thought he had many
more
spectacular
seasons

ahead of him. As much as I
will miss him, I respect his
decision and cannot criticize
him
for
prioritizing
self-

care. His actions, much like
Borland’s, are commendable.
We must put a player’s health
over our affinity for them.

I realize I am faced with

a
conundrum
because
I’m

still a fan of the sport and I
still contribute to the sport
by watching my Lions every
Sunday as if it’s an extension
of my religious activity after
going to church. I’m not saying
that we should stop watching
football or stop playing fantasy
football, but that we should
examine and recognize that
football is dangerous, first and
foremost. The players know
the risks and keep playing. The
fans can know the risks the
stars on the field are making
and keep watching.

Football should be thought

of as more than entertainment.
Football has serious health
implications. All I see on
Saturdays and Sundays during,
before and after games are
questions such as whether
Harbaugh ate a booger at the
end of the UCF game (I think
he was just biting a hangnail)
or if Lions fans will be able to
stop saying “At least there’s
next year!” this season.

There must be more of open

discussion on how the game is
dangerous and what is being
done to make it safer. We boo
on targeting calls, but how
often do we stop and think,
“Geez, is the player that got hit
going to be OK?” Will we value
their health instead of their
performance
and
presence

needed to win a game?

So while I cheer when my

favorite teams get to the end
zone, I pray at the same time
that they’ll be safe out there.
Stay strong, but take care of
yourselves, my brothers.

Football isn’t all fun and games

CHRIS

CROWDER

Kevin Sweitzer can be reached at

ksweitz@umich.edu

Last Monday, the most recent

addition to educational efforts
came in the form of an online
portal
that
educates
faculty

of their role when reporting
sexual
misconduct.
This

online tool will streamline the
reporting process for designated
University-affiliated
personnel

and offer training for all faculty
members on what is and is not
inappropriate conduct, how to
support students who share
information about misconduct
and how to notify the University
of instances of misconduct.

While the portal is definitely

a step in the right direction,
it
does
not
guarantee
the

education of all faculty because
it is not mandatory for faculty to
complete its training program. It
is quite likely some faculty will
not put the time aside to review
the material. For students to reap
the full benefits of this tool, all
faculty members need to be on
board with using the tool as a
means for protecting the safety

of their students. Since the tool’s
success is contingent upon how
many faculty actually use it, at
a bare minimum the University
should require all faculty and
employees of the University to
complete the training.

This
step
forward
also

illuminates
more
holes
in

sexual misconduct education on
campus, specifically concerning
how mandatory reporting applies
to students when they decide to
share information with a faculty
member.
Students
need
not

only be aware of to whom and
how best they can report a case
of sexual misconduct — which
the Sexual Assault Prevention
and Awareness Center outlines
on its website well — but
when they are subject to being
reported by faculty. The current
policy requires most faculty
and administrators and many
employees to report a case of
sexual misconduct to the Office
for Institutional Equity if a
student shares information with

them. Yet there are individual
positions that offer confidential
services and are excluded from
the reporting requirement, such
as counselors at Counseling
and Psychological Services and
SAPAC.

These types of exceptions of

mandatory reporting need to be
made clear to students so they
understand the appropriate place
and person to turn to. There
must be better education for
students about the parameters of
mandatory reporting. It is only
just that students are aware of
their rights when it comes to their
privacy and options of reporting
a case of sexual misconduct.

The
University
has
a

responsibility to mandate that
all faculty and employees must
complete the training via this
online portal, as well as create
similar
educational
efforts

for students about mandatory
reporting
policies
and

procedures.

KEVIN SWEITZER | COLUMN

CHRIS CROWDER | COLUMN

— The University’s chapter of College Republicans’ formal endorsement of

Donald Trump for president on Wednesday, Sept. 14


NOTABLE QUOTABLE

I know that some (of) you may not agree with all of Mr.

Trump’s statements and policies, but the campaign is
not about one person. Mr. Trump in the White House
comes with an entire administration of conservatives...

And any vote not for Trump is a vote for Clinton.

Chris Crowder can be reached at

ccrowder@umich.edu

KEVIN

SWEITZER

Readers are encouraged to submit

letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300
words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full
name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Back to Top

© 2025 Regents of the University of Michigan