Forced arbitration: It’s a
tactic used by corporations to
avoid being held accountable in
a court of law for detrimental,
and possibly illegal, activities
against consumers.
Over the past several years,
it has become increasingly
difficult to apply for necessities
such as an auto loan, a cell
phone contract or even cable
and internet service without
being subjected to a hidden
arbitration
clause.
Time
Warner Cable, Comcast, Wells
Fargo and many others use
this scheme to circumvent
courts and prevent consumers
from joining together in class-
action lawsuits, undermining
the consumer’s ability to seek
justice in the wake of corporate
wrongdoing.
These insidious clauses bind
consumers
to
unknowingly
sign away their access to a
court, leaving them to deal
with disputes through private,
secretive tribunals that favor
the company over the consumer,
instead of undergoing a fair
judicial process. The typical
consumer never glances at
the mountain of text in the
terms and conditions, but a
surprising number of contracts
hide these clauses in the fine
print,
preventing
everyday
consumers from challenging
predatory practices such as
hidden fees, fraud and other
illegal behavior.
For-profit
colleges
such
as ITT Technical Insitute,
University
of
Phoenix
and
Everest College are some of
the largest household names
that include forced arbitration
clauses. The ads and jingles hide
the fact that attending these
schools
means
unwittingly
signing
away
rights.
For-
profit colleges are run by
corporations and shareholders
solely interested in profits, so
as students shell out tens of
thousands of dollars for school,
prospective
employers
turn
them down upon graduation,
as many employers do not see
their degrees from for-profit
colleges as credible.
Thus,
when
students
attempt to sue these colleges,
many of them discover their
options are limited by forced
arbitration clauses. Arbitration
proceedings are shrouded in
secrecy, do not use a jury and
offer few grounds for court
review. Even clear legal and
factual errors by arbitrators
may be an insufficient basis
for overruling an arbitrator’s
decision.
Unable
to
take
for-profit colleges to court,
students may lose thousands of
dollars and wind up in crippling
debt. Yet students are not the
only ones being thrown to the
curb because of arbitration
clauses.
Obstetric
patients,
American Express cardholders
and even cruise ship employees
have had their rights stripped
away for filing class-action
lawsuits because of what has
been hidden in fine print. In
one not-uncommon case, a
Wells Fargo employee opened
up a fraudulent account without
the customer’s knowledge in
order to boost sales figures. Yet
even then, the account holder
would be prevented from suing
and taking it up to court and
instead be forced to deal with
an arbitrator behind closed
doors.
To combat these dangerous
and illegitimate clauses, Public
Citizen, a nonprofit consumer
advocacy
organization,
petitioned the U.S. Department
of Education and the U.S.
Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau to restrict pre-dispute
arbitration
clauses.
Both
agencies have proposed rules
to limit arbitration clauses.
While the proposed rules fall
short of banning arbitration
clauses outright — and both
still need to be strengthened
— they represent a critical step
forward in the fight against
these dangerous clauses and
are expected to be finalized
before the current president
leaves office. If you are looking
to
become
involved,
get
involved at Public Citizen and
fight forced arbitration clauses
on the floor by telling your
members of Congress today.
Forced
arbitration
is
a
scam that forces individuals
into giving up their rights
in exchange for the ability
to participate in the modern
American marketplace. Law-
breaking corporations should
not simply be able to say “no
thanks” to our system of justice
by sneaking arbitration clauses
into the fine print of everyday
terms of service.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, September 21, 2016
The fine print of for-profit schools
BRENT KIM | OP-ED
Who is Trump’s team, really?
CJ MAYER | COLUMN
“A
nd you have to be
smarter than they
are. I hear so many
times, ‘Oh, I want my people to
be smarter than I am.’ It’s a lot
of crap. You want to be smarter
than your people, if possible.”
— Donald Trump (2007)
Throughout
the
election,
you’ve
heard
the
same
argument
when
discussing
Trump, his policy and how
he’ll
improve
the
country:
He’s got the best guys and
he’ll listen. Not only is this
argument incredibly flawed,
it’s just plain wrong. If this
is the default response in
policy debates from Trump
supporters, there’s no point
in having in-depth debates
without first dissecting this
logic.
First, what if Trump did
have the best advisers? Is that
enough to make him a good
world leader? Unfortunately,
that’s
not
how
the
world
works. Contrary to what you’ll
hear from either side, many
policy issues are outstandingly
complicated with no single
clear-cut decision to be made.
Experts in everything from
economics to education, even
though they know their topic
more than anyone else in the
world, still disagree with one
another. It’s up to the president
to take their factual arguments
and disseminate them. Sitting
in the dark residential office
‘til the sun rises, pouring over
endless pages, wrestling with
arguments that could lead to
death of American soldiers or
lead to poverty for millions
and deciding what is best for
the American people — that
is the president’s job. It’s
why a president’s judgments
and policy opinions matter
and why simply listening to
advisers is not enough to lead
the free world.
Now let’s bring attention
to his advisers, and let’s start
with Roger Ailes, the man
preparing
Trump
for
his
debates. He spent his past
two decades creating, leading
and turning Fox News into
the right-wing bastion that
it is now. Why’d he leave his
successful time at Fox? More
than 20 people, ranging from
hosts like Gretchen Carlson
and stars like Megyn Kelly to
employees like booker Laurie
Luhn, have all come forward
and accused Ailes of sexual
harassment.
Ailes
started
advising Trump after these
accusations.
Take Corey Lewandowski,
Trump’s first (and now fired)
campaign manager who has
re-emerged as one of his closest
confidants.
Lewandowski
was the force behind the “let
Trump be Trump” movement
and encouraged him to never
apologize
and
to
attack
the Gold Star Khan family.
Trump
initially
defended
Lewandowski after he faced
charges for battery of a female
reporter.
That’s not where the story
ends. There’s so much division
in the campaign that following
Lewandowski’s firing, adviser
Michael Caputo tweeted out
“Ding dong the witch is dead!”
(for which Caputo resigned
the same day) and former state
director
Jim
Baker
texted
Lewandowski, mocking him.
Still think Trump hires the
best guys and can run the
United States, even though his
campaign looks like a disaster?
Campaign
chair
Paul
Manafort became the No. 1
guy following Lewandowski.
We’ll skip his controversial
comments and go straight to
his deal with Russia. Viktor
Yanukovych, a Putin puppet
running for prime minister
in Ukraine in 2005, hired
Manafort
to
help
repair
his image after the Orange
Revolution, a mass protest
in Ukraine after it became
known that Yanukovych had
rigged the election. Then The
New
York
Times
revealed
that hidden in a secret ledger
in Ukraine was $12.7 million
listed for Manafort. Experts
are unclear as to whether he
still advises in Ukraine. To
recap: The man in charge of
Trump’s
campaign
helped
a
Russian
puppet
dictator
after
rigging
a
democratic
election and was paid secretly
upward of $12 million to do
so. Manafort was finally fired
after The Times’ story.
Can we top that? Trump’s
newest leader, campaign CEO
Steve Bannon, is the former
head of far-right (and I mean
far-right)
Breitbart
News.
Under
Bannon,
Breitbart
News authored articles such
as
“Birth
Control
Makes
Women
Unattractive
and
Crazy” to “There’s No Hiring
Bias Against Women in Tech,
They Just Suck at Interviews.”
Former Breitbart spokesman
Kurt Bardella said of Bannon:
“He
made
more
off-color
comments
about
minorities
and homosexuals than I can
recount,” and that if you were
on
their
Brietbart
News’s
conference calls, it sounded
“like
a
white
supremacist
rally.”
This is all to contrast with
Clinton, who has had a stable
inner-circle since 2015, led by
young, Democratic superstar
campaign
manager
Robby
Mook, who is known for “an
aversion to the spotlight and
an interest in data.” She has
a team filled with veterans,
including her chief strategist
and pollster, and one of Obama’s
closest allies, Joel Benenson.
One of the four corner offices
in her headquarters belongs
to
Elan
Kriegel,
Clinton’s
“invisible guiding hand,” an
analytic genius who has stayed
completely out of the spotlight
— his full name had not been
tweeted since October 2015
when
a
Politico
Magazine
profile was published about
him in early September.
Republicans, as noted in the
Politico piece, are terrified
that Trump’s campaign team
is so lacking of talent that the
next generation of Republican
campaign
operatives
is
nonexistent.
Clinton’s
campaign is very far from
perfect, but her advisers are
of the highest caliber and she
trusts them enough to keep
them through difficult times.
Her campaign is competent.
And then there’s Trump
—
Lewandowski,
Manafort
and now Bannon at the helm.
Firings left and right. Disaster
and division within the ranks,
from cheering a firing to
calling for a literal firing squad.
A head spokeswoman, Katrina
Pierson, whose penchant for
lying and ignoring facts can
stack up pound to pound with
anyone on TV. A campaign in
such constant disarray that the
only people he truly listens to
are his own children.
His closest ally in the Senate,
Jeff Sessions, is most famous
for joking about the KKK.
According to a testimony by
Thomas Figures, an assistant
U.S. attorney in Alabama at the
time, “Sessions was heard by
several colleagues commenting
that he ‘used to think they
(the Klan) were OK’ until he
found out some of them were
‘pot smokers.’ ” His team of
economic advisers just happen
to be some of his biggest
donors. When asked about
who he consults concerning
foreign policy on MSNBC’s
“Morning Joe,” Trump said,
“I’m speaking with myself,
number one, because I have a
very good brain and I’ve said a
lot of things.”
What about his campaign
screams this guy can govern?
The
Republican
National
Convention,
completely
controllable
by
Trump’s
campaign, is a free, four-day,
nationally covered commercial.
How’d he do in running that
great
opportunity?
It
was
arguably the worst convention
in political history. For the
first time ever, people were less
likely to vote for the candidate
following the convention.
This is the worst campaign
in
American
history.
This
was Trump’s test, and he
failed. Politics isn’t business,
and his talents clearly do not
translate.
He
doesn’t
have
the skills or the people to
competently operate in the
political arena, and he would
make a disastrous president of
unknown proportions.
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
CJ Mayer can be reached at
mayercj@umich.edu.
MELISSA STRAUSS | COLUMN
We can’t leave refugees behind
I
n light of the recent
ceasefire
agreement
brokered
between
Secretary of State John Kerry
and his Russian counterpart
Sergey Lavrov in Syria, I
began thinking again about
an
issue
that
is
close to my heart:
the Syrian refugee
crisis. During my
internship with the
Truman
National
Security
Project
this
summer,
I
conducted
a
research
project
focusing
on
U.S.
policy
toward
refugee
resettlement.
Throughout
my research, I found myself
alarmed by the global response
to the largest humanitarian
crisis the world has faced since
World War II and extremely
worried for the United States’s
future
response
following
this
important
presidential
election.
The Syrian refugee crisis
is something we hear about
almost daily — and often
through the lens of highly
political rhetoric. We’ve all
heard of Donald Trump’s call
to ban Muslims from entering
our country, the fact that
31 governors have sworn to
stop admitting refugees into
their states and numerous
politicians claim the refugee
crisis is a window for ISIS
and other extremist groups
to
enter
our
country
in
“Trojan horse” fashion. In a
nation built on the premise of
freedom and security for all,
this growing trend of fear and
hate is alarming. While the
U.S. election in November will
clearly affect our own lives at
home, it will also be incredibly
important for the 4.8 million
Syrians who have fled their
homes in search of safety.
The United States has a
long
history
of
admitting
refugees from all over the
world. Providing a safe haven
for vulnerable populations is
in our DNA. Since World War
II, the United States has been
a global leader on refugee
resettlement, providing homes
for 3 million refugees since
1975.
This
year,
President
Barack Obama and Secretary
Kerry have pledged to admit at
least 10,000 Syrian refugees in
2016, and 100,000 total world
refugees by 2017. While these
are important and meaningful
steps in the right direction, the
election this fall has enormous
implications for our future
policies regarding refugees. If
we get it wrong, then we risk
turning our backs on refugees,
and thus turning our backs
on deeply rooted American
values.
Experts
argue
that
admitting Syrian refugees into
our country will not
only maintain and
restore
American
credibility
abroad,
but is also essential
in advancing our own
national
security
interests.
Ryan
Crocker,
former
U.S.
ambassador
to Syria, Iraq and
Lebanon,
stated
that
“increased
resettlement and aid helps
protect the stability of a region
that is home to U.S. allies.”
Additionally,
a
bipartisan
group of former U.S. national
security
advisers,
CIA
directors
and
department
secretaries
sent
a
letter
to
Congress
in
December
stating
that
“resettlement
initiatives help advance U.S.
national
security
interests
by supporting the stability of
our allies and partners that
are struggling to host large
numbers of refugees.” If we
don’t help ensure the stability
of our allies, we risk these
states
breaking
down
and
giving rise to more extremist
and hostile groups.
Demagogues
would
have
you believe that terrorists
will easily slip across our
borders posing as refugees,
but
these
statements
are
highly
debatable.
In
our
nation’s
long
history
of
refugee
resettlement,
a
refugee has never successfully
committed a single terrorist
attack against us. Since 9/11,
only
three
refugees
have
been convicted for terror-
related activities — and none
of them had any viable plans
for an attack within the U.S.
Unlike European countries,
where refugees often show
up on their borders without
the luxury of screening first,
the U.S. refugee screening
process constitutes possibly
the most difficult manner of
entering the country. Refugees
must endure a lengthy 18-
to
24-month-long
process,
involving the UNHCR and
multiple
U.S.
government
departments. Of the 4.8 million
registered
Syrian
refugees,
only about 18,000 have been
referred by the UNHCR to be
resettled in the U.S.
Once
refugees
arrive
in the United States, they
are
connected
with
nine
voluntary
resettlement
agencies that help them settle
into their new communities
and
become
economically
self-sufficient. A great new
student
organization,
the
Michigan Refugee Assistance
Program,
has
partnered
with Jewish Family Services
to help resettle refugees in
the Ann Arbor area. The
group is dedicated to raising
awareness about the current
refugee crisis, particularly by
adding a student voice to this
crisis while also humanizing
refugees.
LSA senior Nicole Khamis
says she decided to start
MRAP this semester because
it is a time when local refugee
resettlement
agencies
need
assistance
the
most
and
students often feel helpless
in the face of this incredible
crisis. “I have little patience
for any arguments against
settling refugees in the United
States for numerous reasons,
but mainly because they are
based in xenophobic fears and
also reproduce the rhetoric of
Arabs/Muslims as terrorists
and violent in nature,” Khamis
says. Additionally, if Donald
Trump is elected in November,
Khamis
believes
refugees
will no longer be able to seek
protection
in
the
United
States.
Refugee policy is not a
partisan issue. It is a moral
one. As the situation in the
Middle
East
worsens,
the
United States has an obligation
to provide assistance to this
vulnerable population and to
our allies on the frontlines. If
xenophobic rhetoric continues
to
flourish
in
American
political discourse, we risk
alienating our Muslim and
Arab-American
populations
—
possibly
leading
some
vulnerable
people
to
seek
support and community in
overseas terror organizations.
Electing the right person in
November
will
determine
whether or not we hold true to
American values or succumb
to fear and bigotry.
A 1939 poll showed that
three out of five Americans
opposed
the
resettlement
of 10,000 Jewish refugees
fleeing from Nazi Germany.
Imagine the devastation and
imagine our nation’s current
cultural
fabric
had
these
voices prevailed during that
time of crisis. We cannot allow
these same voices to triumph
today’s context.
Brent Kim is an LSA junior and was
a communications intern for Public
Citizen in summer 2016.
Melissa Strauss can be reached at
melistrau@umich.edu.
MELISSA
STRAUSS
CJ MAYER