T
uesday marked the end
of an era, as President
Barack Obama bid the
American
public
farewell during his final
presidential
rally
in
Chicago. The departing
commander in chief
has, in my estimation,
always had tremendous
skill in public speaking.
Presenting
himself
with the same gravitas
that
we
have
seen
for the better half of
a
decade,
President
Obama addressed the
continued need for racial unity
and economic opportunities for
all. It seemed as if every laptop
and television screen in the nation
was tuned in to the broadcast, with
continuous praise on various social
media platforms.
In fact, President Obama’s
approval
rating
rests
at
an
impressive 57 percent. While
this cumulative evaluation sits
agreeably
with
many,
others
might raise the question — why?
When elected, Obama marketed
himself as a man of change. He
was seen as an individual separate
and distinct from presidential
norms. His modest upbringing
and accomplishment as the first
African-American president of
the Harvard Law Review are
merely two examples of how he
distinguished himself from the lot.
Yet, public opinion seems to
suggest that the prospects for the
future now are not much different
than they were eight years ago.
An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll
taken in January 2009 states that
26 percent of respondents believed
that the country was going in the
right direction, whereas 59 percent
said that it was on the wrong path.
A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal
poll, however, similarly shows that
29 percent of respondents felt as
if the country were headed in the
right direction, while a gaping 65
percent disagreed. It also must be
noted that this data was taken in
late October, a time in which the
majority of politicians and political
pundits saw the victory of Donald
Trump as incredibly unlikely.
By
voting
for
Clinton,
the
electorate was, in part, voting for a
continuation of Obama. Thus, it is
very hard to believe that the majority
of
Obama-voting
Democrats
would view Clinton as the “wrong
direction.” Moreover, these numbers
ultimately illustrate the fact that
Obama’s presidency did not do much
in the realm of American optimism.
Yet,
his
approval
rating
persists: 57 percent.
Domestically, Obama focused
almost
exclusively
on
the
Affordable Care Act
— a piece of legislation
that
he
effectively
rammed
through
Congress
without
any
bipartisan
approval.
The
bill,
popularly
known
as Obamacare, was
crafted behind closed
doors with virtually
no
transparency.
What is worse is that
the American public
was wholly misguided on a variety
of its principles. For instance, on
numerous occasions Obama was
seen at rallies saying, “First of all,
if you’ve got health insurance,
you like your doctor, you like your
plan — you can keep your doctor,
you can keep your plan. Nobody is
talking about taking that away
from you.”
These
promises,
however,
turned out to be specious. The fact
of the matter is that the majority of
Americans receive health care plans
from their place of employment
and although the law does prohibit
employers from dropping coverage
if they have “50 or more full-time
equivalent employees,” the law did
not prohibit employers with fewer
than 50 employees that provided
insurance before the ACA was
passed to end their coverage. Thus,
with the passage of the bill, while
many Americans were unscathed,
many were forced to seek alternative
methods of care. This scenario is
particularly complex, though, and
does not rest solely on the employers’
shoulders. In other cases, many plans
were not grandfathered over into
exchanges, thus forcing individuals
to seek new plans as well.
Surely, this attempt to mislead
the
American
public
would
result in a lower number than a
55-percent presidential approval
rating. While a “minority” was
affected, it does not take a large
body of people to affect approval
ratings or, at least, spread negative
emotions about his legislation.
Regardless of the number, his
misguiding words were harmful
and, due to the effects, have the
potential to affect ratings. But no,
the number continues to persist.
While there obviously are a
variety of factors that contribute
to this, I ultimately believe that his
popularity stems, at least in part, from
his personal domain. At the time of
his election, he was the husband to a
well-respected Michelle Obama and
the father of two charming little girls.
I can vividly remember sitting down
many years ago in my elementary
school classroom to watch the
inauguration. It was history. Many
young children felt as if they closely
grew up with President Obama. As
his children matured, we matured
with them. By combatting racial
stereotypes
and
discrimination,
President Obama served as an
inspirational father figure and leader
to countless youth across America.
He transcended boundaries and
made a lasting impact on the lives of
those around him.
In
the
second
presidential
debate, both candidates were asked,
“Regardless of the current rhetoric,
would either of you name one
positive thing that you respect in one
another?” Hillary Clinton ultimately
responded with high praise for
Trump’s children. She stated, “Look,
I respect his children. His children
are incredibly able and devoted, and
I think that says a lot about Donald. I
don’t agree with nearly anything else
he says or does, but I do respect that,
and I think that is something that as
a mother and a grandmother is very
important to me.”
As Secretary Clinton notes, Mr.
Trump’s children are a reflection
of his dedication and values. They
have grown to be successful,
respected individuals in their
fields. Politics aside, this is a
noticeable commonality between
Trump and Obama. Have the
circumstances of their families’
upbringings differed? Absolutely.
Now, one might say, “Clinton
is merely commenting on his
parenting skills, not his character!”
The point, though, is that they
have both devoted time and effort
into
becoming
attentive
and
caring fathers for their families. It
is incredibly difficult to separate
parenting abilities from the man
himself. However, at the end of the
day, I have a sneaking suspicion
that this component of Donald
Trump will unfairly receive half
the amount of recognition from
what was given to Obama.
With the inauguration a few
days away, I urge everyone to take
this into consideration: While you
can fervently dispute someone in
the political realm, it is important to
recognize the good in someone as
well. So, as President-elect Trump
stands on the steps of the Capitol
Friday morning with his family
alongside
him,
remember
the
reasoning behind the praise Tuesday
and, perhaps, apply it here.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, January 19, 2017
Base tuition on expected earnings
SARAH SALMAN | OP-ED
E
arlier this year, my little
sister
approached
me
while I was enjoying a
bowl of Honey Bunches of Oats
with a particular announcement:
“I want to major in art when I go
to college.” Ever since she started
middle school, art became her
creative outlet. She would ask for
distinct markers for Christmas,
and the money she would save up
from miscellaneous chores went
into savings for a Wacom drawing
tablet. So, this would have seemed
like a reasonable declaration for
someone who expresses so much
passion for drawing, right? My
immediate response: “Don’t.”
The average tuition for a
public four-year college is $9,410.
For out-of-state students, the
cost rises to $23,890. Private
four-year universities are even
higher: $32,410. Student debt,
meanwhile,
has
skyrocketed.
The graduating class of 2015
has most student debt in U.S.
history.
Students
cumulatively
owe lenders more than $1 trillion
dollars. For someone planning
to get a degree in art, is college
worth the investment? Especially
since graduates from art-focused
schools seem to rack up the most
student-loan debt. With this in
mind, colleges should raise tuition
accordingly to majors with higher
expected lifetime earnings.
This wouldn’t even be an issue
if colleges exclusively acted within
the public sector — eliminating the
cost completely. With even public
universities functioning within the
capitalistic model — boasting that
it is the “one of the top 50 public
universities” or offering more than
“150 academic majors” like the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
for example — it is hard to claim
that university’s sole motivation
is to act in the best interest of the
students. Universities have been
increasingly moving toward a
business model. In 1960, California
residents had free tuition. Now if a
student attended the University of
California at Los Angeles, it would
cost $27,987 for room and board for
in-state students. With universities
becoming more and more like
big businesses and treating their
students like customers, it makes
sense for the consumers, students,
to demand the best package deal
with their education value.
Moreover, it makes sense to
hike up the price for engineering
majors: It costs more. For example,
in New York’s state colleges, hard
sciences and engineering courses
cost twice as much as fine/applied
arts and five times as much as
low-level psychology classes. That
means that if someone wants
to utilize the English courses
or history courses, they would
be paying for not just their own
share/value, but for someone with
a completely unrelated career path
than their own. Imagine if you
bought pizza with four friends.
Each of you equally spent $2.99
for this pizza. When the pizza
comes, two of your four friends eat
75 percent of that pizza whereas
you and your other friend have to
divide the rest of it. The system is
inherently unfair. Why not change
it? Wouldn’t it make sense for two
of your friends to pay a little more
for the pizza if they were going to
use a greater amount of resource?
The same applies to the university.
It doesn’t make sense to go for a
one-price-fits-all if other degrees
are reaping more of the rewards.
The sad part is that engineering
majors have a higher expected
income after graduation than
people who major in art. A system
that taxes majors with higher
expected lifetime earnings will
allow people to pursue their
passions rather than think about
practicality. My sister absolutely
loves art, but knowing the risks
and high debt associated with
the major, I was reluctant to fully
support her decision. “Definitely
pursue your passions,” I told
her, “but consider majoring in
computer science with a minor in
art when you’re in college.” This
was not the answer that she was
expecting, but it was the most
realistic one.
Not all share this sentiment.
The Florida State Task Force also
wants to vary tuition by majors
— but in a completely different
regard:
pushing
to
decrease
tuition for STEM majors and
increase tuition in fields such as
political science, anthropology
and psychology. Its aim is to
dissuade people from pursuing
paths that are in much lower
demand compared to STEM
fields. The problem is that it
may end up saddling people who
pursue the social sciences and
the humanities with an even
greater burden of debt. Logically,
it doesn’t make sense either.
Majors such as political science
or English do not teach to a
specific career paths. Students
who major in these fields find
positions
anywhere
from
being a barista to working in
Washington headquarters. They
are not guaranteed a lot of money
on
graduation,
whereas
the
starting salary for someone with
a degree in computer science can
be six figures.
Additionally, it also suggests
that these degrees are worth less
than STEM. A stigma already
perpetuated by popular culture,
like the recent controversy with
Wells Fargo ads implying that
the arts are worth less than
sciences. I remember telling an
individual what I planned to
major in college: “English.” The
response: “Oh,” accompanied by
the puzzled frown and “What are
you planning to do with that?”
Increasing tuition for engineers
and business majors may deter
students from pursuing that path,
opponents argue. It might. But
that argument is fundamentally
flawed. If paying extra for a
biomedical engineering degree,
for example, dissuades students,
wouldn’t that logic play with
the knowledge that the lifetime
expected earnings for political
science, for example, are lower
than
biomedical
engineering
also deter the same students for
exactly those reasons?
My sister’s declaration plagued
my mind. I always maintain
follow your passion, but would
that end up hurting her more than
helping her? With a system that
places a greater price-tag on more
financially rewarding careers,
my sister wouldn’t have to worry
about being “practical” and would
be able to actually do what she
wants. As students, we must stop
the one-price-fits-all philosophy
and
demand
a
progressive
tuition. If universities continue to
emulate big businesses, then we
as customers should demand our
fair share.
REBECCA LERNER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
EMMA KINERY
Editor in Chief
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY
and REBECCA TARNOPOL
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
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Max Lubell
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Ashley Tjhung
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Sarah Salman is an LSA freshman.
The ethics of politics
NICHOLAS TOMAINO | COLUMN
LAUREN
SCHANDEVEL
See the good in our presidents
LAUREN SCHANDEVEL | COLUMN
FRANNIE MILLER | CONTACT FRANNIE AT FRMILLER@UMICH.EDU
Nicholas Tomaino can be reached at
ntomaino@umich.edu
SARAH SALMAN
Trumpy the clown
NICHOLAS
TOMAINO
S
ometimes it’s refreshing to
hear a distinction between
America’s political parties
that isn’t the hackneyed “liberals
drive
BMWs
and
conservatives
drive
pickup trucks” shtick.
Other times, however,
it can be a bit jarring,
as you realize just
how
ideologically
divergent
the
two
parties are.
In
2015,
while
campaigning for Rand
Paul
in
Oklahoma,
conservative
politician J.C. Watts told writer
Robert Leonard, “The difference
between
Republicans
and
Democrats is that Republicans
believe people are fundamentally
bad, while Democrats see people
as fundamentally good.” It took
me a while to determine what
Watts meant by this, as he seemed
at first to be revering Democrats
for their kindness. Of course, as a
Republican himself, he was not; he
was calling them naive for putting
their faith in people rather than a
higher power.
I grew up in a conservative
evangelical
household
that
always emphasized the binary of
saints and sinners. The mantra
was something along the lines of
“we’re all sinners, there is a desire
to sin in all of us, and the only way
we can become clean is through
repentance and baptism.”
(Now, the notion that people are
naturally inclined to be bad may
seem hopelessly cynical, but when
you believe your god is the purest
thing there is, it’s actually kind
of comforting. It’s like, the world
sucks but someone will eventually
save us from all of this suckage.)
I never once thought to apply
this to politics, but doing so sheds
an LED torch on Watts’ logic.
Keeping in mind the fact that many
Democrats are actually religious, I
dissected this statement using the
ethical tools bestowed upon me
by a powerhouse team of Sunday
school teachers (shoutout to you,
Mrs. Wriston) in the first 13 years
of my life.
My conclusion? The Republican
ideology Watts evokes is not a
holistic approach to
solving
the
world’s
problems — rather, it
assumes that people are
the world’s problems
and ends the analysis
there. This nature over
nurture argument, I
believe, is a cop-out
and its infiltration of
the
political
sphere
has stripped rhetoric
and, more importantly,
policy of its compassion.
If people are essentially defined by
their sins — the prostitute is lustful,
the gang member is murderous,
the poor are lazy — then it so easy
to write people off, to dismiss their
suffering as a choice rather than
a product of circumstance. After
all, what incentive do you have to
eradicate sex trafficking, improve
the conditions of inner cities or
implement a more robust welfare
program if you perceive those
affected as having chosen their fate,
as being characterized by their sin?
Take Ronald Reagan’s classic
“welfare
queen”
speech,
for
example. Though the realities of
an average welfare recipient are
far more nuanced (and less classist
and racist) than those of which the
president spoke, he nonetheless
managed to employ the effective
conservative argument at the
time, which involved evoking a
caricature of deviance. The rhetoric
that paints people — particularly
those who are suffering or in need
of government assistance — as
one-dimensionally awful is useful
in both religion and politics for
the same reason: It justifies our
inability or unwillingness to help
them. In this case, if we assume
individuals
who
use
welfare
programs do so by their own
volition, and that they must be bad
people who cheat the system, then
we are absolved of blame (or even
revered as heroes) when we take
this system away from them.
Because the welfare queens of
the world are few and far between,
it is therefore not naive to inquire
further into the actual motivations
of so-called sinners. Aristotle made
the argument that humans are
fundamentally virtuous because
no person causes harm with the
intention of causing harm — in
other words, people always assume
their actions are for the greater
good.
However,
one
mustn’t
necessarily subscribe to this in
order to see the merit in helping
others; they simply must consider
how
circumstances
impact
decisions, and how alleviation of
certain circumstances through
thoughtful policy can prevent
people from making less-than-
desirable choices.
In his final blow, Watts went on
to attribute this liberal tendency to
over-empathize to our godlessness:
“If we are our own God, as the
Democrats say, then we need to
look at something else to blame
when things go wrong — not us.”
The assumption here is that the
decisions people make — good or
bad — are isolated and deliberate
rather than guided by (or a direct
product of) their circumstances.
That is not to say people should not
ultimately be held accountable for
the poor choices they make, but
from a policy perspective, it seems
counterproductive
to
suggest
that there is nothing we can do to
prevent people from making them.
Actions, after all, are not
completely
disconnected
from
their contexts — they are directly
influenced by them. Politicians
such as Watts and his constituents
are in a unique position to shape
the contexts that beget negative
actions.
By
assuming
these
decisions will be made with or
without their intervention, they
are forfeiting their responsibility
to make the world a better place.
And that, more so than people, is
pretty fundamentally bad.
Lauren Schandevel can be reached
at schandla@umich.edu.