W

ith Valentine’s Day 
less than a month 
away and the heart-

shaped 
boxes 
of 
chocolate 

appearing on the shelves of 
Walgreens, 
I 
find 

myself 
reminded 

of the time when 
I 
would 
spend 

countless 
hours 

perusing 
aisle 

upon aisle for the 
perfect box for my 
then-girlfriend. 
As a bachelor who 
experiences 
the 

common 
fear 
of 

finding 
himself 

dateless for Feb. 14, I take 
solace in the fact that I no 
longer bear the weight of my 
previous relationship upon 
my shoulders.

In 
the 
several 
months 

since the breakup, I have 
discovered 
many 
positive 

aspects to being unattached. 
Singles 
have 
the 
freedom 

and flexibility to not have to 
say good night or look after a 
certain somebody or feel the 
need to ask permission for a 
night out with friends sans their 
significant other, to name a few. 
Most 
importantly 
however, 

being single grants you the 
right to freely indulge your 
own time and self-investment 
to the nth degree; you get to 
be “unapologetically selfish.”

Finding the right partner 

is one of the most challenging 
endeavors that many of us 
partake in, though we persist 
with it because successfully 
doing 
so 
can 
be 
very 

rewarding. 
Some, 
however, 

believe differently. Courtney 
Porf from HerCampus offers 
a 
particularly 
interesting 

perspective to gain insight 
from: “I think that college is 
the best time to be single. It’s 
where we’re supposed to be 
exploring and diving into our 
personal pool of interests, and 
it’s really the last time we have 
no serious financial obligations 
or commitments and can be 
unapologetically selfish.”

Let’s delve into this notion 

of 
being 
“unapologetically 

selfish.” The concept speaks to 
the idea that you don’t have to 
feel guilty for doing nice things 
for yourself, such as eating 
out or impulse buying that 
cardigan from your favorite 
brand. Being “unapologetically 
selfish” 
occurs 
when 
you 

decide to splurge on yourself 
in some capacity, whether it 
is financially or simply doing 
something that benefits you 

exclusively. 
When 
you 
are 

“unapologetically 
selfish,” 

you don’t have to apologize 
to your significant other for 
treating yourself, because he 

or she is out of the 
picture. You don’t 
have to buy someone 
food because you 
want 
to 
do 
so 

for yourself. The 
only 
person 
you 

have to answer to 
for your actions is 
yourself. 
Did 
you 

want 
No 
Thai? 

Yes, so you bought 
some for yourself. 

Unapologetic 
selfishness 
is 

best experienced when single, 
when you can serve yourself 
to endless delight.

The concept of unapologetic 

selfishness 
transcends 
the 

mere material. It also speaks 
to your ability to have the 
freedom to choose how you 
spend your time. While single, 
you have no obligation to spend 
any amount of time with any 
given person, freeing you of 
responsibilities for anything 
not pertaining to your own 
personal matters. Instead of 
having to go on vacation with 
that girlfriend or boyfriend, 
you can study abroad, or take a 
day trip to a city you’ve never 
been to before, or simply read 
a 
book. 
Such 
indulgences 

sometimes contribute to long-
term self-growth and maturity.

Beyond 
the 
liberty 
to 

choose to be uninhibitedly 
self-serving, 
being 
single 

also 
provides 
you 
with 

the opportunity to pursue 
intrapersonal 
growth. 
You 

only really know yourself when 
you spend time alone. College, 
for many, is a time of tremendous 
growth: intellectually, socially, 
emotionally 
and 
physically 

(hello, 
freshman 
15). 
This 

growth occurs in a rather small 
time frame: four years. When 
you spend every Saturday with 
your sweetheart instead of 
doing homework or spending 
time 
trying 
to 
build 
new 

friendships, 
you 
limit 
the 

opportunities 
you 
have 
to 

grow in those areas. Strong 
friendships often last forever, 
whereas even the strongest 
of romantic relationships in 
college typically fail to last 
for reasons that range from 
differences in career trajectory 
to the distinct development of 
your social circles.

While being single provides 

a college student tremendous 
freedom, collegiate romance is 

not without benefits. You never 
have to open Tinder to find a 
“cuddle buddy,” or think about 
who you’re going to ask to 
semi-formal because everyone 
you would ask either is busy or 
going with someone else. Most 
importantly, however, you get 
the opportunity to develop 
your emotional capacity, which 
will serve you well later in life. 
You get to look at your darling 
in the eyes and say “I love you” 
and learn what it means to care 
about someone in this capacity.

Those of you who haven’t 

yet had a serious relationship 
needn’t worry; you will have 
plenty of time to live out that 
experience long after your 
college days are behind you 
(or perhaps you may still meet 
someone who you seriously date 
in college!). When pursuing 
a 
romantic 
relationship, 
it 

is important that a) both 
parties are prepared for the 
commitment and b) both parties 
are in the same emotional place 
so there isn’t a disconnect in 
the emotional give and take 
that occurs between couples. 
Because this isn’t often the 
case for those in college, being 
single in college may allow you 
to get more out of your four 
years in the aforementioned 
areas than if you spend them 
attached to another person.

Moreover, 
remaining 

uncuffed 
gives 
you 
the 

chance to find yourself and 
develop who you are so when 
you meet your Mr. or Mrs. 
Wonderful, you can handle that 
responsibility with grace and 
you are each two whole parts 
individually rather than two 
halves making yourself whole. 
When you reach that point, 
you will have had your chance 
to be unapologetically selfish, 
and will thus have the capacity 
to accept the responsibilities 
and 
privileges 
of 
being 

romantically 
attached 
to 

another person. So as you sit at 
your table with a glass of wine 
and Nat King Cole’s “L-O-V-E” 
plays overhead while doe-eyed 
couples hold hands, saying “I 
love you” and waltzing around 
you, remember to enjoy your 
unapologetic selfishness in this 
moment, and know that you 
will eventually meet someone 
who knows all your dance 
moves, inside and out. And 
they won’t make you pay for the 
wedding champagne.

O

ver the past eight years, 
frustration with partisan 
gridlock has reached an 

all-time high. The U.S. Congress’s 
overall approval rating 
has plummeted from 
a peak of 84 percent 
in 2001 to a dismal 19 
percent in 2017.

While Republicans 

and 
Democrats 

bickered, the average 
American’s 
life 

expectancy fell for 
the first time in over 
two 
decades 
and 

deaths 
by 
opioid 

overdose rose by more than 72 
percent. In many parts of the 
country, economic conditions 
worsened after the recession, 
even as the country as a whole 
recovered. 
The 
dearth 
of 

opportunities in some rural 
areas has ignited severe — and 
warranted — anxieties about 
the future of cultures and 
communities in these locales.

While the media heralded 

our return to pre-recession 
unemployment 
rates, 
rising 

inequality 
sparked 
feelings 

of desperation in parts of the 
country where former President 
Barack Obama’s “Hope and 
Change” seemed like unfulfilled 
promises.

In 
this 
environment, 

President Donald Trump — the 
blusterous outsider promising 
to “Make America Great Again” 
— managed to convince enough 
voters in electorally-important 
states that he could finally 
deliver change on their behalf. 
To these voters, Trump was a 
rock through the window in 
the shiny, inaccessible halls of 
government, a wake-up call to 
the arrogant elite who had left 
them behind.

The majority of voters didn’t 

buy into Trump’s promises. 
He lost the popular vote by 
nearly 3 million and he entered 
the White House as the least 
popular incoming president in 
at least 40 years.

Trump’s proposed mandate 

—to the extent that he has one 
at all — is a mandate for change. 
Many of Trump’s supporters 
expressed justified anger at 
the lack of government action 
in addressing the social and 
economic 
issues 
that 
face 

distressed regions.

Yet 
the 
policy 
proposals 

Trump promoted as solutions 
to these problems — notably 
trade 
protectionism 
and 

stricter immigration laws and 
enforcement — are likely to hurt 
the economy as a whole without 
meaningfully 
improving 
the 

lives of the average 
American worker.

By 
instituting 
a 

border tax or other 
trade-limiting 
proposals 
he 
has 

proposed, 
Trump 

could 
in 
practice 

hurt 
the 
U.S. 

manufacturing sector. 
Every dollar’s worth 
of Mexican exports 
sent to the United 

States is manufactured using 40 
cents worth of inputs from the 
United States taxing Mexican 
goods at the border. This would 
pay for Trump’s infamous wall 
as he proposed, but it could 
actually cost United States jobs 
at the firms that produce the 
inputs used in Mexican goods, 
should 
Mexico 
predictably 

retaliate with a similar tax. 

Limiting trade is unlikely to 

significantly cap job losses in 
manufacturing. The majority 
of these job losses occurred 
because 
of 
automation 
and 

technology, which will continue 
to pose a greater risk to the 
American working class in the 
coming years by threatening to 
replace a predicted 45 percent of 
tasks currently done by humans.

A greater emphasis on — and 

more funding for — training 
for displaced workers, as well 
as better math and science 
education in public schools, 
can do more to help employees 
compete and thrive in the 
changing economy.

Thus 
far, 
Trump 
has 

misdirected his attention to 
bringing back jobs that have 

already left or been automated. 
Instead, he should focus on 
creating new jobs. By increasing 
funding 
for 
basic 
science 

research and expanding tax 
incentives for innovation, the 
government 
could 
spur 
the 

creation of new jobs, even if they 
can’t bring back old ones.

Additionally, both tax and 

health care reform could help 
struggling workers take home 
more of the money they do 
earn.

Yet, in order to be effective, 

these policies must be carefully 
designed 
and 
implemented. 

In 
a 
political 
environment 

demanding immediate change 
and a 24/7 news cycle that 
scrutinizes 
each 
political 

action 
(or 
lack 
thereof), 

the 
patience 
that 
quality 

policymaking requires will be 
hard to come by.

Already, 
the 
Senate 
has 

taken action toward repealing 
Obama’s 
health 
care 
law 

without 
introducing 
a 

replacement bill. This kind 
of rash decision-making may 
appease supporters who, after 
years of gridlock, want to see 
swift 
congressional 
action, 

but it is unlikely to produce 
the meaningful change that 
struggling Americans need.

If 
Republicans 
want 
to 

maintain the inroads they made 
into traditionally blue states 
in the 2016 election, they need 
to institute policies that will 
produce tangible improvements 
in the lives of those voters. Hasty 
lawmaking may score political 
points in the short term, but 
it is unlikely to deliver the 
change that voters demanded by 
electing an outsider promising 
to shake up the status quo.

Trump entered the White 

House with both a Republican 
House 
and 
Senate. 
Instead 

of 
ram-rodding 
through 
a 

conservative 
agenda 
in 
his 

first 90 days, Trump would be 
wise to work with Congress 
to pass thoughtful, innovative 
policies to help working-class 
Americans. While this may take 
longer than headline-grabbing 
actions 
like 
an 
immediate 

“Obamacare” repeal, taking the 
time to enact policies likely to 
make meaningful change would 
help both Trump’s approval 
numbers and the country as a 
whole.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, January 24, 2017

When age is just a number

MICHELLE PHILLIPS | COLUMN

A

ge does not mean much 
in regard to who you 
are as a person. Sure, 

it means a lot for your physical 
development as a human being 
in the early stages of your life, 
but it should not hinder one’s 
credibility. There comes a certain 
point when physical experience 
in a certain trade trumps your 
biological age.

Recently, I went skiing for the 

first time with two of my friends. 
As we were inching down the 
bunny hill on our stomachs 
watching seven-year-olds glide 
past us, we thought, “If they 
can do it, so can we!” We were 
wrong. Just because we were 
older than many of the other 
skiers on the hill did not mean 
we were entitled to being better 
than them. Though we have had 
more experience living life, that 
did not mean we had a right to 
know how to ski.

Just because you are older 

than someone does not mean 
you 
have 
an 
unexplained 

advantage over younger people 
in any ability. It can be argued 
that in any stage of life, we 
should not be defined by our age.

Too many times, we define 

ourselves 
by 
numbers. 
We 

categorize ourselves by our age, 
weight, test scores and wealth. 

While plenty of these numbers 
have been shown to correlate 
with certain outcomes, we do not 
have to let those outcomes define 
our own personal desires and 
our perceptions of our abilities 
to achieve goals.

It is a common discussion in 

today’s world that we cannot let 
labels define us. We live our lives 
trying to fit a socially constructed 
model that potentially changes 
our perspectives and morals 
as a result. Most people do not 
recognize age as a harmful label. 
I think that many times, it’s 
not; it shows how long you have 
been on this earth, and backs 
up an argument about what you 
have done with your time here. 
However, there are instances 
when we characterize ourselves 
by our age, ultimately restricting 
us from opportunities.

If we limit ourselves to a 

perception that is constructed 
by someone else’s image of us, 
we will live a life of comparison 
and unhappiness. More often 
than not, external perceptions 
based on age cloud our own self-
perceptions.

There is a shocking feeling 

when you realize the guy you 
have been hitting on at the bar 
is four years younger than you 
and a sense of comfort when 
meeting someone who is the 
same age as you. When we learn 
someone’s age, something that 

cannot always be determined 
by appearance, we have an 
automatic instinct that changes 
our perceptions.

We should be more vigilant 

in 
these 
interactions 
and 

judgments 
surrounding 
our 

age and question those who 
are judgmental of such an 
insignificant number. We have 
put a societal value on numbers 
because 
of 
the 
traditional 

beliefs and judgments that 
have been present throughout 
our society for years and it 
is up to us to change how we 
represent them.

There is a famous saying 

that goes, “with age comes 
wisdom.” However, I disagree. 
In order to gain wisdom, we 
must immerse ourselves in 
a 
stimulating 
culture 
that 

pushes us to dig deeper into our 
thoughts and questions. True 
passion sparks from a genuine 
interest in something and that 
flame should never die out 
simply because someone is “too 
young” or “not as experienced.” 
To 
echo 
another 
famous 

saying, “age is just a label.” It 
represents how long we have 
been living, but has no relation 
to all we can accomplish and 
learn on this planet.

Patient policymaking needed

VICTORIA NOBLE | COLUMN

The case for being single in college

ZACHARY COX | COLUMN

Victoria Noble can be reached at 

vjnoble@umich.edu.

Michelle Phillips can be reached at 

mphi@umich.edu.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

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.

ZACHARY 

COX

Zachary Cox can be reached at 

coxz@umich.edu.

— Actress America Ferrera speaking at the Women’s March on 

Washington on Saturday. 

“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

[Trump] would like us to forget the 
words ‘Give me your tired, your poor, 

your huddled masses yearning to 
breathe free’ and instead take up a 

credo of hate, fear and suspicion of one 
another. But we are gathered here and 

across the country and around the world 

today to say, Mr. Trump, we refuse.”

VICTORIA 

NOBLE

Hasty lawmaking 

may score 

political points in 
the short term, 
but it is unlikely 

to deliver the 

change that voters 

demanded.

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

Samantha Goldstein

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

MICHELLE PHILLIPS

