R

hetoric 
since 
the 

inauguration has not only 
perpetuated a narrative 

that Donald Trump is not a 
legitimate 
president, 

but has also invoked 
fear as a would-be 
mandate that those of 
us who merely hear its 
words might be called 
to action. A productive 
dialogue has not been 
encouraged; 
rather, 

the left has focused 
on unilateral criticism 
and a hateful rebuke of 
Donald Trump.

I listened, incredulously, to the 

words Ashley Judd and Madonna 
selected for their speeches at the 
Women’s March the day after 
we, as a country, celebrated our 
peaceful transition of power — a 
hallmark of our democracy. I felt 
somewhat embarrassed by, at the 
very least, their lack of civility. The 
speeches suggested that Trump 
bathes in Cheeto dust, that he has 
traded a “Hitlerian” mustache for a 
toupee, and that we, the American 
public, must refuse “to accept this 
new age of tyranny,” in which 
“being uniquely different right now 
might truly be considered a crime.” 
Such incendiary and insulting 
rhetoric complements a dialogue 
that attempts to represent Trump’s 
presidency as illegitimate.

This 
type 
of 
rhetoric 

deliberately 
invokes 
feelings 

of mistrust, vulnerability and 
protest. 
Notwithstanding 
the 

value of a women’s march as an 
opportunity for dialogue and 
solidarity on behalf of shared views 
and values, remarks like these 
were a call to action to those who 
did not vote for our 45th president 
and to those inclined to join an 
ever-growing voice inspired by 
an insurgency. One need look 
no further than Saul Alinsky’s 
“Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic 
Primer for Realistic Radicals” to 
appreciate the collective action and 
antagonistic tactics at the core of 
the “not my president” agenda.

Here’s 
the 
problem: 
This 

proclamation of illegitimacy is not 
merely mythological — it further 
divides America, even though 
its advocates seek to assign sole 
accountability for divisiveness to 
Trump. Similar to Hillary Clinton’s 
comment that 50 percent of Trump 

supporters can be put in a “basket 
of deplorables,” the contention 
that Trump is not a legitimate 
president effectively questions the 

authenticity of nearly 
half of the American 
public who voted for 
him and for change. 
These 
Americans 

included 
decent 

people with diverse 
backgrounds 
and 

religious beliefs from 
varied cultures and 
races.

On 
“Meet 
the 

Press” 
two 
days 

after the inauguration, Kellyanne 
Conway, 
counselor 
to 
the 

president, introduced the dubious 
concept of “alternative facts” to 
challenge reports that Trump’s 
inauguration was far less attended 
than Barack Obama’s. Sadly, both 
she and Sean Spicer, Trump’s 
press secretary, remind me of the 
famous quote from Shakespeare’s 
Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too 
much, methinks.” In contesting 
media reports comparing Trump 
and Obama’s inaugural attendance 
numbers or presidential approval 
ratings, for that matter, Spicer and 
Conway seem ready and willing to 
dispute the claims of illegitimacy, 
and in doing so, they make them 
appear relevant. Trump similarly 
appears to seek legitimacy in 
suggesting that he lost the popular 
vote 
because 
of 
voter fraud. 

However, instead of giving credence 
to skeptics of his popularity, he 
needs to remember that the results 
of the popular vote are irrelevant 
since in our system the Electoral 
College determines who wins the 
presidency.

President 
Trump 
and 
his 

advisers need not tune into the 
noise of insurgency if it insists on 
using foul, antagonistic language 
to spread unsubstantiated fear 
of tyranny or imminent loss of 
constitutional rights. When Bill 
Clinton beat Bush senior, when 
George W. Bush beat Clinton and 
when Obama took office eight 
years ago, a significant number of 
Americans saw their candidates 
lose, yet shared optimism, for 
social and economic progress was 
the basis, at least in theory, for 
offering hopeful support.

I dare say that public outrage on 

par with what we have witnessed 

since the inauguration of Trump 
would have been rebuked strongly 
by the media and many Americans 
had 
this 
occurred 
following 

Obama’s inauguration. Trump’s 
early executive orders to build a 
wall, rollback the Affordable Care 
Act and his most recent travel 
decree are evidence of not only 
his authenticity, but also of his 
embrace of his legitimate position.

Similarly, Trump’s most recent 

proffering of uniquely qualified 
Supreme 
Court 
Justice 
Neil 

Gorsuch and his deliberate and 
strategic selection of his cabinet 
reflect his legitimacy. Furthermore, 
the Electoral College proved his 
legitimacy by electing him as 
president. 
When 
interviewed 

on ABC on Jan. 24, Trump 
acknowledged his own belief that 
torture and waterboarding work, 
but unequivocally stated that he 
would defer to CIA Director Mike 
Pompeo and Defense Secretary 
General James Mattis on such 
issues. I ask you, if this does not 
resemble legitimacy, what does?

Sure, Trump’s own rhetoric has 

been, and likely will continue to 
be, incendiary. But, so too is the 
rhetoric — often hypocritical and 
inflammatory — of those who cling 
to identity politics and behave with 
antagonism. Messages like Judd’s 
and 
Madonna’s 
are 
proffered 

expressly to incite fear and to 
dampen optimism for economic 
and social change that prompted 
many Americans to elect Trump. 
Mutuality and collaboration are the 
way forward; alternative facts, by 
either the right or the left, are not.

President 
Trump 
is 

unquestionably a work in progress. 
Our democracy affords us with the 
First Amendment right to freedom 
of speech. So, though I tire of the 
too often specious criticism of 
Trump and its hateful rhetoric, 
it will strengthen his resolve to 
deliver favorable results for all 
Americans. In other words, the 
endless protest and rebuke that I 
anticipate over the next four years 
will likely foster his execution of 
his vision — which got him elected. 
Hope is the only thing stronger 
than fear. So, for the sake of our 
great democracy, let’s agree on the 
mythology of illegitimacy.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, February 2, 2017

Internship blues

LAUREN SCHANDEVEL | COLUMN

M

ost days, my college 
education truly feels 
like the great equalizer. 

The University of Michigan is 
home to the children 
of doctors, lawyers 
and artists; children 
who grew up taking 
exotic vacations and 
boarding at expensive 
schools; children who 
know the function of 
the smaller outer fork 
in a table set — and it 
is, by some miracle, 
my home, too.

Together 
we 

complain about exams, 
immerse 
ourselves 

in student organizations, hunch 
over our homework with coffee 
in hand, willingly engaging in an 
unspoken inter-class camaraderie 
every day. However, there are 
drawbacks to attending a school 
where the median family income 
of its students exceeds the value of 
my house; subtle reminders that, 
while I may share spaces with the 
elite, I do not always share their 
opportunities. And each time 
summer rolls around, it never fails 
to jolt me back to reality.

To put it bluntly, my parents 

don’t see the merit of unpaid 
internships. To them, working 
for free seems outrageous — a 
complete waste of time. After all, 
how am I supposed to pay off my 
student loans if I don’t save up 
what I earn during the summer?

After dropping out of commu-

nity college, my dad waited tables 
and worked as a disc jockey on the 
side before landing in the central 
supply unit of St. John Hospital 
in Detroit. My mom, on the other 
hand, grew up on a farm in small-
town Michigan and worked four 
jobs in high school and college to 
pay for her associate’s degree in sec-
retarial science. For a time, she was 
a medical transcriptionist (that’s 
how I learned the term endoscopic 
retrograde 
cholangiopancreatog-

raphy), before bouncing around 

during the recession in 2008 and 
ending up in specimen processing at 
the Detroit Medical Center.

In the months leading up to the 

end of winter semester, 
it is an uphill battle of 
explanation. I need the 
experience. I can’t work 
full-time at a restaurant. 
I know my boss told me 
I could come back and 
bus tables any time, 
but I don’t want to. The 
University 
gives 
out 

scholarships for interns. 
No, you don’t have to pay 
for it.
Last 
summer, 
I 

convinced them to let 

me stay in Ann Arbor to work 
on a congressional campaign. 
This summer, they want me at 
home. While my friends scatter 
themselves across the globe — 
traveling, camping, taking coveted 
positions in D.C. — I will retreat 
to the one place where I have 
complete financial security: my 
dingy, unremarkable suburb. So 
much for leveling the playing field.

As much as it sucks, my 

experience is commonplace for 
lower-income 
students 
pining 

after glamorous summer plans, 
and it isn’t just a matter of funding 
them, either. We know there are 
resources. Believe us, we’ve scoured 
the 
scholarship 
websites 
and 

could probably recite verbatim the 
descriptions of specific scholarship 
packages to you. No, a lot of our 
struggle has to do with guilt. Some 
of us have to work to provide for our 
families; others simply cannot get 
their parents to warm up to the idea 
(“You’re away during the school 
year, why do you have to leave for 
the summer, too? We miss you!”).

So each year, while our peers 

gain valuable experience in their 
respective fields, we unwillingly 
set ourselves back — because, 
not surprisingly, employers will 
almost always take the guy who 
wrote policy memos for four 
months on Capitol Hill over the 

girl who worked in the stockroom 
at her local Kroger.

While the University does all 

it can to provide students with 
financial resources for internships, 
most scholarship packages only 
cover the cost of housing and food 
for the duration of the program, 
which nets zero by the end of the 
summer. For those of us with 
families who may not understand 
the experiential value of unpaid 
work, it is almost impossible 
to convince them that working 
for free in our field of interest is 
ultimately more beneficial in the 
long run than laboring at a service 
job for minimum wage.

I implore the University to 

consider the barriers low-income 
students encounter when seeking 
internships 
and 
subsequently 

train advisers to understand and 
accommodate this. Whether that 
entails connecting them with 
paid options or simply preparing 
them for conversations with their 
parents on the subject, a little 
consideration can go a long way.

Once the dorms close for the 

summer, not everyone has the 
means to continue their education 
outside of the classroom; some are 
forced to withdraw to a reality that 
is worlds away from the luxuries 
of campus. And when you are 
consistently knocked back on your 
ass every May after spending a 
school year steadily advancing 
with your peers, things can seem 
pretty hopeless and unfair.

For many, the months between 

winter and fall semester serve as 
a painful reminder that, while 
they may rub elbows with their 
wealthier 
counterparts 
eight 

months out of the year, matching or 
even outdoing them in academics, 
they will never quite fit in with 
them. It is an inequality that is 
overlooked and under-appreciated, 
and one that will always cause me 
to dread the arrival of spring.

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
Megan Burns

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

Lauren Schandevel can be reached 

at schandla@umich.edu.

The mythology of illegitimacy

NICHOLAS TOMAINO | COLUMN

NICHOLAS
TOMAINO

LAUREN 

SCHANDEVEL

FROM THE DAILY

Make the U more affordable

O

n Jan. 18, The New York Times’ The Upshot published a report 
with statistics detailing variation in student income on college 
campuses in the United States. The statistics reveal the University 

of Michigan’s disproportionately high number of wealthy students on 
campus. Sixty-six percent of students come from the wealthiest 20 percent 
of Americans, and only 3.6 percent come from the poorest 20 percent. The 
study fundamentally illustrates that the University is not doing enough to 
promote socioeconomic diversity on campus. The University must do more 
to promote socioeconomic diversity by more actively promoting financial 
aid and scholarships, as well as work to retain students once they come to 
the University through more affordable living. 

The 
University’s 
current 

policies to assist low-income 
students only go so far. While 
the HAIL scholarship, which 
provides full-ride scholarships 
to high-achieving, low-income 
students, is certainly a good 
start, it focuses on alleviating 
the student debt of a select 
few, rather than increasing 
socioeconomic 
diversity 

overall. 
Furthermore, 
the 

University must make sure 
that it is doing its part to make 
students more aware of the 
possible financial aid that is 
available to them. Financial 
aid documents are also long 
and often confusing, requiring 
months of rigorous financial 
work to grant students access 
to necessary assistance; the 
University 
needs 
to 
give 

students more tools to help 
them fill out these long and 
complicated forms to get the aid 
they need. In the 2011-2012 year, 
2 million students qualified for 
federal aid, but about 14 percent 
of students didn’t know how to 
apply and 9 percent said it was 
too much work to apply. What’s 
more, the CSS profile is another 
requirement the University has 
for students who wish to apply 
for grants and scholarships, an 
even more comprehensive and 
detailed set of forms students 
applying for any University aid 
must fill out.

In light of the Diversity, 

Equity 
and 
Inclusion 
plan, 

the University must work to 
make campus more affordable 
once students have arrived, 
otherwise 
the 
DEI’s 
main 

goal to create a better campus 
climate won’t be enough to 
attract and retain students 
of 
low 
socioeconomic 

backgrounds. We also believe 

that the University must take a 
more active role in alleviating 
external 
costs 
that 
may 

create barriers to low-income 
students. A study by the Urban 
Institute shows that four-year 
institution 
room-and-board 

costs are growing significantly. 
While 
on-campus 
housing 

used to provide students with 
cheaper housing, this report 
shows it is now only 7 percent 
cheaper to live on-campus.

This problem is especially 

salient 
in 
Ann 
Arbor, 
as 

increasingly 
unaffordable 

housing creates obstacles for 
students who already find it 
difficult to pay their tuition. 
Compared to other Big Ten 
schools, on-campus housing at 
the University is on the more 
expensive end of the spectrum. 
In 
fact, 
many 
University 

students 
live 
in 
Ypsilanti 

instead of Ann Arbor because 
of steadily growing housing 
costs in Ann Arbor. Increasing 
programs to assist in these 
additional 
expenses 
would 

decrease obstacles to students.

Other schools around the 

country have been doing a 
considerably 
better 
job 
at 

promoting 
socioeconomic 

diversity on their campuses 
through 
several 
different 

specialized programs. Denison 
University, Grinnell College, 
University 
of 
Southern 

California 
and 
Williams 

College 
allocate 
extensive 

amounts 
of 
funds 
toward 

highly specialized programs 
that help recruit lower-income 
students and offer assistance 
with admissions. Denison and 
Williams fly in thousands of low-
income students to tour their 
campuses and provide those 
students specialized assistance 

with 
applications 
free 
of 

charge. These initiatives can 
help explain why these colleges 
have 
greater 
socioeconomic 

diversity on campus.

In 1997, the state of Texas 

passed a bill in which the 
top 10 percent of students in 
each high school in Texas 
receive automatic admission 
to any public university in 
the state. Though the bill 
was later ammended to allow 
universities like the University 
of Texas at Austin to limit 
automatic admits to the top 
7 percent, this bill is still a 
good example for states and 
universites to follow. Although 
Texas’ 10 percent plan isn’t 
an entirely nuanced approach 
to 
increasing 
diversity 
on 

campus, it’s a step in the right 
direction in increasing lower-
income students’ access to top 
public universities.

We believe that the University 

has a duty to act as an agent of 
upward social mobility. The 
University should streamline 
the financial aid process by 
removing the CSS Profile, while 
supplementing and increasing 
funding 
for 
programs 
like 

the HAIL Scholarship that 
are aimed at recruiting and 
retaining students from lower 
socioeconomic status homes. 
Once 
students 
arrive 
on 

campus, the University must 
work to retain students by 
providing low-income students 
means to cover Ann Arbor’s 
lofty living costs. Diversity is 
what makes any institution 
strong, and without increased 
steps to improve socioeconomic 
diversity to make our campus 
welcoming for all students, 
the University risks remaining 
socioeconomically divided.

Nicholas Tomaino can be reached at 

ntomaino@umich.edu.

FRANNIE MILLER | CONTACT FRANNIE AT FRMILLER@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.

