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.