While
the
University
is
spending
significant
time
and energy in the interests of
diversity, equity and inclusion,
the inclusion of those with
disabilities has been ignored
by almost all University plans
outside of Union renovations. The
University-wide plan uses vague
language to refer to the need
for inclusive design with only a
single specific University-wide
initiative to evaluate University
web
tools
as
screen-reader
capable. While these initiatives
are certainly laudable, we would
have expected more thought to
have gone into this significant
issue across the University.
In general, the overarching DEI
plan includes little concerning
the inclusivity of people with
disabilities. While the University-
wide plan includes headshots
of many diverse members of
our community, the plan lacks a
photo of a visibly disabled person
on its front page, excluding those
who identify as disabled from the
get-go. It sometimes even uses
language considered derogatory
by people in the disabilities
community; the one quote from a
visibly physically disabled woman
in the entire plan includes the
term “handicap,” which many in
the disabled community consider
extremely derogatory.
Moreover,
LSA
and
the
Division of Student Life, two
of the largest units that deal
directly
with
students,
lack
concrete efforts in their DEI
plans to appeal to students
with disabilities. While this
board has previously identified
significant issues with the DEI
initiatives, co-opting the disabled
experience in these plans while
weakly dealing with the problems
is unacceptable.
These oversights manifest in
the infrastructure of our campus,
as
students
with
physical
disabilities
have
identified
seemingly simple issues that
have just been ignored by the
University. Perhaps the largest
issue is that buildings that
comply with Americans with
Disabilities Act regulations do
not ensure that people with
disabilities feel included in those
spaces. While ADA-compliant
buildings may include accessible
pieces of infrastructure such
as ramps or wide hallways,
these
implementations
often
segregate students with physical
disabilities, who consequently
must use alternate back or side
entrances and roundabout routes
to get to their destinations.
Beyond
entrances,
many
lecture
halls
have
accessible
seating only in the back, making
it difficult for students to see,
hear or participate, especially in a
large room. Some of these design
oversights even endanger students
with disabilities. For example,
a significant number of West
Quad’s “accessible” rooms are
located on the fifth floor, creating
potentially
life-threatening
danger for students with physical
disabilities in the event of a fire or
other emergency restricting use
of the elevator. These design flaws
send the message that students
with physical disabilities are not
wanted — or even safe — in our
main spaces.
In order to craft more inclusive
building and service plans, it is
crucial the University consults with
several students with disabilities,
as each student has different
experiences
and
personalized
needs and can provide a nuanced
understanding of what it means
to be a student with a disability
on campus. For many able-bodied
individuals, it is impossible to truly
understand and think about all
the obstacles a disabled individual
might
encounter
on
a
daily
basis. As a result, non-disabled
administrators are unable to devise
effective policies or solutions
without taking the time to listen
to
students
with
disabilities.
This inexperience can also lead
non-disabled
administrators
to
make assumptions on behalf of
disabled individuals, and these
administrators
are
usually
uninformed
and
openly
work
against fully including disabled
students when crafting policies that
have everything to do with them.
As of May 2016, the University
serves the most students with
disabilities in all of the Big Ten.
According to the SSD’s 2015-2016
annual report, 2,277 students
—
including
undergraduate,
graduate
and
professional
students
—
are
registered
with the office. Despite the
numbers, the University has
a
disappointing
number
of
specialist faculty members to
help disabled students access
equal opportunities on campus.
The Services for Students with
Disabilities office provides a
variety of assistance options for
students with learning, mental
and physical disabilities. Over
the past six years there has
been a surge in SSD student
enrollment, but the SSD budget
has been nearly cut in half. There
must be an increase in funding to
SSD to ensure all students with
disabilities can get individual
help for their specific needs.
An increase in funding would
also allow the SSD to reach its
full outreach potential, as many
students are not aware of the
services that SSD can provide.
Finally, the University needs
to tackle disability culture as a
whole, ensuring all students feel
safe and welcome on campus.
While this task is a tall order, as
it likely involves restructuring
curriculum
and
course
requirements, it is a desperately
needed step in protecting all
students. There are currently
many issues surrounding ableist
culture that go unnoticed on
campus. Those who are able-
bodied are often not required
to think in a way that includes
perspectives
of
those
with
disabilities.
Few
classes
are
taught with units on disabilities
and even fewer classes dive
into the heart of curriculum on
disabilities and disability history.
For example, while it may
seem important to have a class
dedicated to the implementation
of
accessible
buildings
for
students studying architecture
or civil engineering, such classes
are only offered as electives
to
architecture
students.
Furthermore,
while
it
may
seem that those in LSA would
greatly benefit from classes on
disabilities, it is not a requirement
that this information be taught
and it is only discussed in a few
classes, often through the Race
and Ethnicity requirement. A few
student groups, like Initiative for
Inclusive Design, are working
toward shedding light on issues
of ableism on campus. But with
ableism being such a problematic
cultural norm, the University has
a duty to educate its students on
the struggles this marginalized
population continues to face,
especially when we as a campus
have a goal to enhance our
diversity, equity and inclusion.
Such a culture shift will likely
take a long time to implement and
take effect on campus, but this
effort needs to start now. There is
no excuse for largely ignoring an
entire group of people on campus
and throughout the world, and
denying their voices and stories
from being heard. The University
should spearhead a culture shift
against ableism by recognizing
disability as an identity essential
to
diversity,
working
with
students
with
disabilities
to
rectify those issues and educating
others
on
the
history
and
current culture on disabilities.
Most important to this culture
shift will be continuing the
conversation
and
openly
discussing where we as a campus
fall short and can improve. The
DEI initiative has committed the
University to supporting minority
groups on campus. Furthermore,
the University has displayed a
commitment to protecting the
rights of minority groups through
actions such as the defense
against racist fliers found around
campus and President Donald
Trump’s unacceptable executive
order
barring
immigration
from
seven
Muslim-majority
countries. Thus, it is imperative
that the University also works to
defend the rights of students with
disabilities on campus.
W
hen we think about
Valentine’s
Day,
we tend to picture
a perfect romantic night — a
bouquet of red roses,
dinner
at
a
fine-
dining restaurant and
the best selection of
wine. And, of course,
this
perfect
night
doesn’t come without
a price tag. According
to
the
Journal
of
Business
Research
study conducted by
Krugman and Grannis,
U.S. shoppers spend $13.7 million
dollars on this day. Valentine’s
Day is an opportunity to shower
your partner with love and
affection. That’s one argument.
Valentine’s
Day
doesn’t
always pan out the way we
want. Amandalea71 expresses
her disappointment on Reddit
that her boyfriend took her to
“the grimiest IHOP in town
and then go see Avatar for the
4th time.” To some, Valentine’s
Day is simultaneously the best
and worst day of their life,
as JENbubbie writes: “I was
married 2/14/87. I was served
divorce papers 2/14/2010.”
These Valentine’s Day horror
stories makes us consider: Is
Valentine’s Day really about
love? Despite the promised day
of celebration, it seems that
many people are left unsatisfied
and worse yet, alone. I find
that the obligatory nature of
this holiday is the culprit of an
unsatisfactory outcome.
The problem with Valentine’s
Day is not that people spend
money, but that we feel like we
have to. Close and Zinkhan find
that 63 percent of men and 31
percent of women feel obligated
to give a gift to their partner
for Valentine’s Day. As a case in
point, I gave my seventh-grade
Valentine
a
Giant
Hershey’s
Kiss with a rolled up 20-dollar
bill. I thought that
chocolate
was
not
expensive enough and
cash would do justice
(Remember: 20 dollars
is a lot of money to a
seventh-grader).
According
to
researchers
at
the
University of Rhode
Island,
this
forced
consumerism
can
lead to reactance: When people’s
freedom of choice is threatened,
like when they feel forced to
spend money on gifts, they
tend to aggressively want the
alternative, like not wanting to
buy the gift.
As a result, people tend to
engage in the gift-exchange in
an insincere manner. From a
consumer research survey, some
of the reasons cited by consumers
for partaking in gift giving
on Valentine’s Day included:
“Because your significant other
will get pissed off if you don’t”
and “Because if I didn’t, I would
never hear the end of it.”
To make matters worse, the
problem lies on both ends of this
gift exchange. A FierceRetail
report reveals that while we
expect our significant other
to spend about $240 on us,
men will spend about $98 and
women will spend about $71.
This
discrepancy
between
expectations
and
reality
leaves
many
gift
receivers
disappointed and unsatisfied.
On
this
account,
Peter
McGraw and his colleagues
find that we have a tendency to
quantify love. Individuals will
spend more money on a gift for
a loved one even if a cheaper
option is available. Therefore,
receiving a more expensive gift
would imply that their partner
loves them on a greater scale.
Conversely, then, those who
receive a gift of low price value
would think that their partners
love them less.
Due
to
these
heightened
expectations surrounding this
holiday, we fail to appreciate
the gift-giving gestures in full
account and we demand more.
According
to
Time’s
survey,
70 percent of people want to
be surprised with gifts rather
than be asked what they want
for Valentine’s Day or know in
advance. However, we still find
that many people choose to spend
the money rather than planning a
more thoughtful surprise.
Considering
the
unmet
expectations
of
Valentine’s
Day, it is surprising to find that
about half of millennials still
plan to splurge this year with an
even greater amount of money
than previous generations from
FierceRetail statistics.
Don’t
feel
like
spending
the big bucks? The G Brief
reminds us that the other half
of millennials find Valentine’s
Day to be overrated and one-
third of them don’t plan to
participate. I am also jumping
on this bandwagon.
I tend to feel sympathetic
toward Valentine’s Day doers
as I used to be one of them.
However, I realize that red
roses, fancy gourmet chocolates
and teddy bears that say “I love
you” — and certainly expecting
to be spent $240 on — don’t
define true love and romance.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, February 8, 2017
P
resident Donald Trump’s
executive ban on visas
from Iran, Iraq, Somalia,
Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen
was
recently
suspended
by
a federal judge, which is in
effect nationwide — though it
is currently being appealed. As
the ban comes to a standstill,
uncertainty about the treatment
of immigrants, Muslims and
green-card holders by the United
States still hangs in the air.
Though
many
Americans
find the Trump administration’s
actions shocking, they are only a
consequence of inaction. It is the
failure of people to act sooner
and to care for the injustices that
previous
administrations
have
done to these countries, as well as
to its own citizens, that has gotten
America to where it is today. Under
the Obama administration, the
seven countries that were put on
this list previously had restricted
visa rights, and five of these
seven countries were bombed
during
his
administration.
His administration was also
responsible
for
deporting
more people than any previous
president. Trump’s actions are
not occurring in isolation, but
only a continuation of policies
that Americans did not openly
oppose that have caused them to
become the norms of society. The
apathy toward the United States’
bombing of these countries as
well as the normalization of
profiling Muslims has created the
foundations on which Trump’s
actions are built upon. They are
not unfounded, but instead only a
continuation of previous policies
put in place in the name of the war
on terror — though this time, on a
much larger scale. These policies
only further the fear of others, as
they did post 9/11, and the rate of
hate crimes has only risen since.
The rhetoric behind Trump’s
ban is for the safety of the
country, but the countries where
such terrorists have come from
in the past — Saudi Arabia, the
United Arab Emirates, Egypt
and Qatar — are not on this list.
Though many of those who
voted for Trump thought that
he would not be influenced by
special interests, these countries
are still allies to the current
administration. And yet, even as
people hold on to the idealism that
the Clinton administration would
have been bliss, the truth is that
its foreign policy was still largely
influenced by special interests, as
the Clinton Foundation accepted
tens of millions of dollars from
these same countries. For the
citizens of the six countries with
a history of violent intervention
on behalf of the United States,
which administration destroys
their homes has little relevance
to them. The executive ban only
brought the issue closer to the
home and directly affected people
in a more overt way. The ban
was based on the fundamental
misunderstanding
that
the
citizens of these countries are
to blame for the turmoil in
their countries and equates the
oppressed with their oppressors.
It is crucial that all people
who seek to create real change
ask themselves what it is that
they seek to achieve and whether
their activism is true or only self-
fulfilling. In the age of social
media activism, people often sit
behind their computer monitors
and try to write the cleverest anti-
Trump rhetoric or pro-humanity
slogan in 140 characters, without
action to follow. Likewise, people
may attend a protest and forget
about the issue the next week
because it is no longer in the news.
Though social media activism
and protesting can be powerful,
it is crucial to be consistent and
to show continued solidarity for
there to be sustainable change.
Even if the ban is truly
suspended, there are more issues
in this country that have long been
buried far below the attention
of the public eye. The effects of
social media activism and other
forms of self-fulfilling activism
are evident in the way issues are
so easily forgotten, like the Flint
Water Crisis, which is now rarely
talked about in the public sphere,
but it is nowhere near resolved.
The House Oversight Committee
recently closed the investigation of
how much officials knew about the
lead levels in Flint’s water, leaving
Flint’s residents without answers
for the causes of their suffering.
Likewise, though people have
been rising to protest against
the
Trump
administration’s
decisions, there is still a lack of
fair media attention to the Black
Lives Matter movement. It is
often the issues of those from
lower
socioeconomic
status,
people of color and victims of
dehumanizing foreign policy that
go overlooked and forgotten. Not
only should people be concerned
with the issues that are easily
visible, but also those that go
forgotten easily and that have
been prevalent for years.
It is up to us to not forget them,
not just when the issue affects us
personally, but whenever we see
acts of injustice, whether it be on
Americans or on those affected by
United States policy around the
world. It is only with consistent
reminders and tangible actions
that these issues can be reversed,
and
long-standing
systemic
problems can be overturned. The
world is at a crossroads in history,
and which direction America will
take is unknown.
And yet, in the short time that
Donald Trump has been president
of the United States, there has been
a strong public solidarity among
people in support of immigrants
and Muslims that has never been
seen previously on such a large
scale. This should be used as an
opportunity for people to unite
and question policies that are
created on the basis of fear, which
stems
from
misunderstanding
foreign countries. It also stems
from a lack of public consciousness
on the United States’ influences in
these countries and the systematic
racism that is so prevalent in the
education, occupation and health
systems. If these issues are truly
eradicated, the changes will last
far past Trump’s administration.
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
Love on sale now
GINA CHOE | OP-ED
Gina Choe can be reached at
ginachoe@umich.edu.
Rabab Jafri is a Michigan in Color
contributor.
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.
FROM THE DAILY
Don’t ignore disability
A
s the University of Michigan continually implements initiatives to create
a more diverse, inclusive and equitable environment, one minority in
particular has been neglected in the University’s discussions: students with
disabilities. Given 19 percent of people in the United States identified as disabled in
the 2010 census, it seems exceptionally remiss for the University to neglect the needs
of such a large portion of our population. These issues are incredibly salient now,
as the University is moving forward with $85 million renovations to the Michigan
Union, which include re-outfitting the building, which originally opened in 1919, to
be more accessible for students with disabilities. While the University was ranked
the most “disability friendly” campus in the United States in 2016, there is still a
long way to go in confronting the ableist culture that pervades everyday aspects
of life on campus. The Michigan Daily Editorial Board implores the University to
heed the voices of students with disabilities in order to ensure that all students,
regardless of their ability status, feel included on campus.
It’s up to us
MICHIGAN IN COLOR
GINA CHOE
RABAB JAFRI