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