I
magine sitting in lecture.
Your professor is doing
his job, going through the
slides as usual, when a student
decides to stand up, point at
the professor, and yell: “You
suck, bitch! And your mother
thinks you suck! And you’re an
asshole, prick, bitch, whore!”
Now imagine all 300 people in
the lecture decide to join in, and
everyone is suddenly pointing and
chanting insults at the professor.
Depending on how boring
your lectures are, maybe you’ve
had this impulse before. But
nonetheless, you don’t do it and
this never happens, because the
idea of randomly going up to
somebody and verbally degrading
him or her with personal insults
and obscenities is ridiculous.
Yet, there’s one place in our
society where such behavior
becomes the norm. In this
place, there is an unspoken
consensus
that
our
normal
social conscience no longer
applies. Suddenly, the otherwise
unthinkable becomes routine,
and the otherwise despicable
becomes encouraged. This is the
strange essence of the “student
section” — a staple of America’s
strong and obsessive college
sports culture. Our sports culture
at the University of Michigan is
not an exception to this rule.
For two seasons, I worked
with
the
Michigan
men’s
basketball team as a student
manager and a walk-on practice
player. For three seasons, I’ve
been a Michigan football season
ticket holder. I’ve been to a lot
of games, and every time I walk
into one, I feel a sense of awe
as I am reminded of the size
and power of our community.
When we all sing “Hail to the
Victors,” I feel pride, and when
we finally get the wave started
around Michigan Stadium, I
feel connected. But every game,
there are several times when I
feel disenchanted, and I marvel
at
the
absurdity
of
what’s
happening around me.
Whenever
the
Michigan
football team forces a punt,
the student section performs
something called the “You Suck”
chant. While the band plays
“Temptation,” everyone in the
student section motions their
arms back and forth toward
the quarterback and yells, “You
suck … you suck … you suck,”
until the chant crescendos and
concludes with an emphatic,
“You suck, bitch!”
Every time, I stand there
in
amazement
and
watch
thousands of intelligent people
simultaneously scream at the
quarterback and call him a bitch
on a campus that denounces
sexist language. What’s more is
that nobody seems to question it.
When I look around the student
section, I am hard-pressed to
find anybody who isn’t happily
reveling in the chant, following
along with the rest of the pack.
Sometimes when the opposing
team’s running back gets the
ball, I’ll hear a student near me
yell something like “Kill him!”
or “F--- him up!” Again, this is
seen as tolerable in the college
football environment despite the
fact that dozens of former players
have died from chronic traumatic
encephalopathy,
which
they
develop by sustaining big hits in
football games. A brutal hit could
actually kill them or contribute
to something that eventually
kills them, but it doesn’t seem
to matter to that student, who,
in this context, is allowed to say
whatever they want.
I’ve only been to one hockey
game at Yost Ice Arena, but
the fan culture there seems
even more extreme than it is at
football games. One of the most
notorious traditions at Yost is the
“C-Ya Cheer.” When an opposing
player enters the penalty box, the
student section yells “C-Ya,” and
then follows it up with a montage
of
vulgarity,
which
includes
“chump,” “douchebag,” “asshole,”
“cheater,” “prick,” “bitch” and
“whore,” all conveniently packed
into one crude chant.
Another Yost tradition occurs
when the phone rings in the press
box. When this happens, the
crowd will chant: “Hey (insert
goalie’s name), it’s your mom! She
says you suck!” This chant (like
all chants) seems harmless to
anybody in the student section,
and it probably is. But then again,
maybe it isn’t. Just ask Steve Kerr,
a former University of Arizona
point guard, who received taunts
about his father — an American
professor who was assassinated
by terrorists overseas. Certainly
these taunts were more directly
and intentionally offensive, but
this is what a mob mentality in
the stands can lead to.
I’m all for harmless taunts,
resonant
booing
and
getting
inside the opponent’s head. All
of this adds to the dramatic and
thrilling atmosphere of a college
sporting event, while providing an
emotional release for the fans. But
there is a fine line between playful
heckling and senseless verbal
abuse. Making fun of a player for
an air ball or a whiff is harmless
taunting. Degrading an athlete on
a personal level is senseless verbal
abuse, and targeting someone with
mindless obscenities (in a family
atmosphere) is inexcusable, no
matter the context.
There is no other place on a
college campus where calling
someone a bitch is encouraged.
It is not OK anywhere else in
society to yell “Kill him!” or “F---
him up!” to somebody. Why are
sporting events different?
Using sports to lower our
standards is lazy, and using
opposing players as outlets for
our pathetic fan catharsis is
ugly. We can come together to
support our team, but we can
do so without losing a basic
standard of human respect for
the opponent.
Don’t fall under the spell of a
mob mentality. If you disagree
with the premise of a chant, resist
it, and then maybe even think
of something better. I’d bet that
whatever you come up with is at
least a level up from “You Suck.”
M
ake America Great
Again” was President
Donald
Trump’s
slogan,
which
resonated
with
so
many this past fall,
and
was,
in
part,
his
justification
for
signing
seven
executive orders and
11 memos during his
first couple of weeks
in office. Making the
United
States
safe
was
the
objective
behind
his
recent
executive order to temporarily
block immigration from seven
countries previously identified by
former President Barack Obama
and Congress as dangerous places
for which reliable vetting was not
possible.
The
messages
surrounding
the order, and the process by
which it was rolled out, however,
overshadowed
its
objective.
So too did Trump’s tweet that
the opinion from a “so-called
judge” to grant a temporary
restraining order was ridiculous
and dangerous. Indeed, many of
his tweets play into a growing
narrative that he is defensive,
sophomoric and careless.
On Meet the Press, Danielle
Pletka of the American Enterprise
Institute downplayed the impact of
a contentious phone conversation
with Australia’s prime minister
over an agreement by Obama to
accept more than 1,000 refugees
from Australia annually. Pletka,
who is of Australian descent,
acknowledged that Trump may
have been justified in questioning
the merits of the deal, but he
needs
to
rethink
how
he’s
handling it. Indeed, he seems to
underestimate the importance
of process and underappreciate
the
public
outrage
that
his
words evokes in the absence of
appropriate context.
For example, in a pre-Super
Bowl interview, Fox’s Bill O’Reilly
asked Trump if he respected
Putin and Trump replied, “I do
respect him.” When O’Reilly said
Putin is a “killer,” Trump said:
“We’ve got a lot of killers. What,
do you think our country’s so
innocent?” This statement, of
course, led to significant outrage,
and prompted Chuck Todd, host
of Meet the Press, to allege that
Trump
was
asserting
moral
equivalency between the United
States and Russia.
When it comes to executing
his vision and enacting change,
Trump clearly does not appreciate
that style, rather than merely
substance, is important. While
content is critical, so too is how
he communicates his message. He
may substantively be advancing
an agenda that he was elected to
execute, but the process by which
he moves forward — including
the
conditions
surrounding
its
execution — should
be communicated in
a way that not only
satisfies his base, but
attempts to mollify his
adversaries.
Though
it
was
pleasant to see a room
filled
with
support
when Neil Gorsuch
was nominated for the
Supreme Court, the rubber meets
the road when Trump’s messages
reach those who did not vote for
him and who are unlikely to set
aside his words and lack of style in
the short term, simply in hope that
he may deliver results in the long
term. Speaker of the House Paul
Ryan, in an interview with Chuck
Todd, minimized the impact of
Trump’s style, and suggested
that polarization and division in
the United States will diminish
as results from Trump’s policies
improve the economy.
While Trump’s approval may
increase over time, only Trump
himself can expedite the process
by revising his style and caring
more about the “how” of delivering
his messages. Peggy Noonan, in a
recent article titled “In Trump’s
Washington,
Nothing
Feels
Stable,” recommends, “You have
to help your allies in the agencies
and on the Hill know, understand
and be able to defend what you’re
doing.” I would add that Trump
also needs to help the American
public better understand the
substance of his plans before he
rolls things out too hastily. He is
the commander in chief, and may
have the ultimate say on certain
matters, but getting buy-in, at the
very least, may require a modicum
of dialogue and explanation. We
need to appreciate his optics and
trust that the process is legitimate
— that he avails himself of his
advisers and appreciates both
the upsides and downsides of
his decisions.
In
my
estimation,
Trump
would be well advised to limit his
tweets to statements of fact rather
than speculation or derision. It’s
not enough that those who voted
for him might appreciate his
intent. He must be deliberately
concerned with how those who
did not vote for him appreciate his
tweets. Furthermore, tweeting
cannot provide the necessary
context — the optics — to ensure
clarity. Where emotions run
strong and the stakes are high,
dialogue is the only way to deal
with difference of opinion. Such
crucial conversations need to
be authentic, measured, honest
and bi-directional. In this light,
Twitter is not the venue, nor are
diatribes by designees such as
Sean Spicer or Kellyanne Conway.
Further, Trump and his team
must
refrain
from
reporting
alternative facts. In the event
that they do, however, as was
the case recently when Conway
erroneously referred to a massacre
in Bowling Green to defend the
immigrant ban, they must recant
publicly and accept accountability
for misreporting. Going forward,
Trump himself needs to regularly
meet with the press and present
himself with equanimity and
empathy. If he has any hope of,
or interest in, changing his image
among naysayers, he must accept
that his actions create his reality.
In
an
interview
this
past
weekend
with
George
Stephanopoulos on “This Week,”
Stephen Miller ultimately pushed
the Trump administration in
the right direction. Miller, a
senior policy adviser to Trump,
displayed great composure in
the face of a heated exchange.
When
probing
questions
outreached his jurisdiction, he
cautiously referred to another,
more appropriate member of
the administration. Though his
authoritative stance may have
been perceived as yet more
“Trump-like”
authoritarianism,
from my perspective, it was
clear and far from overstated,
despite Stephanopoulos’ repeated
attempts
to
provoke
him.
However, when discussing the
notion of voter fraud, Miller
continuously equivocated. By
making
assertions
without
providing
cogent
supporting
evidence,
he
provided
yet
another example of what Trump
must avoid.
To
truly
get
more
done
than what was achieved over
the last eight years, Trump
needs to present himself not
as an autocratic leader, but as
a
collaborative,
emotionally
intelligent one. He needs to
actively solicit feedback from
his
close
advisers
regarding
how effective or ineffective his
messaging might be. When given
new information, he needs to
pivot, adjust and recant as needed.
These are just the beginning steps
to establishing trust with the
electorate.
As has been said before in one
form or another, he may go more
quickly alone, but he will go further
together. Making America great
again will require a presidential
leader who appreciates how critical
the process of leadership is.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, February 16, 2017
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
The ends don’t mitigate the means
NICHOLAS TOMAINO | COLUMN
Our fandom is not an excuse
JON RUBENSTEIN | OP-ED
Jon Rubenstein is
an LSA junior.
Nicholas Tomaino can be reached
at ntomaino@umich.edu.
I
’ll admit something that I
don’t usually say about my
student representatives in
Central
Student
Government.
I was pleasantly surprised and
excited when I first heard about
the
Leadership
Engagement
Scholarship that was started in
the fall semester. As someone
who is very involved on campus,
I am more than familiar with
the struggles of running from
meeting to meeting with little
break, and am even more familiar
with the frequent choice between
being involved on campus and
working to make ends meet. This
scholarship would really help
someone like me, who feels the
need to work their way through
college as their parents did, but
also wants to be involved in
organizations on campus that
supplement learning.
My
excitement
about
the
scholarship is what led me to
be sorely disappointed to read
that CSG would charge students
$5 a semester to endow the
scholarship. This regressive tax
on students will harm those who
need it the most. By choosing
to charge a fee, CSG has taken
the easy route to funding this
scholarship, rather than internal
budgeting or external fundraising.
CSG has violated its core mission
to represent the interests of all
students, and in doing so has
raised the cost of attendance at the
University of Michigan — limiting
the ability of its constituents to
attend and thrive in college.
While CSG acts as if this
fee
is
inconsequential,
the
reality of a $40 charge over an
undergraduate’s career at the
University will disproportionately
affect
lower-income
students,
especially those who are taking
loans and will pay interest on the
fees down the road. According
to a survey conducted by CSG,
75 percent of its members come
from families making more than
$100,000 a year and thus will
never be able to understand the
full impact of their fee increases.
Though this resolution passed
nearly unanimously, the voices
of lower-income students — who
these fees will affect most — were
omitted.
Opposition to this fee was
best summarized by Rackham
Rep. Andy Snow, who said the
tax points out the hypocrisy of
CSG representatives saying, “I
don’t see fundamentally how so
many of us can be against tuition
hikes and increases and still be in
support of this.” A regressive tax
on students who most need the
scholarship won’t do anything to
confront the increasing costs of
higher education. Additionally, on
Thursday, Regent Andrea Fischer-
Newman tweeted that she would
not be in support of a raise in fees
to fund the LES.
What’s more alarming is that
the scholarship is skewed in
favor of well-endowed student
organizations that do not need
financial support from CSG. The
scholarship could be a wonderful
opportunity to push CSG funding
to financially struggling student
organizations.
Instead,
the
scholarship will prioritize students
who will not be able to participate
in student organizations without
funding help. While this sounds
like a good thing on the surface,
prioritizing
“pay
to
play”
organizations such as Greek life
and club sports does not work
to solve the underlying issues
of socioeconomic diversity and
the high cost of college that have
prevented students from joining
student organizations in the past.
The University was recently rated
the least socioeconomically diverse
public university in the nation, and
that designation won’t go away by
raising the cost of attendance in
favor of the 10 to 15 chosen students
who receive the LES scholarship.
While
CSG
decries
tuition
increases and tries to make the
cost of school lower through
various resolutions, it seems to
have no problem raising fees for
a scholarship that doesn’t seem
worth it. I am opposed to the $5
fee, and I urge CSG and the Board
of Regents to do everything in their
power to keep the costs of higher
education low by repealing the fee
and confronting the increasing
costs of higher education across
the board. For CSG to use the term
“tool of equity” to describe this
scholarship, it must come from
a place that legitimately helps
students of a lower socioeconomic
status thrive at the University.
Abolish the $5 fee
KEVIN SWEITZER | OP-ED
Kevin Sweitzer is an Editorial Board
member.
NICHOLAS
TOMAINO
MICHELLE SHENG | CONTACT MICHELLE AT SHENGMI@UMICH.EDU