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