On Feb. 11, after relentless 

student 
protests, 
Yale 

announced that the university 
would change the name of its 
residential college named after 
John C. Calhoun, the seventh 
vice president of the United 
States remembered for his 
racist views and as a prominent 
spokesman for slavery. While 
there have been no similar 
protests 
about 
University 

of 
Michigan 
facilities, 
we 

recognize 
that 
there 
are 

buildings on campus named 
after figures with controversial 
histories. Buildings such as C.C. 
Little — named after University 
President Clarence Cook Little, 
a proponent of eugenics — and 
Angell Hall — named after 
University 
President 
James 

Angell, who played a role in 
crafting the Chinese Exclusion 
Act — are just a few examples of 
buildings named after figures 
who deserve greater scrutiny.

While these are prominent 

examples we would expect 
to be proposed for review, 
we worry that the names 
of 
smaller 
facilities, 
such 

as Winchell House in West 
Quad — named for Alexander 
Winchell, 
a 
20th-century 

University 
professor 
of 

geology and paleontology who 
published many racist works 
— will be overlooked in the 
renaming procedure.

In 
2008, 
the 
University 

published a set of standards for 
naming campus facilities in an 
attempt to provide consistency in 
the naming process. Under these 
guidelines, 
building 
naming 

decisions are often initiated 
by the nine-member Board of 
Regents and the final decisions 
ultimately rest with them, too.

In 
addition, 
the 
current 

standards for naming campus 

facilities 
are 
somewhat 

vague in order to account 
for the complexities of the 
human 
characters 
after 

whom buildings are named. 
Because the guidelines are 
open 
to 
interpretation, we 

believe it is not only valuable, 
but necessary, to have more 
than the voices of the Board 
of Regents and President’s 
Advisory 
Committee 
on 

University 
History 
when 

making 
these 
decisions. 

Furthermore, the few people 
making 
naming 
decisions 

spend little time in campus 
buildings compared to students 
and faculty, who work and 
study in them — and therefore 
deal with the implications 
of each building’s name — 
every day. Thus, we suggest 
the University implements a 
student and faculty committee 
to work alongside those already 
involved in order to provide 
a more inclusive and more 
informed 
decision-making 

process. 
This 
is 
especially 

important for structures like 
the Biological Science Building, 
which 
is 
currently 
under 

construction and does not have 
a donor name attached. 

When deciding the name 

of a campus facility, it is 
crucial that the University 
finds the right balance in 
continuing the University’s 
history while not “honoring” 
or endorsing the past actions 
or beliefs of a discriminatory 
individual. 
We 
recognize 

that it is often hard to judge 
influential historical figures 
due to the fluidity of social 
norms over time. Moreover, if 
given enough scrutiny, there 
is potential to find something 
offensive about any building 
name or honoree.

That being said, there is 

still a moral line that should 
not be crossed. The University 
should be proactive in changing 
names of buildings named after 
individuals who were blatantly 
racist. While it is important not 
to forget the past, we believe 
that renaming a building will not 
erase the University’s history, 
but rather create a more inclusive 
environment where all students 
can feel comfortable and, in turn, 
create a productive learning 
experience. Furthermore, we 
can remove the name while still 
acknowledging the building’s 
history 
and 
maintaining 
a 

medium to recognize the flaws 
of our past.

The decision to name or 

rename 
a 
campus 
facility 

should not be taken lightly 
and we hope the University 
continues 
to 
encourage 

student 
and 
faculty 
voices 

in the matter. Right now, 
the only avenue for students 
and faculty to get involved 
is by submitting a proposal 
recommending that buildings 
be renamed. While this is a step 
in the right direction, we believe 
it is not enough. Students must 
be afforded a more tangible role 
in these processes, such as a 
committee that works alongside 
the 
Board 
of 
Regents 
and 

President’s Advisory Committee 
on University History.

Everyone involved in the 

naming 
process 
must 
be 

mindful about how we name our 
buildings, as legacies and societal 
views constantly change over 
time. While it is important 
not to erase the University’s 
history, it is crucial that the 
name of our campus buildings 
and facilities align with the 
University of Michigan’s core 
mission and values.

A

t 
this 
point 
in 
the 

semester, many of us 
find 
ourselves 
buried 

in 
midterm 
exams, 
projects 

and 
applications 

for 
internships, 

scholarships, jobs and 
summer 
programs. 

My 
experience 

is 
no 
exception. 

As 
we 
pursue 

these 
professional 

opportunities 
and 

strive 
to 
achieve 

high marks on exams 
and 
projects, 
it 

remains 
important 

to anticipate the possibility of 
failure.

Falling short in the attempt 

to achieve a goal, like getting 
a particular job or receiving a 
good grade on an assignment, 
presents us with two choices: 
A) sulk about it and move on to 
something else or B) use this 
failure as an opportunity to learn 
how to add value to a group 
without being in that role, or 
learn why our work on that 
project was insufficient and 
how we can find more success 
in our next attempt. The latter 
choice may be more difficult 
for most, as it requires us to 
be open to receiving criticism; 
however, it often is more 
rewarding in the long term. 

Learning 
to 
embrace 
the 

disappointment of not getting a 
promotion is a skill acquired after 
repeated failure. In order to move 
forward, it may be helpful to ask 
the following questions: “How 
can I add value to this business 
or organization?” “How can I 
still grow and challenge myself 
so that I can feel engaged with 
my job?” “Is the work that I do 
for this business or organization 
personally gratifying?”

The answers may not be 

immediately apparent, but if 
you are truly passionate about 
your work, the most important 
objective should be the projects 
you work on, rather than the job 
or position that you hold within 
a business or organization. For 
example, when I was denied the 
opportunity to join the executive 
board of the glee club that I’m a 
part of, I decided that instead 
of leaving the group, I could 
find other ways to contribute in 

spite of not holding the status 
that comes with being on the 
board. I am lucky to find myself 
among many members in the 

organization 
who 

have 
expressed 
a 

fondness 
for 
my 

ideas and an interest 
in 
collaborating 

with me on various 
projects. 
This 

decision 
of 
mine 

was purely driven 
by the desire to add 
value to something 
greater than myself, 
because I love what 

this organization stands for and 
believe in contributing toward 
its longevity. 

The same can be said when 

completing projects in a class 
for a grade. This past fall, I took 
a prerequisite class for declaring 
a 
major 
in 
communications 

and 
media 
studies 
called 

Communications 122 — Media 
Analysis: Concepts and Methods. 
In this class, I worked on a 
semester-long qualitative media 
research project that involved 
analyzing 
the 
manifestation 

of gender identities in two 
advertising 
campaigns: 
the 

“Dream Angels” campaign by 
Victoria’s Secret and the “Axe 
Angels” campaign by Axe.

I had worked with my GSI 

throughout the entire semester 
on crafting a unique argument, 
finding 
related 
research 
to 

compare to mine and pondering 
the suggestions of the findings of 
my research. I put hours of work 
into the project, and in spite of the 
tremendous time commitment, I 
found myself delighted with the 
work that I was doing because it 
was both interesting to me and 

relevant to a career interest of 
mine — advertising.

All 
aside, 
I 
ended 
up 

receiving a B on the project. I 
initially felt quite dissatisfied 
with that mark, because I 
believed my work and efforts 
warranted 
a 
higher 
mark. 

However, instead of choosing 
to take out my frustrations on 
my GSI or professor, I took 
it upon myself to consider 
the critique of my GSI on the 
final product. In doing so, I 
realized my shortcomings and 
where I could have analyzed 
the ads further and added 
nuance to my argument and 
conclusions, which would have 
consequently lead to a higher 
grade on the project.

Most importantly, I saw 

this as an opportunity to delve 
further into the concepts that 
I discussed and accomplish 
the most important goal of 
the 
educational 
aspect 
of 

college: to learn how to learn 
through asking questions and 
finding the answers on one’s 
own, as opposed to someone 
else offering an answer.

This brought me to a three-

step process that allowed me 
to grow as a student. First, I 
enhanced my ability to learn and 
perform at a higher level in future 
research projects. Second, I grew 
by finding an understanding of 
what my shortcomings were 
and learning from them so my 
mistakes are not repeated in 
the future. Finally, I found that 
after reviewing my work and 
the suggestions of my GSI, I was 
more gratified by the work than 
I was before, because I learned 
more about the subject and about 
myself, particularly regarding 
my logical reasoning capabilities.

Failure 
can 
serve 
as 

an ending point, but it can 
also provide a beginning, a 
context in which you have 
the 
opportunity 
to 
create 

something 
special 
and 
be 

innovative and do something 
meaningful 
that 
has 
a 

tremendous impact on you 
personally or an organization 
that you are a part of. The 
choice is yours.

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

Turning failure into opportunity

ZACHARY COX | COLUMN

Zachary Cox can be reached at 

coxz@umich.edu.

I 

received 
a 
book 
about 

manners two years ago as 
a Christmas present from 

a distant relative. At first, I was 
slightly 
offended; 

I took it as a subtle 
implication 
that 

this relative was not 
particularly fond of 
my behavior and I had 
somehow stepped on 
traditions of which I 
was not aware.

The book, titled 

“50 
Things 
Every 

Young Lady Should 
Know: 
What 
to 

Do, What to Say, and How to 
Behave,” is co-authored by two 
men and one woman. It made me 
cringe and I immediately placed 
it out of sight on my bookshelf. 
I did not touch it again until a 
few months ago when I dared 
to flip through a few of the 
chapters while clearing out my 
room. Curiosity killed the cat as 
I started on “Chapter 1: Saying 
‘Please,’” and I continued to read, 
wondering why I was so quick to 
dismiss basic manners simply 
because they were presented in a 
way with which I did not agree.

There 
is 
a 
negative 

connotation 
surrounding 

the idea of behavior manuals 
specifically for men and for 
women, especially among our 
generation. 
Aside 
from 
the 

binary gender division these 
books promote, the implication 
that we have to change our 
ways to accommodate traditions 
we see as somewhat archaic is 
typically labeled as sexist with 
no further thought. But we forget 
there is value in participating 
in 
certain 
mannerisms 
to 

communicate respect.

Formal etiquette is easy to 

learn, is only required in specific 
settings and is incredibly useful 
when facing situations in which 
one does not normally engage. 
Having a set behavior you know 
to be acceptable allows you to 

operate confidently with little 
worry of offending others. This 
should not be seen as “giving in” 
or forced conformity; it should 

be seen as a form of 
behavior that we can 
default to when we 
wish to convey our 
appreciation of others.

Cultures all around 

the world have set 
traditions 
in 
place 

that help define their 
way of life, and such 
framework is not to 
be 
frowned 
upon. 

Universal 
social 

interactive behavior that reflects 
common decency among people 
is the beginning of a society 
that knows how to function on 
an elementary level. We need 
this within our own culture. 
Discrimination 
still 
unjustly 

divides many places in the United 
States, and a set of manners we 
agree upon to show respect is 
one place to start the essential 
communication that moves us 
toward a more united country.

It will not be easy to define 

manners upon which we all 
agree, but millennials are key 
in designing the next set of 
manners within our society 
that express the social justice 
evolution we are experiencing 
right now. It is up to us to remove 
the oppressive behaviors that 
perpetuate gender roles and 
are unaccepting toward people 
outside of what is usually seen 
as the “traditional” lifestyle. The 
world is no longer in this state of 
mind, and our manners need to 
indicate that.

Additionally, with 90 percent 

of young adults on social media 
platforms, millennials are in 
a position to devise a new set 
of manners specifically for the 
virtual world. This is only one 
example of the many areas of our 
lives in which outdated manners 
never needed to cover, therefore 
it is up to millennials to update 

the current set of manners to 
correspond to the changes we 
are seeing.

We begin changing by not 

dismissing specific behaviors 
right away under the excuse that 
they make us uncomfortable. 
This does not mean we all need 
to go visit the nearest bookstore 
to buy the hottest manners book 
currently on the shelves and read 
the latest trends in etiquette. 
We can only learn when we are 
uncomfortable. 
Finding 
new 

ways to behave toward one 
another will inevitably step on 
some toes, but this cannot deter 
us from trying.

Many 
millennials 
will 

disregard 
manners 
as 

expectations 
unfairly 
placed 

upon 
them 
by 
society 
and 

outdated practices, but manners 
that go beyond “please” and 
“thank you” are not evil rituals 
set to defeat social progress or 
restrict our behavior. Society has 
undergone many changes, and 
our manners need to reflect that. 
Some of our old practices will no 
longer be needed or will be in 
need of an update. However, we 
cannot use this as an excuse to 
abandon all formalities.

Manners, and manner books, 

should not be seen as deliverers 
of 
misery. 
Their 
primary 

function is to communicate 
decency among friends, family, 
acquaintances and strangers. 
They give a sense of acceptance 
to all interactions between 
people, which is something 
many 
claim 
to 
strive 
for. 

Millennials are in the perfect 
position to lay the groundwork 
for our next set of manners that 
are crucial to a well-functioning 
society, so it is time to step 
up and take responsibility for 
our interactions (not just our 
actions).

Thank you for your time.

Manners aren’t just unfair expectations

ALEXIS MEGDANOFF | COLUMN

Alexis Megdanoff can be reached at 

amegdano@umich.edu.

ZACHARY 

COX

FROM THE DAILY

More voices in renaming buildings
I

n recent years, college students across the country have called 
upon universities to rename campus buildings that commemorate 
individuals who have histories of supporting slavery and other racist 

and discriminatory programs and policies. The University of Michigan 
has been no exception. In 2016, University President Mark Schlissel asked 
the President’s Advisory Committee on University History to review the 
University’s policies on facility naming in light of the University’s bicentennial. 
After reviewing University policies on the matter, this committee 
recommended that a process be created to allow University community 
members to propose facility names for review to the president’s office. This 
past month, Schlissel accepted the committee’s recommendations. While 
The Michigan Daily Editorial Board commends the University for taking 
this important step, we believe the University should take a more proactive 
role in investigating problematic building names and make more of an effort 
to give students and faculty a stronger voice in the decision-making process.

ALEXIS 

MEGDANOFF

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Failure can serve 

as an ending 

point, but it can 
also provide a 

beginning.

SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK

The Michigan Daily’s Opinion section is seeking additions to 

Survivors Speak, a series of first-person accounts of 

campus sexual assault and its corresponding 
personal, academic and legal implications. 

Submissions will be due by March. 10 at 11:59PM. 
Visit http://bit.ly/2kIeoMq for more information.

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.

