I
’ve been having a lot of
conversations lately about
what I’m going to do after
I graduate. At this
point, my response
is like a reflex: “I’m
not sure where I’m
working yet, but I’m
applying to entry-
level production jobs
at broadcast news
networks
in
New
York City.” If I had a
nickel for every time
I said some rough
iteration
of
that
sentence, I’d have a
lot of unused nickels
lying around my house. (Why
are nickels still a currency?)
Slowly,
though,
my
conversations about life after
graduation are becoming less
hypothetical.
Spring
Break
marks the semester’s halfway
point — and just a few days
ago, I officially applied for
graduation. The end is near
(cue
stomach
ulcer),
and
though I feel ready to get out
there, work and embrace life as
a member of the so-called “real
world,” I’m also suffering from
crippling waves of nostalgia
and anxiety.
I’ve been trying to figure
out when Ann Arbor became
a second home and not just
the city where I take classes. I
think it started when I agreed
to live with my roommates —
Matt and Casey — toward the
beginning of sophomore year.
Matt’s nursing rotations and
course load made it virtually
impossible for him to come
tour houses, so Casey and I
resorted to walking the streets
of Kerrytown, going door to
door and asking students to
see their homes. That’s how we
found the place we live now. We
saw it once. There wasn’t even a
“For Rent” sign out front. It was
just lucky. When we put down
the deposit, Matt hadn’t even
seen the apartment.
The promise of living in
our house junior year got
the “home” vibe rolling at an
otherwise difficult time. I’ve
written about this before —
sophomore year was hard for
me. I felt isolated. I couldn’t
find the motivation to do
practically anything. I didn’t
like the classes I was taking. I
felt trapped in my dorm, where
I had to enter a code to use the
bathroom. Without a doubt,
I reveled in the support of
friendships when everything
else was so frustrating. I
appreciated that there were
people who I cared about and
who cared about me right back.
That helped.
But Ann Arbor really started
to feel more like a home when
we moved into our house.
We gained a great deal of
responsibility, the three of us.
We had to pay rent, electricity
bills and cable bills. It was
the first time any of us had to
do that. Since then, we’ve all
gained a better understanding
of what it means to handle
our own finances responsibly.
I overdrew a debit card for
the
first
time
and
learned
to
regularly
check
bank statements to
make sure I have
enough funds before
mindlessly spending
on things I don’t
need.
We had to wash
our
own
dishes
instead
of
letting
them pile up in the
sink (cough, Casey,
cough). We had to do our
own grocery shopping and cook
our own meals instead of swiping
into dining halls. This was huge.
It’s become a meaningful ritual
in our house, and few things are
more satisfying than parading our
brown bags full of provisions up
the steps. I recently made a joke
to Casey that our elation when
we return from Trader Joe’s must
parallel the emotions of hunter-
gatherers returning with animal
carcasses and vegetables.
We started going to Mr.
Stadium Coin Laundry & Dry
Cleaning to wash our clothes,
because our unit doesn’t have
a washer or dryer. I learned
that detergent pods are best
put at the bottom of a top-
loading
washing
machine
— otherwise they might not
disintegrate
properly
and
could
inconveniently
leave
sticky residue on my clothes.
Ultimately,
I
learned
that
liquid detergent is superior to
its pod cousin.
Living
in
Kerrytown
meant strolling around the
neighborhood and exploring
the areas where not only
students but also real Ann
Arbor
residents
live.
We
constantly take walks — one
friend recently compared us
to 65-year-old men. One of our
favorite routes, among others:
meander down to Depot Street
near the train tracks, across
from the dog park (yup, there’s
a dog park), through the human
park, past Casey’s Tavern (a
real place, we have coasters),
back
up
Main
Street
and
around toward our home again.
I suppose Ann Arbor started
feeling even more like home
once
the
novelty
of
each
household activity gave way
to established routines. Doing
chores in our home is like
clockwork now. Our collective
comfort while cooking in the
kitchen has made it fun to
invite friends (whether it’s one
or 14) over for dinner. Our trips
to the laundromat are reliably
three hours on the dot; it’s not
infrequent that we head over to
Benny’s Family Dining for solid
diner food while our clothes are
in the dryer, and it’s common
knowledge at this point that
I take the longest to fold
afterward (I’m very particular).
Ann Arbor feels like home
because
it’s
not
foreign
anymore. I’ve talked with my
dad, a University of Michigan
alum, about this before. You can
probably imagine where you
grew up in great detail. What
does your block look like? I bet
you can see every house. How
do you get to your best friend’s
place? You could recount the
exact routes and street names,
imagine the scenery. What
does home smell like? It’s hard
to describe, but you know it.
We all do. When I first got
here, I couldn’t answer those
questions about Ann Arbor.
But now that this experience is
coming to a close, I’ve come to
realize that whenever I’m not
here, my vision of Ann Arbor is
as crisp and precise as my vision
of home back in Los Angeles.
Now, I have the same fears
I had when I left home for
Michigan in 2013. Previous
concerns about not going to
school with my best friends
have been replaced with the
knowledge that I’m not going
to work in the same city as
many of those who are part of
my Ann Arbor family — they’ll
be spread all over the country.
I’m likely not going to live in
the city where I grew up, and
I have mixed feelings about
continuing to live so far away
from my family. I still don’t
have long-term certainty about
what my future has in store,
nor do most of us. And all of
this is compounded by the fact
that in a month and a half, I
won’t have official, school-
sanctioned breaks to reliably
convene with the people I care
about in a central location. The
things that I do in a workplace
are going to start having
consequences beyond a letter
grade and grade point average.
So, it’s all going to test
whether or not this experiment
of living on my own with
two buddies in a funky little
subdivided
apartment
in
Kerrytown as a student was
successful preparation. One
of my grandparents calls this
kind of thing a “passage.” It’s
like growing pains between an
old phase and a new one, and
though it’s not comfortable,
it’s
necessary.
All
things
considered, then, I’m ready
and raring to get out there into
a world beyond this college
campus. But I’ll miss it dearly.
A
buzz from my phone
used to mean a new
text message or email
notification, but these
days every time I
reach for my phone
I am greeted with a
news
alert,.
where
the
name
Donald
Trump
never
fails
to be included. Since
the inauguration, the
Trump administration
has
been
closely
reported,
its
each
and
every
move
serving as the centerpiece of
daily headlines, both domestic
and international. Every day
of the 45th presidency means
a slew of new stories depicting
the continued unconventionality
of the country’s leader. In other
words, every day feels like we’re
waiting to see what Trump does
next, and we can depend on the
press to always keep us updated.
Yet, given his personality, he isn’t
taking this too well.
The question of government
transparency has long been a
question without an answer. How
much does the public get to know?
How much should the public
know? How much do we actually
know? Holding political leaders
and administrations accountable
for their actions is only possible
when we actually get to see their
actions. Yet, our power in lifting
the veil on the government can
only go so far. Instead, the news is
our vital way of being and staying
informed, making sure our leaders
take
responsibility
for
their
actions. Those who have power to
make change, both good and bad,
have people and communities to
answer to. The arrival of a Trump
administration
has
recently
threatened that idea.
What began as an irritability
with The New York Times,
Trump’s dislike of the press — or
rather dislike of his bad press —
has escalated. After a series of
tweets referring to reputable news
organizations as “FAKE NEWS”
and a disastrous White House
Press briefing, it is safe to say that
the Trump-press relationship is
unconventional at least. While the
press may not always have the best
relationship with the government,
past
administrations
kept it cordial with
the press corps. The
new
president
and
his
administration,
continuing the trend
of
unconventionality,
have
taken
White
House-press relations
in a new direction.
Two
weeks
ago,
the strained relations
culminated
in
the
barring of certain news outlets
from a White House briefing.
The act was uncalled for and,
in my opinion, un-presidential.
While left-leaning publications
may be more critical of the
administration and thus be an
unfavorable
attendance
for
Trump, the exclusion extended
to more conservative publications
as well. This marks a highly
unconventional approach to public
relations in the White House.
Simply dubbing any news that is
unfavorable or tainting as “fake”
is not only a sure sign of disregard
for the First Amendment, but a
sign of weakness.
This defensive stance on the
press is not a warranted one, and
as Trump continues his war on
the press, his credibility as a strong
and truthful leader disintegrates.
I will admit, the press has been
more frequent in their reporting
of the new presidency than in
past presidencies, but the fear and
uncertainty of the people who
followed the news about Trump
from the campaign trail into the
White House means we need the
press now more than ever.
In the past month, Trump has
shown he isn’t slow to get to work.
The New York Times published an
insightful infographic grouping
the
administration’s
recent
actions on a scale from abnormal
to normal and important to not
important. Not surprisingly, the
majority of events were rated as
abnormal and important. (It is also
important to note these ratings
were
conducted
by
panelists
across the ideological spectrum.)
The presidency’s willingness to
make important and widespread
change means a higher need for
transparency from the people but
a likely unwillingness from the
administration to provide it.
The Trump administration’s
barring of news corps from a
briefing and his own deeming of
press as the enemy of the American
people threatens the institution
that
fights
for
government
transparency. There already exists
a disconnect between people and
the government, but turning on
the news, picking up the paper
or reading articles online is what
lessens that disconnect. If we
are not informed, we cannot
hold our leaders accountable. If
Trump continues actions which
undermine the means of informing
the people, he is actively working
against
a
more
transparent
government.
While
Trump’s
difficult relationship with the press
started during his campaign, now
as a president with ample power,
his relationship with the press is
not just between the press and him,
but the American people as well.
The lens we see our government
through is only enhanced and made
clearer by a strong and willful press
corps. Sure, the constant coverage
of the Trump administration
can be annoying and the daily
news alerts or shared articles on
Facebook are getting old; however,
Trump’s rhetoric against the press
means being informed and seeking
accountability is more important
now than ever. It also means
supporting the journalists who
are, despite adversity, seeking the
truth by any means possible. The
new administration’s straying from
political norms has manifested
as actions that compromise basic
tenets of people’s relationships
with their officials. Trump’s war
on the press — his thorough and
daily dissatisfaction with reporting
— is only a sign of the weakness
of this administration and, more
importantly, works against true
government transparency.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, March 7, 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
Sarah Khan
Max Lubell
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Trump v. transparency
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY | COLUMN
Moving forward
MICHAEL SUGERMAN | COLUMN
Michael Sugerman can be reached
at mrsugs@umich.edu.
MICHAEL
SUGERMAN
W
e
are
a
coalition
of
organizations
committed
to
transforming the University of
Michigan campus climate through
policy change. We believe that the
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
strategic planning initiative will
fail without financial investments
into
the
infrastructure
for
DEI work: The current policy
of expecting free labor from
marginalized people undermines
the integrity of the entire DEI
campus enterprise.
Since
the
DEI
strategic
plans were released last fall,
the University has repeatedly
declared its aspirations for a truly
diverse, equitable and inclusive
campus environment. However, a
recent decision by the University
conflicts with this vision.
In
December
2016,
the
Graduate
Employees’
Organization, the labor union
representing Graduate Student
Instructors and Graduate Student
Staff Assistants, put forth a
proposal to the University to create
paid DEI positions for graduate
students within each school unit.
As part of negotiations for its
labor contract, GEO proposed
hiring at least one DEI GSSA per
school unit at a 20-hours-a-week
appointment,
with
additional
positions at larger schools such
as LSA and Engineering. These
GSSA roles would substantially
increase the capacity of each
school unit to implement their
DEI plans, and officially place
value on the diversity labor
and expertise contributed by
graduate
students.
Moreover,
GSSA positions dedicated to DEI
work would lift much of the labor
burden off of students, faculty and
staff who have historically done
this work on a voluntary basis.
Paid GSSA positions would make
it possible for the University to
be proactive on campus climate
issues, rather than reactive, and
institutionalize DEI labor as core
to campus operations.
In February, the University
rejected that proposal. As part
of
negotiation
proceedings
between
GEO
and
Academic
Human Resources, HR flatly
rejected GEO’s proposal to fund
GSSA positions for DEI labor in
each campus unit. This concerns
undergraduate students, graduate
students,
staff
and
faculty
alike. It sends a message to our
communities that the University
does not place a high value on DEI
labor if it is unwilling to pay for it.
Recent campus events ranging
from
racist
and
anti-Semitic
emails to white supremacist fliers
have made it abundantly clear that
now more than ever the University
needs to take proactive measures
and ensure that each school unit
has the capacity to respond to acts
of hate efficiently and effectively.
Without paid DEI positions as part
of the University infrastructure,
school units will continue to
struggle when responding to such
incidents as they arise.
We call on the University to
meaningfully
integrate
DEI
labor into the structure of
our institution by hiring and
paying students to support
the implementation of DEI
plans. We specifically declare our
endorsement of GEO’s proposal to
create paid DEI graduate student
staff positions. In doing so, we
join the more than 900 students,
faculty and staff who have signed a
petition in support of the proposal.
Several of our organizations have
previously described the need for
fair compensation for diversity
labor and the importance of
investing in human resources in
order to address inequalities in the
distribution of diversity labor on
campus. There is clear and broad
support for the creation of paid
DEI positions.
Hiring GSSAs across school
units
would
substantially
increase
staff
capacity
to
implement DEI strategic plans.
Most campus units have formed
working groups and committees
to begin the work of developing
and implementing such plans.
These advisory committees serve
an important role in overseeing
progress, but they are not equipped
to carry out the day-to-day tasks
involved in actual implementation.
Those
who
serve
on
the
committees do so voluntarily,
and on top of their existing job
duties, academic workload or both.
Meetings held once a month or
once a semester are not enough to
promote systemic change within
any campus unit. These facts
coupled with the high turnover
rate most committees experience,
as students and faculty move on to
serve other needs, can make DEI
committees ineffective. Expecting
school units to adhere to aggressive
implementation timelines in the
absence of paid staff dedicated to
doing this work is both unrealistic
and unsustainable. By hiring
graduate students to support
implementation activities, GEO’s
proposal addresses the widespread
capacity issues faced by diversity
initiatives across campus.
Creating paid DEI positions
would also harness valuable
student expertise that has yet
to be utilized through formal
mechanisms. Students at the
University have been successfully
organizing
around
issues
of
race, gender and class for a long
time. Leaders from across our
organizations are routinely tapped
as “on-the-ground” experts by
administrators and asked to engage
in diversity labor because of their
knowledge of power dynamics
and systems of oppression as
they apply to University settings.
In fact, many school-specific
DEI plans tout the successes
of student-led DEI efforts as
their
own.
However,
these
students have largely engaged
in
diversity
labor
through
informal channels, providing
their recommendations on an
unpaid basis to school officials
who
have
limited
expertise
on issues related to race and
inequality. Deans and chairs
overwhelmingly
hail
from
socially privileged groups and
have not been tested on their
qualifications to implement DEI
plans effectively.
ANU
ROY-CHAUDHURY
Read more and see
a full list of
contributors at
MichiganDaily.com
Anu Roy-Chaudhury can be reached
at anuroy@umich.edu.
Pay students for diversity labor
MICHIGAN IN COLOR
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.
Slowly, though,
my conversations
about life after
graduation are
becoming less
hypothetical.