of the Golden Apple Award, 
naming him Professor of the 
Year. The whole lecture hall 
erupted in cheers, and Cho 
looked on, smiling from the 
front of the room. After the 
award was explained, Cho 
delivered an impromptu thank 
you speech. 

“When I was a little kid, I 

thought my dream would be 
to be a professional wrestler,” 
Cho started, causing the class 
to erupt with laughter. “I 
realized that wasn’t going to 
happen with this body, and so 
this is more or less a dream 
come true.”

This was the 27th annual 

Golden Apple Award, which 
is the only award at the 
University that is comprised 
soley of student nominations. 
Economics Prof. Jim Adams, 
who 
received 
the 
Golden 

Apple Award in 1998, made 
a speech in front of the class 
congratulating Cho on this 
honor.

“There 
are 
about 
4,100 

members of the instructional 
faculty at Michigan,” Adams 
began. “In the entire history 
of this award, only 26 people 
have won it. If you do the 
math, 26 divided by 4,100, you 
get something under 1 percent. 

More like one-half of one 
percent of the faculty at the 
University of Michigan have 
won this award. I would say 
that’s in the A+ category.”

Adams went on to discuss 

the importance of this award, 
noting that the fact that it is 
chosen only by students makes 
it 
a 
particularly 
priceless 

recognition for someone who 

values his students as much as 
Cho.

However, 
it 
isn’t 
only 

students who say they love 
working with Cho — his GSIs, 
when asked, say they find him 
to be a great teacher. Rackham 
student Ivy Tran, who started 
working with Cho this year, 
said he has been one of her 

favorite teachers to work 
with.

“In terms of the energy 

he brings to the classroom, 
(Cho) is really great,” Tran 
said. “He always has jokes 
and finds a way to make 
economics really interesting, 
even for a graduate student. 
It’s a way different experience 
than I ever had taking these 
courses. He really cares to 
make sure the students have 
the resources with me, and 
I feel like even though it’s 
a 300-person lecture, each 
student still feels like they 
have a personal connection 
with Dr. Cho.”

During 
the 
class, 
the 

students had multiple things 
they 
chanted 
throughout 

the surprise announcement, 
which students said were 
things Cho and his students 
often do as a way of bringing 
the 
class 
together. 
Cho 

said “Yuh!” The students 
responded by repeating the 
call in unison, laughing as 
they celebrated this award 
with their professor.

On April 3, Cho will accept 

his award and deliver a “last 
lecture.” LSA senior Rachel 
Liang, a who was a part of the 
award 
selection 
committee, 

described 
the 
last 
lecture, 

which is a tradition that all 
of the winners of the Golden 
Apple Award participate in 

as a reminder that professors 
should always teach as though 
it was their last day teaching.

“The theme of the lecture is 

basically to convey the idea of 
teaching every day as if it was 
your last, and giving your best 

every day to students,” Liang 
said. “The winner every year 
embodies that idea and that 
spirit that we want to spread 
throughout the University, and 
that’s why we do what we do.”

At the end of the surprise, 

Cho gave one final speech to 
show his gratitude.

“I’m pretty much speechless 

right now,” Cho said. “You 
know when in this situation, 
I have a call that we all 
understand.” 

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Friday, March 10, 2017 — 3

According to the plaintiffs, both 
of whom are Asian-American, the 
reason they weren’t considered 
for 
advancement 
was 
racially 

motivated.

“Even 
with 
the 
requisite 

raise 
for 
promotion 
effective 

Fall 
2012, 
Plaintiff’s 
salary 

remained at the university’s scale 
minimum, far below average for 
his rank, and well below that of 
faculty with comparable or less 
accomplishments,” 
the 
lawsuit 

reads.

The lawsuit asserts Kurashige’s 

continued pursuit of discrimination 
claims against the University led to 
his 2013 termination as Director 
of the Asian and Pacific Islander 
American Studies Program, and his 
later blacklisting by his colleagues, 
which 
effectively 
forced 
him 

to resign from his position as 
professor in 2014.

Additionally, 
the 
University 

attempted to terminate Lawsin’s 
employment in 2015, while she was 
on leave to care for a baby with 
Down syndrome, and has barred 
her from teaching her previously 
scheduled classes for the winter 
2017 semester, which the lawsuit 
claims was a result of her reporting 
discrimination against herself and 
other faculty and students. 

In addition to their own personal 

accounts of discrimination, the 
plaintiffs’ 
complaints 
contain 

demographic information about 
the University for the purpose of 
illustrating a culture of racial bias 

and censorship.

“The composition of UM faculty 

also contradicts the institution’s 
rhetorical commitment to diversity 
and equity,” the complaint reads. 
“Of the 3,096 tenured and tenure-
track faculty at UM, 74 percent are 
white, 15.8 percent are Asian (a 
large portion being international 
scholars), 4.3 percent are Black, 
4.1 percent are Hispanic, 0.4 
percent are Native American, and 
0.1 percent are Native Hawaiian/

Pacific Islander. At the rank of full 
professor, 80 percent are white and 
73 percent are male.”

University 
spokesman 
Rick 

Fitzgerald said the University 
would be contesting the charges, 
but provided no further details.

“We will vigorously defend the 

university against this lawsuit,” 
Fitzgerald wrote in an email to 
the Daily. “In fact, the university 
already has filed a motion to 
dismiss much of the complaint.”

LAWSUIT
From Page 1

AWARD
From Page 1

have been fighting this issue 
for years,” Rabhi said. “House 
Republicans and Democrats 
are starting to work together 
on 
legislation 
around 
the 

Freedom of Information Act 
expansion.”

LSA junior Enrique Zalamea, 

president of the University of 
Michigan’s chapter of College 
Republicans, 
echoed 
this 

sentiment in an email interview 
and said he fundamentally 
believes 
in 
holding 
the 

government 
accountable 

through FOIA, agreeing that 
more transparency is needed 
in Michigan’s state government 
in order for these values to be 
protected.

“I believe that government 

officials, as public servants 
to 
the 
people, 
must 
be 

obliged to a higher standard 
of 
transparency,” 
Zalamea 

said. 
“The 
people 
cannot 

hold 
their 
publicly 
elected 

officials accountable if crucial 
information 
regarding 
their 

performance 
and 
activities 

remain 
private 
— 
with 

more 
transparency 
in 
our 

government, we the people 
have more influence in making 
sure the people we elect lead 

this state efficiently.”

Rabhi said part of the push for 

this recent activity regarding 
FOIA has come from Michigan 
voters who want to hold the 
state government accountable 
for its actions, particularly in 
light of the Flint Water Crisis.

“This is a very important 

issue 
that 
really 
resonates 

with 
voters 
in 
Michigan,” 

Rabhi said. “People believe 
that government should be 
open, they believe it should be 
transparent and this is one of 
those issues where we need 
to jump in and make sure that 
happens.”

The state House passed a 

similar 
package 
to 
expand 

FOIA to government officials 
with bipartisan support last 
session, but the measure died in 
the state Senate when Majority 
Leader Arlan Meekhof (R–West 
Olive) refused to bring the 
package to a vote, the Detroit 
Free Press reported.

In a response to comment, 

Meekhof’s office said his reason 
for not supporting the earlier 
legislation was out of concern 
that 
sensitive 
constituent 

information could be exposed 
through FOIA.

“The Majority Leader is 

opposed to legislation that 
would 
make 
constituent 

correspondence available under 

FOIA,” a representative from 
the office of Meekhof wrote. 
“Constituents 
often 
contact 

legislative 
offices 
seeking 

assistance 
with 
the 
state 

and may supply personal or 
financial information in seeking 
to resolve issues and the Senator 
does not think such information 
should be available for review 
by the public or media.” 

Rabhi disputed Meekhof’s 

claim 
and 
said 
sensitive 

constituent information would 
continue to be protected from 
FOIA as a part of any legislation 
passed in the House.

“Certain 
sensitive 

constituent information like 
medical information, financial 
information, 
social 
security 

numbers would be redacted 
if an email or communication 
were released,” Rabhi said. 
“That privacy concern I believe 
is dealt with.”

The other bill, SB 0069, would 

work to expand restrict FOIA 
further by exempting company 
secrets and bids from FOIA 
requests in order to promote 
competitiveness. It passed both 
the state Senate and House with 
unanimous bipartisan support.

Rabhi said he voted for the 

bill because he agreed with the 
idea of limiting FOIA requests 
to ensure the bidding process 
for state contracts is fair.

“When a company is bidding 

for 
providing 
services 
to 

the state, there was concern 
that a competitor company 
could FOIA that bid and then 
undercut that bid,” Rabhi said. 
“In a sealed bid environment, 
every company submits their 
bid not knowing what the other 
company has done.”

Zalamea 
said 
he 
fully 

supports the passage of the 
bill and agrees with the idea 
of protecting businesses from 
certain aspects of FOIA to 
promote competition.

“The 
government 
can 

and 
has 
directly 
impeded 

companies’ 
competitiveness 

when they release sensitive 
trade secrets,” Zalamea said. 
“Such information should only 
be released after the trades 
have been made.”

Conversely, 
Public 
Policy 

junior Rowan Conybeare, chair 
of the University’s chapter of 
the College Democrates, said in 
an email interview her position 
is to support FOIA expansions, 
believing limitations of the act 
are a threat to democracy.

“Transparency 
and 

accountability in government 
are essential to our democracy,” 
Conybeare wrote. “Legislative 
attempts to limit the scope of the 
FOIA are impediments to civic 
life and citizen participation.”

FOIA
From Page 1

get moved through that are 
ostensibly 
non-controversial,” 

Potter said. “That same week, 
the same procedure was used to 
honor the St. Louis Cardinals for 
winning the World Series. Then 
it was used to pass the Animal 
Enterprise 
Terrorism 
Act. 

There were only six members 
of Congress in the room. The 
rest were on the National Mall 
breaking ground on a new 
memorial honoring Dr. Martin 
Luther King Jr.”

Information master’s student 

Jay Choi said he appreciated 
being 
exposed 
to 
an 
issue 

he wouldn’t otherwise have 
been 
aware 
of 
as 
a 
non-

communications student.

“I actually didn’t give it too 

much thought before I came 
here, but I was really surprised 
at the content of the actual 
lecture and some of the issues 
that journalists are facing,” 
he said. “It’s not every day 
that students from different 
departments get exposed to 
such events and trends in other 
industries so this really helps 
expand 
those 
horizons 
for 

students, in my opinion.”

At the end of the talk, Potter 

warned repression was an issue 
that applied to more than just 
environmentalists, saying the 
power of the state was especially 
dangerous 
under 
President 

Donald Trump’s administration.

“Now of course I lied in my 

BuzzFeed listicle presentation 
here, that there’s not just 10 
steps to how all this happens,” 
he said. “The most important 
point 
is 
that 
there’s 
this 

unspoken final step to repeat the 
entire thing over again against 
different political groups. Right 
now, the main target has been 
environmentalist groups. But 
even if you don’t care about the 
environment, this still affects 
everyone in this room.”

LSA sophomore Lena Dreves 

said 
she 
thought 
Potter’s 

remarks 
were 
something 

everyone needed to hear.

“I thought he really put it 

together really well, and that 
needs to be known by people on 
campus, and, if possible, people 
need to read his book because 
it’s really well-written,” Dreves 
said. “I really liked how he said 
the way that they’re constructing 
this 
certain 
dynamic 
with 

environmentalists, they can do 
with any social group. I thought 
that was a very important piece 
of information.”

POTTER
From Page 1

“I’m pretty much 
speechless right 
now. You know 

when in this 

situation, I have 
a call that we all 

understand”

“The composition 

of UM faculty 
also contradicts 
the institution’s 

rhetorical 

commitment to 

diversity”

KATELYN MULCAHY/Daily

Economics professor Edward Cho receives the Golden Apple Award during his lecture in Lorch Hall on Thursday. 

by students and by their activism.”

In the University’s 35-page 

response to all of S4J’s initial 
demands, released in February, 
the University said cross-cultural 
spaces already exist on campus, 
an example being The Connector 
that bridges the Michigan Union 
and West Quad Residence Hall. 
The report said the current plan 
for a new Trotter Multicultural 
Center closer to Central Campus 
addresses S4J’s original demand. 
Another future idea outlined in 
the response would create a social 
justice institute, which would 
include areas for student activists 
to work.

However, 
University 

spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said 
the document is just a starting 
point for discussion, not a final 
decision.

Many students and faculty 

are comparing this request to the 
Baker-Mandela Center for Anti-
Racist Education, a social activism 
space for students that was active 
in the ’80s and ’90s. The BMC 
was founded in 1988 by students 
Premilla 
Nadasen, 
Barbara 

Ransby, Tracye Matthews and 
members of the United Coalition 
Against Racism.

The 
circumstances 

surrounding the BMC’s closing 
are unclear. However, according 
to Fitzgerald, there was never an 
official decision to remove the 

BMC from campus. He said the 
center slowly faded away after the 
founding students started to move 
away or focus on other issues. The 
University could not give specifics 
on when the BMC dismantled 
and the Daily last reported on its 
existence in September 1994. A 
Daily article from November 1995 
reported on students’ calls for its 
reinstatement. 

Nadasen said the incidents 

leading up to the founding of 
UCAR in 1987 and subsequently 
the creation of the BMC, involved 
racist 
flyers 
around 
campus, 

similar to the flyer incidentslast 
semester. She said the purpose 
of the BMC was to not only help 
student activist find resources 
but to bring racial issues into the 
classroom.

“One of the goals of the BMC 

was to create an alternative 
curriculum, one that made the 
theories that we were learning in 
our classes relevant to everyday 
people and to our lives so we 
sought to link intellectualism and 
activism,” she said. “We wanted 
to have a space that was available 
for students of color and we were 
available to all students on the 
campus who were interested in 
anti-racist education.”

In 2013, Rackham student 

Garrett Felber cofounded the 
United 
Coalition 
for 
Racial 

Justice, which took inspiration 
from Nadasen’s UCAR. After 
researching the UCAR and talking 
with former UCAR members 
about the BMC, Felber began 
researching the original center as 

part of a racial justice proposal. In 
an email interview, Felber said the 
BMC had ingrained diversity into 
the center’s functions.

“BMC by-laws specified that the 

board must be a majority women 
and people of color,” Felber wrote. 
“For example, in 1993, it was 74 
percent female, 61 percent Black, 9 
percent Latina, 9 percent LGBTQ.”

Felber said getting funds for 

the BMC was a similar process to 
S4J’s proposal for the new center: 
primarily by the University.

“Funding was provided by 

outside 
philanthropic 
grants 

such as the social justice group, 
Funding Exchange, as well as 
small donations from community 
members, 
fundraising 
events, 

and donations from UM offices,” 
Felber wrote. “Almost 90% of 
funding came from grants, most 
of which were provided by the 
University.”

In response to S4J’s new 

proposal, Felber wrote the plan 
reflects the long traditions Garg 
mentioned of students creating 
change on campus. He wrote 
students are the main purveyors 
for racial justice and program 
innovation at the University.

“Nothing meaningful for racial 

justice on campus comes from 
top-down 
leadership 
models,” 

Felber wrote. “It is only through 
organized, thoughtful study and 
agitation by students and the 
community that administrators 
are pressed to come up with a 
program.”

Research 
fellow 
Austin 

McCoy, who studies and teaches 

about 
racial 
justice, 
believes 

the 
University’s 
Diversity, 

Equity and Inclusion plan needs 
student-run resources like S4J’s 
activism center in order to make a 
difference in campus climate and 
change the University’s outlook on 
social activism.

“If the administrations are 

trying to implement any sort of 
campus-wide Diversity, Equity 
and Inclusion plan, a lot of times 
they’re going to need to be able 
to draw on resources from 
undergrads and grad students 
who are on the ground,” McCoy 
said. “These students are actually 
a resource who are trying to … 
implement DEI policy so I think 
such a (S4J) resource center could 
directly assist this institution.”

Instead of seeing the need for 

another student activism center 
as repeating past efforts with no 
change in between, Nadasen said 
the new center builds off the BMC 
and provides another stepping 
stone in the fight for diversity and 
racial justice.

“There are cycles of student 

organizing and student activism 
and I think those cycles are 
important and they do lead to 
incremental change,” she said. 
“I think the universities of today 
and the University of Michigan 
looks very different today than 
it did 60 years ago and part of 
the reason for that is because 
of the ways in which student 
activism has made demands on 
the University and the ways in 
which they have tried to hold the 
University accountable.”

CENTER
From Page 1

