100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

March 21, 2017 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

M

arch
Madness
is

about much more
than
68
teams

playing basketball to vie for a
stupid trophy and
bragging rights. It’s
one of the largest
spectacles in which
the power of sports
reveals more than
just athletic ability.

Over the years,

we’ve seen stories
of
underdogs

overcoming
obstacles,
coaches and players
displaying the power
of mentorship and, weirdly,
how crazy the hoopla around
college sports has become. We
live in a country where the
passion for college athletics is
intense, but sometimes goes
too far.

I was reading online the

other day about a player from
Vanderbilt who didn’t play
as well as he usually does.
The author posited that he —
singlehandedly — potentially
caused his team to lose its play-
in game. It’s odd to me that we
live in a society where college
students, many of them my
age, are criticized and bear the
burden of ridicule if they don’t
perform well.

I’m part of it too; I’ve written

articles about the performance
of athletes and how that relates
to team success, and there’s
room for that. For now, I’m
playing devil’s advocate by
thinking about how it would
feel to read critiques of your
ability every day. But I want to
remember from now on, before
I get angry over a player’s shot
selection, that they’re just like
me — a 20-something year old
just living life.

Me critiquing an athlete’s

layup, for example, is like
someone
critiquing
my

penmanship when I take notes.

It’s uncalled for, and
frankly, I don’t know
what
I’m
talking

about, because the
athlete
has
spent

thousands of hours in
the gym, not me.

I’ll
probably

gripe to my friends
about
something

going
against
my

wishes
during
the

tournament, but I’ll try
to hold my tongue and

remind myself that the people
on the court are students and
amateurs. Though they may
receive full rides, they don’t
get paid. Most of them won’t
play professionally. But they
have spent countless hours
with everyone in their ears —
parents, coaches, teammates,
die-hard fans.

For those reading this as

college students, you know
how hard it is to juggle school
and extracurricular activities.
Imagine having to travel every
week, rising early every morning
and still having to turn all your
work in on time. Let’s give these
guys a break sometimes.

For those who are older and

critical, remember that these
are college students trying their
best. Mistakes happen. Humans
are fallible. And there are more
things to worry about than the
result of a game.

I bet the athletes who will play

face a lot of anxiety about playing
up to expectations while being
under the spotlight. It takes a lot
of guts to be able to rise above the
pressure. And criticism follows
athletes for years. Fab Five
member Chris Webber still gets

patronized for calling a timeout
in the NCAA Tournament when
he had none, causing Michigan
to lose the game.

I get that people can have huge

attachments to their teams. I’ve
been engrossed with sports culture
my entire life, so I understand the
passion. But verbally attacking
an amateur, even when they
can’t hear you, isn’t acceptable.
It’s essentially continuing to
perpetuate the ridicule of young
adults. It’s even more profound to
see how much more hate is out in
the open because of social media.

Instead of breaking players

down, it would be great to see
them be built up. The most
beautiful moments in sports are
when the hate tweets and death
threats are overshadowed by
support and thankfulness when
someone messes up.

Sometimes the relationship

to athletes is blurred, as some
see them as characters in games
instead of human beings. They
have emotions and probably don’t
like to see negative reactions in
the news and their social media
notifications, just like everyone
else. It would be better for
everyone if people left them alone
or viewed them as someone
they know and love and want
to succeed.

There are many debates about

how to combat the ridicule and
how to compensate for the pressure
and amount of time that college
athletes spend practicing. I believe,
at least, that college athletes should
be more humanized. The coverage
shouldn’t be totally revamped, but
an attitude of empathy is a good
start to possibly taking some of
the pressure off them.

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

Ibrahim Ijaz

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

March Madness and good sports

Chris Crowder can be reached at

ccrowd@umich.edu.

D

uring my past four
years on campus, as a
former editor for this

publication and as a student
interested in campus policy,
I’ve paid a lot of attention to
Central Student Government
elections. Each year, I can tell
when campus has hit the peak
of the election season — when
I start seeing something from
one of the parties on social
media repeatedly.

This year, it looks like you,

Movement,
might
get
that

honor. Over the past few days,
I’ve been seeing your rap video
frequently — but it’s been in an
unusual way. Usually, people
share CSG things because they
think they’re funny, or because
they’re
interested
in
the

party’s ideas. This time, I’ve
been seeing it from people who
think your video is offensive,
myself included. In four years
of these videos, I’ve yet to see
one as tone-deaf or concerning.

I’m not going to spell out

all the reasons why, because
frankly, there are too many
of
them,
ranging
from

having women only appear
for
five
seconds
to
gaze

adoringly at your candidate
to your presidential candidate
calling
himself
the
“white

George
Washington
Carver.”

Delegitimizing
people’s
lived

campus experiences or calling
yourself the white version of
anybody shouldn’t be a part of a
campaign, nor should personally
attacking candidates for their
educational paths. It’s a display
of privilege, plain and simple.

Nonetheless, if it was just

the video, I might not have
felt compelled to write this.
And I want to acknowledge
that after much defense of the
video — including a statement
from your presidential candidate
that anybody who was offended
shouldn’t be because it was “fun,”
not serious — you did apologize
during The Michigan Daily’s
CSG debate. However, the point
is that it’s not the just the video
— there’s a similar ethos in your
platform and your slate, which
is notably less diverse than
the other parties, that I hope
you also choose to revisit and
think more about in light of the
feedback you’ve received.

Your “Mental Health Wake

Up,” a proposal for a yearly
lecture on mental health, is
a key example. Combatting

mental
health
issues
on

campus is fantastic and well-
needed. But saying the way to
deal with it is by broadcasting
that “we all have hardships and
struggles throughout our time
here,” as quoted from your
website, is trivializing. It’s true
that many, if not all, University
of
Michigan
students
will

struggle during their time here,
and it’s important to recognize
that. But mental health issues
aren’t just a “hardship.” They’re
medical facts with debilitating
impacts
on
people’s
lives.

Using your language is akin to
equating sadness to depression
or stress to anxiety disorders.

And while a lecture is lovely, it
won’t address the systemic lack
of mental health resources on
campus that students and the
University have consistently
identified as the most pressing
issue in this arena.

Your “Send the Elevator”

initiative
also
lacks

awareness. Encouraging the
University to do outreach in
low-socioeconomic
status

communities
is
great
(and

in fact, it’s already doing it,
though more can definitely
be done). What’s troubling
is
your
insistence
that
it

should
be
“students
from

similar
backgrounds”
doing

the
outreach.
Having
low-

SES students connect with
people who have faced similar
challenges is reasonable and
likely helpful. Where it becomes

concerning is when you make it
primarily their responsibility
to
mentor
and
encourage

more
low-SES
students
to

come here. Everyone on this
campus is accountable for this
kind of work (and I’ll be the
first to admit that I haven’t
done nearly as much as I
could), and to place it on the
shoulders of low-SES students,
who often are balancing more
commitments with their time
regardless, is problematic.

I
don’t
have
the
space

to address the rest of your
platform, but I want to note
this — none of your specific
10 initiatives touch on ways
to improve diversity, though
your pillars do. Many of your
initiatives instead touch on
things that are only one-
time
events,
are
highly

logistically challenging (such
as redesigning the School of
Education’s curriculum) or call
for things already in place (to
me, a “Committee of Student
Action and Unity” sounds like
what a student government is
already supposed to do).

I want to give credit where

it’s due — I like your proposals
to improve lighting on Central
Campus and increase SafeRide
hours. I haven’t seen prior
candidates pitch something like
your “4 Years” initiative, which I
think is an interesting approach
to helping students succeed.
And to be clear, I don’t want
anyone who runs for CSG to
fail. Running for a position like
this asks a lot, and I respect that
you’ve put yourself out there and
devoted time to something that,
at its best, can make meaningful
impacts on campus.

Your
platform
repeatedly

states that your focus is “taking
this campus back and giving
it to the students,” as well as
making sure the University
lives up to its name. The thing
is, your statements, your rap,
your platform exemplify the
reasons this campus doesn’t
feel like home or like it’s living
up to its potential, for me and
many other students. If you
truly want to represent us,
please take criticism like this
to heart for your platform as
well. This, right now, is the
time to be serious.

Movement, it’s time to get serious

SHOHAM GEVA | OP-ED

Shoham Geva is an LSA senior

and a former Editor in Chief of the

Michigan Daily.

CHRIS CROWDER | COLUMN

CHRIS

CROWDER

FROM THE DAILY

Vote eMerge

W

ith the upcoming Central Student Government elections, four parties
— Movement, Better Than the Rest Party, Defend Affirmative
Action Party and eMerge — vie for the CSG presidential and

vice presidential positions. Of these parties, The Michigan Daily Editorial
Board believes that the eMerge party candidates, LSA junior Anushka Sarkar
and Public Policy junior Nadine Jawad, are the best picks for these offices.
Between their extensive involvement in CSG and other campus organizations,
their concrete plans to increase diversity and inclusion on campus and their
innovative plans to increase community engagement, eMerge has the strongest
ideas of all the parties and possesses the skills needed to implement these
plans. The Michigan Daily Editorial Board endorses eMerge presidential
and vice-presidential candidates Sarkar and Jawad and is confident in their
abilities to serve in the best interests of our campus community.

Both Sarkar and Jawad have

immense experience that would
allow them to represent the
student body in a holistic way.
The candidates’ knowledge of
the processes and capabilities of
CSG would allow them to quickly
get to work when starting their
term. While serving on CSG,
Sarkar has spearheaded efforts to
expand the number of counselors
at Counseling and Psychological
Services. Jawad served as a policy
adviser on CSG and has worked
to support the needs of students
with affordable housing. Their
commitments to CSG — as well as
the work they’ve done as leaders
in CSG — are testaments to their
preparedness for these positions
and their abilities to create tangible
change on campus.

The
eMerge
party
would

best
represent
students
with

marginalized
identities
across

campus. Sarkar and Jawad have
shown throughout their proposed
policies that they are highly
qualified to construct diverse and
inclusive dialogues on campus.
For example, their critique of the
limitations of the Diversity, Equity
and Inclusion plan proposed by the
University of Michigan earlier this
academic year offers hope for those
unsatisfied with the document.

We are also confident that

eMerge’s platform points regarding
diversity would be the most
successful at impacting campus
diversity. The candidates have
acknowledged that their one-year
terms will never be enough to fully
tackle diversity across campus and
in CSG, but they have put together
a concrete, manageable platform
that recognizes the struggles of
students
of
underrepresented

minorities and the past difficulties
in addressing these issues. Platform
initiatives, such as working with
University Health Services to
accept Medicaid health insurance
or creating a specific mentorship
program
for
non-traditional,

first-generation and multilingual
students, show their commitment
to diversity in the long term.

The
Defend
Affirmative

Action Party and Movement
would not be as successful in
representing student groups. The
Defend Affirmative Action Party,
which has shown an engagement
with a diverse group of students
on campus, fails to represent
a majority of students. The

radical methodology of DAAP,
such as its collaborations with
the By Any Means Necessary
organization, alienates a large
group of students who do not see
such tactics as worthwhile.

While Movement candidates

have expressed care about the
needs
of
minority
students,

throughout their campaign they
have displayed a lack of empathy
and have failed to listen to
students of color. The Movement
candidates have instead pandered
to the campus community in
an attempt to create a positive
image for their campaign, without
truly
incorporating
voices
of

minority students. For example,
their
“Divide
and
Prosper”

initiative delegates a tangible
initiative to recruit students of low
socioeconomic status to students
enrolled School of Education,
rather than creating an initiative
within the scope of Central Student
Government itself.

In addition, when asked how

Movement plans to represent
students of color, LSA junior
Dan Sweeney, Movement vice
presidential candidate, mentioned
that he does, in fact, listen to
communities of color on campus.


However, the only example he
could give was during three weeks
out of the year while campaigning
for CSG. We believe that engaging
with students for three weeks out
of the year as a campaign tactic is
far from enough, and a long-term
dialogue is key. We believe that
eMerge bridges the ideologies of
Movement and DAAP by bringing
together and representing students
of differing identities.

In addition to their work with

CSG, the eMerge party candidates
have demonstrated a significant
amount
of
engagement
with

organizations
across
campus

and
within
the
Ann
Arbor

community. CSG would benefit
from Sarkar and Jawad’s strong
leadership experiences and their
abilities to manage and organize
different groups and interests.
Sarkar
founded
Wolverine

Consulting Group as part of CSG
that partners with struggling
student organizations on campus,
and Jawad co-founded Books for
a Benefit, a non-governmental
organization that advocates for
the importance of literacy, which
has since spread to other campuses
across Michigan.

eMerge’s platform emphasizes

its commitment to having a student
voice in the Ann Arbor City
Council, creating ties between
our University and the city
that houses us. The party also
emphasizes the need for unity and
engagement across all University
of Michigan campuses, including
our satellite locations in Flint
and Dearborn. The willingness
to work with all students, in the
Ann Arbor community and at our
other campuses, shows eMerge’s
dedication
to
improving

students’ experiences across all
University campuses.

The
lack
of
community

engagement demonstrated by
the other candidates and their
platforms gives us reservations.
While
Movement’s
platform

includes engagement initiatives,
many are one-time events, such
as a Thanksgiving food drive
or their “Mental Health Wake
Up” initiative. These initiatives
don’t actively engage students
on a daily basis at the University,
instead delegating involvement to
specific days throughout the year.
While many of DAAP’s platform
points would support various
marginalized communities at the
University, its focus on initiatives
from
an
activist
perspective

will pose problems as its tries to
implement them. Furthermore, the
leaders of DAAP are most certainly
passionate about the issues they
present, but their emphasis on
national and international issues
may limit the scope of students’
engagement in their platform.
eMerge’s platforms parallel the
positives that come with DAAP’s
platforms, but are more inclusive
toward students and members of
the Ann Arbor community.

The Michigan Daily Editorial

Board
enthusiastically

supports
eMerge
and
the

incredible ideas presented in
its platform. The combined
experience of the candidates,
which would allow them to
represent campus diversity,
would create a culture shift
that is desperately needed
within CSG. We hope the goals
of eMerge are accomplished
and that Sarkar and Jawad can
bring our campus together to
support all students. Be sure
to vote in CSG elections on
March 22 and 23 at http://vote.
umich.edu.

VOTE FOR CENTRAL STUDENT GOVERNMENT

Students have the opportunity to vote for the next academic year’s
representatives on Central Student Government. The Winter 2017
Central Student Government Elections will be held on March 22-23,

2017. All currently enrolled students are eligible to vote online at

http://vote.umich.edu.

There’s a similar

ethos in your
platform and

your slate, which

is notably less

diverse than the
other parties, that
I hope you choose

to revisit and

think more about

in light of the

feedback you’ve

recieved.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan