R

hetoric 
since 
the 

inauguration and, more 
specifically, since the 

start of the political right’s 
efforts to create an 
Affordable Care Act 
repeal-and-replace 
bill, has perpetuated 
a 
narrative 
that 

Washington is in a 
state of disarray. Thus 
far, a constructive 
dialogue 
has 
not 

been encouraged, but 
rather, 
figureheads 

on both the right and 
left have relied on 
hateful rebuke and criticism. 

Various media outlets have 

greeted House Speaker Paul 
Ryan with an outpouring of 
disapproval from the moment he 
revealed his repeal-and-replace 
plan. From The Washington 
Post claiming Paul Ryan is “the 
enemy of the right,” to Mark 
Levin 
at 
the 
Conservative 

Review dubbing the bill as 
“RINOcare”(RINO 
being 
a 

common party insult meaning 
“Republican In Name Only”) 
there has been nothing shy 
about popular reaction to its 
unveiling.

Before 
we 
condemn 
the 

present, though, it is crucial to 
examine our past. For the past 
eight years, Washington saw 
strong-arming at its finest. The 
prototypical legislative process 
was not merely hidden but 
forgotten, as former President 
Barack Obama continued to 
thumb his nose at Congress.

His 
prime 
focus 
and 

political baby was christened 
“Obamacare” — a piece of 
legislation that he effectively 
rammed 
through 
Congress 

without 
any 
bipartisan 

approval. As it was crafted 
behind 
closed 
doors 
with 

virtually no transparency, the 
American 
public 
innocently 

listened to a host of specious 
claims growing more and more 
misguided on a variety of its 
principles along the way.

The 
takeaway: 
As 

Republicans had no stake in 
the plan, Obama and chief 
Democrats received all the 
credit. Yet, in due time, as we 
are seeing now, the Democrats 
are receiving the brunt of the 

blame for its “implosion” (i.e., 
premium increases, dwindling 
competition, etc.)

Herein 
lies 
our 
current 

dilemma. 
Negotiating the here 
and now should not 
take 
on 
a 
binary 

approach — say yes to 
the Republicans’ new 
plan or align yourself 
with 
Obamacare’s 

failures — but rather, 
a collaborative one. 
In a New York Times 
op-ed 
piece, 
Ohio 

Gov. 
John 
Kasich 

writes, “A true and lasting 
reform of the health insurance 
system must be accomplished by 
bringing the two sides together.”

Former 
President 
Obama 

conveyed a very important 
message to Republicans and 
Democrats alike: Unilateralism 
is 
not 
the 
way 
forward. 

Pursuing this avenue marked 
by self-reliance and egotism 
only divides our nation even 
further. It appears as if the 
current man in the Oval Office 
is taking this advice to heart, as 
he has mentioned that though 
Ryan’s bill is the appropriate 
vehicle, it must be modified 
down the road.

In a recent interview with 

Tucker Carlson on Fox News, 
President 
Trump 
refrained 

from completely jumping on 
board with the bill by saying, 
“It’s very preliminary … but (it) 
is going to be negotiated.” In 
other words, Trump is doing 
what he does best: deal-making. 
His measured approach should 
sound all too familiar to those 
who have read his bestseller 
“The Art of the Deal.” As he 
details, the key to success is to 
keep one’s options open, not 

entirely committing to one plan 
and seeking dialogue.

In a recent briefing, Sean 

Spicer, 
the 
White 
House 

press secretary, laid out this 
approach very carefully when 
he commented: “… regardless 
of what caucus or faction 
you’re a part of, if you have 
an idea that can enhance this 
bill and make it more patient-
centric and achieve the goals, 
then we’re all for it. So that’s 
a process. … There have been a 
lot of ideas, a lot of debate, and 
a lot of issues put forward into 
how to craft this.”

Given the past eight years, 

it is of paramount importance 
that we redefine our vision and 
identify what we are discussing 
here — real-life humans and 
politics. Spicer describes that 
the current administration is in 
the business of creating policies 
that benefit the patient. With 
this approach, the individual 
transcends 
partisanship. 

Reaching across the aisle is a 
necessity, as is reciprocity once 
such a gesture is made.

And as for our political 

landscape, we must realize that 
we, along with our politicians, 
are not in Kansas anymore. The 
ground beneath Washington’s 
feet has changed and, though 
we may not be walking down 
a yellow brick road, it is 
one that has potential. We 
have returned to a political 
environment 
conducive 

to 
consensus 
building 
and 

productive negotiation.

Whether 
we 
want 
to 

acknowledge it or not, when 
it comes to legislation, we are 
fortunate to have a pair of 
overseeing eyes with a diverse 
perspective 
in 
President 

Trump. In order to fulfill this 
mandate of patient-oriented 
policy, the right and the left 
need to abandon their once-
fixed, 
isolationist 
mindsets. 

Productive dialogue is the 
way 
forward 
and 
with 
a 

businessman now living at 
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., they 
need to decide if they want to 
make a deal or not.

I insist they make the deal.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, March 23, 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

“Deal or No Deal?”

Nicholas Tomaino can be reached at 

ntomaino@umich.edu.

I

n February 2012, I was 
sitting 
on 
my 
couch, 

wearing 
my 
UConn 

basketball jersey and watching 
my team take on Villanova. 
The game was in overtime 
with UConn up by two points 
when Villanova drove down 
the court and tied it up with 
six seconds left. The ball was 
inbounded to UConn’s star 
point guard, Shabazz Napier, 
who then sprinted up the court 
and hit the game-winning shot 
as time expired. I jumped up 
onto the table screaming in 
excitement. This could be our 
year, I thought. 

That 
night 
I 
slept 
easy, 

dreaming of a deep March 
Madness run for the Huskies. 
I was later shocked when I 
discovered who did not sleep 
easy that night: Shabazz Napier, 
the very player who won the 
game for his team. As it turned 
out, 
Napier 
couldn’t 
always 

afford food to eat, and spent 
many nights going to bed hungry.

While 
the 
NCAA 
has 

since passed legislation that 
allows 
student-athletes 
to 

receive unlimited meal plans 
from the schools that they 
attend, there are still many 
underlying issues with the 
current distribution of profit.

In 
recent 
times, 
college 

sports 
have 
become 

increasingly 
lucrative. 
The 

NCAA makes billions of dollars 
in television and sponsorship 
deals each year, yet no one quite 
seems to know where all of that 

money is going. While college 
executives make millions, the 
athletes whom they exploit do 
not receive any share of these 
immense profits.

Under current NCAA rules, 

college athletes are not allowed 
to be compensated in any way. 
This includes money made 
from jersey sales, signatures, 
endorsements 
or 
even 

donations made by generous 
boosters. If players are caught 
in violation of these rules, 
they will be punished with a 
suspension that could seriously 
hurt their dreams of playing 
professional sports, as well as 
their future bank accounts.

Furthermore, 
college 

athletes 
are 
expected 
to 

commit dozens of hours a week 
toward practice, in addition to 
the hours spent on schoolwork. 
This means that even if they 
wanted 
to, 
they 
couldn’t 

possibly get a job to earn 
enough money for food and 
other living expenses. This, 
coupled with the physical and 
mental stress caused by their 
hours of hard work, certainly 
shows that they should be paid 
enough to cover their basic 
living expenses.

Though the NCAA publicly 

states that college players are 
first and foremost students, it 
is clear that players are actually 
seen as assets. If they play better, 
more people begin to watch, 
which means more money in 
the NCAA’s pocket. It’s only fair 
for the athletes to share in these 

increased profits.

Though 
the 
NCAA’s 

restrictions seem absurd, they 
do have some logic behind 
them. The NCAA does not 
want college sports to become 
a version of professional free 
agency, where players only 
choose a school based on how 
much money the school offers 
to pay them. But this should 
not prevent student-athletes 
like Napier from being able to 
afford basic necessities.

Thus, a reasonable solution 

to this problem would be 
to pay all athletes the same 
amount, 
no 
matter 
what 

school they attend. And even 
if this idea is not adopted, 
players should still be allowed 
to make money off of their own 
names, through jersey sales, 
signatures and endorsements.

Additionally, 
if 
college 

athletes were to be paid, they 
would be more likely to stay 
in school longer. This would 
improve the quality of play, 
which 
would 
attract 
more 

viewers. And since more viewers 
would mean more profits for 
the NCAA, it wouldn’t even 
be losing that much money by 
paying athletes a small stipend.

It is clear that college athletes 

are 
treated 
like 
employees; 

without the student-athletes, 
the NCAA would not exist. Thus, 
athletes should receive their fair 
share of the spoils generated by 
the work they put in.

Pay student athletes

THOMAS GILBERT | OP-ED

Thomas Gilbert is an LSA freshman.

NICHOLAS TOMAINO | COLUMN

I 

have to say, this year 
had real potential to be 
different. The ridiculous 

genesis of meaningless, self-
important parties with shelf 
lives of about three minutes 
spit out, entirely by accident it 
seems, two interesting options. 
On the one hand, eMerge, 
a 
model 
of 
representation 

sporting 
a 
list 
of 
diverse 

candidates, 
each 
of 
whom 

has a proven track record 
in student government. On 
the other, Movement takes 
a different approach based 
on 
accessibility, 
unity 
and 

participation, exemplified in 
part by candidates at the top of 
the ticket who would be new to 
Central Student Government.

Such stark contrast between 

the two would pose, I thought, 
some important questions to 
the student body. What kind of 
representation are we looking 
for? Is student government 
experience 
a 
necessary 

prerequisite to the position 
of CSG president, or can the 
bureaucratic bubble of student 
government be a hindrance? 
Or both? In the wake of an 
objectively 
productive 
and 

successful 
Schafer-Griggs 

term, what went right? What 
could be done better? Perhaps 
most importantly, what do we, 
as Wolverines, expect from 
CSG? We could have asked 
these questions. But we decided 
to take the easier route. We got 
distracted by a video.

The first word that I used to 

describe Movement’s “official 
anthem” was brilliant. Rather 
than 
running 
a 
campaign 

that we’ve seen before, with 
slightly different 
font 
and 

a new slogan, a new breed 
of dog paraded around the 
Diag or an exciting new 
strategy to cover the tables 
of the Shapiro Undergraduate 
Library in quarter-sheets, they 
were having fun with it. I saw, 
quite simply, two guys dancing 
(somewhat goofily, I might 
add) around campus with their 
friends and trying to bring 
attention to their campaign. 
They dropped some lyrics about 
giving the campus back to the 
students, and how you don’t 
have to have CSG experience to 
have an idea about improving 
campus. Was it the highest 
form of political commentary 
I’ve seen in my life? Absolutely 
not. 
The 
most 
memorable 

line was about putting Chick-
fil-A in the Michigan Union. 
It was a stunt, and one that 
was generating more attention 
for a CSG race than I’d ever 

seen before in my time at the 
University of Michigan.

But 
then, 
quickly 
and 

effortlessly, it consumed the 
campaign. In a column for 
The 
Michigan 
Daily, 
Evan 

Rosen 
was 
compared 
to 

Donald Trump, while another 
op-ed 
labeled 
Movement 

“not 
serious.” 
The 
party 

was branded with cultural 
appropriation and Facebook 
comment sections ran wild.

Let’s take this point by 

point. First of all, anyone who 
compares 
Rosen 
to 
Trump 

is 
being 
lazy, 
purposefully 

inflammatory and downright 
rude. In my personal experience, 
he is down-to-earth, friendly 
and has perfectly normal-sized 
hands. Sure, he may not be the 
most experienced candidate, 
but the CSG president doesn’t 
walk around campus with the 
nuclear football, so let’s all calm 
down a bit. Being an outsider 
can be a phenomenal asset.

Secondly, 
Movement 

is 
serious. 
If 
you 
looked 

beyond the video, or even 
read the comments posted 
by 
Movement’s 
Facebook 

page in response, you’d see 
an 
innovative 
platform, 

including 
proposals 
for 

improved lighting on Central 
Campus, 
an 
expansion 
of 

SafeRide hours, a campaign 
focusing 
on 
mental 
health 

and the “4 Years” initiative 
for success. Even without all 
this, let me be the first to say 
that seriousness is not the 
first quality I look for in my 
student representatives; this 
is partially because I’m voting 
for student representatives, not 
U.S. senators.

Cultural 
appropriation 
is 

obviously a serious issue, on 
our campus and many others. 
Personally, I don’t think the 
video was a culprit of it, and 
I reject the idea that there’s 
anything inherently offensive 
about a white guy rapping. Nor 
is there anything inherently 
wrong 
with 
comparing 

yourself to a famous inventor 
like 
George 
Washington 

Carver to prove that you’re 
innovative (in fact, it’s pretty 
obviously a compliment to 
George Washington Carver). 
But if that’s a conversation 
to have, let’s have it, rather 
than foaming at the mouth 
and 
jumping 
at 
the 
first 

opportunity for outrage. Let’s 
figure out why we disagree, and 
how we can come to a campus-
wide consensus, rather than 
shouting down the opposition 
for something we see as clear-

cut and “beyond debate.”

Let me be clear. I am not 

here to endorse the Movement 
party. I see the argument that 
Rosen and Dan Sweeney don’t 
represent the most diverse 
perspectives 
on 
campus. 
I 

just also acknowledge that 
Anushka Sarkar and Nadine 
Jawad have blind spots of 
their own. I see the argument 
that 
there 
was 
a 
clear 

objectification of women in the 
video, but I also recognize that 
it was a video and not their slate 
of candidates, which includes 
strong, 
intelligent 
women. 

I agree with some of the 
comments that were posted 
under the video, but I also have 
great respect for the poise and 
professionalism with which 
Movement 
responded 
(and 

eventually apologized). But 
no one seems to be able to get 
past the video and everyone 
seems interested in telling 
you exactly how heinous they 
think it is.

Personally, 
I 
voted 
for 

candidates from all four major 
parties. I simply want to make 
the point that the video and 
its narrative did not have to 
take over the campaign. It 
could have been about issues 
— diversity, inclusion, campus 
safety, campus culture and 
activism. Instead, Rosen had to 
leave in the middle of a debate 
hosted by The Michigan Daily 
to attend a hearing addressing 
two formal complaints about 
the video filed by his opponents. 
Because debating is much easier 
when not everyone gets the 
chance to make their case.

There 
are 
hundreds 
of 

reasons to vote for eMerge, 
and hundreds to vote for 
Movement. 
There 
was 
a 

discussion 
to 
be 
had. 
As 

we learned from the 2016 
presidential 
race, 
however, 

polarization and outrage can 
be a lot more exciting. So we 
did that instead.

Maybe next year, we as a 

student body will look back and 
realize that putting the issues 
facing our campus aside and 
centering in on a purposefully 
ridiculous video was just that — 
ridiculous. Or, maybe, student 
government at the University 
will continue to be an exercise 
of 
self-importance, 
long-

winded Facebook posts and 
stories rather than substance. 
Unfortunately, one seems more 
likely to me than the other.

Central Student Distraction

BRETT GRAHAM | OP-ED

Brett Graham is an LSA junior and 

former Michigan Daily columnist and 

Editorial Board Member.

NICHOLAS 
TOMAINO

Negotiating the 
here and now 

should not take on 
a binary approach.

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.

— Adam Schiff, Democratic representative from Southern California, concluding 
a statement on evidence regarding the Trump administration’s alleged contacts 

with Russian state actors during the 2016 presidential election.

“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

But it is also possible... that the 

Russians used the same techniques 

to corrupt U.S. persons that they 

have employed in Europe and 

elsewhere. We simply don’t know, 

not yet, and we owe it to the 

country to find out. ”

