P

resident Donald Trump’s
recent budget blueprint
for the fiscal year 2018

calls for several major cuts
to
departments

and
organizations

that used to garner
bipartisan
support,

like
the
National

Institutes of Health.
These budget changes,
particularly the $5.8
billion reduction of
the NIH budget, hold
severe
ramifications

for medical scientists
who rely on the NIH
to fund grants that help
make groundbreaking research
on deadly diseases such as cancer
and HIV.

The budget fails to justify

the cuts to the NIH, except
for mentioning it needs to
“focus resources on the highest
priority research.” This raises
the question of what “highest
priority research” refers to.
Looking at a recent categorical
spending report from 2016 gives
one a sense of what current
spending priorities may be.
Among the most funded areas
are cancer, clinical research
and biotechnology.

Could
these
priorities

change? This question suggests
two possible answers. The NIH
could either drastically reduce
funding for all programs, or
it could cut smaller programs
that benefit fewer people (but
are still important, like the
Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality, which seeks to
“produce evidence to make
health care safer, higher quality,
more accessible, equitable, and
affordable, and to work within
the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services and with
other partners to make sure
that the evidence is understood
and used”). The possibility of
NIH funding being reduced
in any of these research areas
questions the priorities of this
administration
and
whether

these
priorities
truly
put

“America First,” as Trump’s
budget plan boasts.

Many such scientists do

research here at the University
of
Michigan
and
would

be
significantly
affected

by
a
reduction

in
funding
for

their
work.
As

the
quantity
and

quality of research
work falls due to the
drop in funding, the
world-renowned
medical centers in
the United States,
like
Michigan

Medicine, will be
left
shorthanded

in the battle against

diseases like cancer. Moreover,
a
reduction
in
research

funding would mean that not
only would scientists have
less money available for raw
materials,
but
they
would

also have less available to pay
staff and research assistants
at both the undergraduate
and
graduate
levels
—
a

consequence
that
would

have a ripple effect on the
affordability of the academic
experience at this school for
students interested in pursuing
extracurricular involvement in
the biomedical sciences.

My parents, immunologists

who
specialize
in
B
cell

transplantation
for
the

Department
of
Surgery
at

Michigan
Medicine,
employ

a handful of students in their
laboratory who assist with their
research. A reduction in funding
for them would translate to
fewer educational opportunities
in the medical sciences (if any
at all) for these students, which
would consequently stifle both
the advancement of important
biomedical
research.
Grant

funding also helps to pay their
salaries, as well as the salaries
of other scientists. The salaries
of lab assistants and janitors are
also, in part, made possible by
the University’s grant funding.
Cuts to this funding would result
in significant salary reductions
and, consequently, reductions in
the quality of life enjoyed by my
family and others who work in

the medical sciences.

Some may argue it is not the

responsibility of the government
to provide funding for academic
endeavors like the pursuit of
scientific research, suggesting
that
such
funding
can
be

provided for by charities such
as the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation
or
the
Howard

Hughes Medical Institute. The
issue
with
these
charitable

organizations being the sole
resource for funding lies in
the fact that the support they
offer is more limited than the
NIH, due to the comparatively
limited financial pull they have.
For example, a 2014 annual
report for the Gates Foundation
showed a total grant support of
$3.86 million, spread across the
areas of global development,
global health, U.S. programing,
global policy and advocacy,
communications
and
other

charitable programs.

Even
within
the
overall

NIH grant support budget, 80
percent goes to outside research.
Funding is spread across several
other
microprograms,
like

the
Accelerating
Medicines

Partnership
(which
studies

Alzheimer’s Disease and type 2
diabetes). In contrast, the Gates
Foundation has much more of
a focus on global health issues
(like malaria) than on private
research. I believe it is the
responsibility of the government
to protect the people it serves,
and I cannot see how limiting
funding for life-saving medical
research serves to protect the
people of this country.

It is imperative that we do

not
allow
this
presidential

administration to strip students
and scientists of opportunities
that contribute to the physical
well-being of society at large.
If this leadership insists on
putting
“America
First,”
it

should focus on placing the
health of its citizens among its
highest “priorities.”

I

t’s done! The dreaded
University of Michigan
Central
Student

Government election season
is over and we have a winner:
eMerge!
Congratulations;
I

know you all worked very hard
and wanted this more than
anything you’ve wanted thus
far in your campus careers.
Your campaign was astounding
and historical, and I do not
want to discredit your win in
any way whatsoever, but this
campus owes an apology to
LSA junior Evan Rosen, who
ran for president with the
Movement Party. Here’s why.

During
campaigns,
it
is

more than fair to attack a
candidate’s
qualifications,

platform or ideas. However,
those
supporting
eMerge

didn’t do that. For the last two
weeks, I’ve seen Rosen’s name
defiled. I’ve heard students in
my classes, who I don’t know,
refer to Rosen as “racist,”
“sexist” and other horrendous
names I don’t feel comfortable
publishing. Not the viral rap
video — Rosen himself.

And what was worse? When

these comments — and other,
similar
comments
—
were

raised online, I saw eMerge
team members like them. With
their big blue profile pictures,
I saw virtual endorsements of
these kinds of personal attacks.
It was the ugliest campus
politics I had ever seen. To
see people compare Rosen to
President Donald Trump was
also disheartening and wrong.
Rosen’s political beliefs, as
demonstrated
through
the

first CSG debate, are very in
line with those of eMerge and
the Defend Affirmative Action
Party. But no, that didn’t fit the
narrative that worked for his
opponents. So he, by default,
had to be evil and Trumpian.

What did Rosen do when

faced with these attacks? Any
rational person would fight
back or defend themselves.
However, being the poised
person he is, Rosen responded
to his team by saying in a
GroupMe
message
to
the

Movement team:

“Hey guys: real quick I

want to make it clear in here
that anyone who was offended
by our video absolutely has
the right to be,” he wrote.
“While we may not share their
reaction, we have no right to
tell them what to feel, ever,
period.
We
haven’t
taken

the video down yet because
I think it’s doing more good
for this community than it

is bad. That doesn’t mean
these people’s feelings aren’t
legitimate. Please keep that
in mind, not just as a member
of this party, but as a fellow
human being. We must always
try
to
understand
before

we project our beliefs and
experiences
onto
others.

And it doesn’t matter how
many people it is. Nobody is
wrong or right. Everybody is
FEELING
different
things.

Remember that. Thank you.”

If it wasn’t clear then, it

must be clear now that Rosen is
a class act. While you may not
like the contents of his video,
he eventually showed that he
understood
where
students

were coming from and didn’t
try to discredit their feelings.

Generally, there was little

talk of platforms or ideas, of
which Movement had a lot.
But to the public eye, there
was only that video. A video
with the intention of getting
more students aware of an
election. A video that did just
that. To discuss or debate
the contents of that video at
this point is redundant and
irrelevant, but let me make one
thing clear: Whether you were
offended by it, laughed at it or
didn’t understand it, Rosen
empathized
with
you
and

didn’t try to change your mind.
Rosen held his head high the
whole time, through attacks,
unfair media treatment and
even a little bit of possible
debate sabotage.

But instead, his opponents

decided
to
paint
a
false

narrative of racism and not
respecting the stories and
struggles of communities of
color. After the video was
taken
down,
the
backlash

didn’t stop. Apologies didn’t
matter and taking the video
down didn’t matter, people
wanted Rosen to be their
“privileged” villain. He could
do no right in their eyes.

Michigan, I want you to

take a look in the mirror. Is
this how we’re going to treat

any candidate who comes into
CSG and wants to do things
differently? Are we going to
persecute them in front of
the court of public opinion
until they are nothing but
a
pulverized
social
media

disaster? Are we going to keep
calling them “dangerous for
UM,” as written on a Facebook
post
by
eMerge
Party

candidate Brittney Williams,
a Social Work student, even
though they never got the
chance to talk about how
they planned to bring more
diversity to campus? Could
Rosen
have
chosen
his

words better to be a bit more
sensitive?
Absolutely.
Was

criticism of him taken way too
far? I believe so.

Rosen deserved to have

his ideas talked about. Rosen
deserved to debate. Rosen
deserved better. Rosen’s name
has been tarnished by this
campus — and for what? For a
CSG election? Rosen tried to
right a wrong, but everyone
refused to listen since he must
be demonized to fit the story.

Congratulations
eMerge:

Like I said, I think you all
worked very hard for this,
and I look forward to you,
hopefully,
keeping
your

campaign promises, but please
acknowledge that Evan Rosen
and
the
Movement
Party

represent a wider cross section
of the student body that is fed
up with the same old CSG
that we just re-elected. We,
as the University of Michigan,
should be approaching the
issues raised in this election
with
a
more
constructive

dialogue
—
something
all

parties could have done better.
That is not how the Leaders
and the Best act. Let’s interact
with more respect, because
this campaign season showed
there is a serious lack of that.

I have many friends in CSG

who have asked me, “How do
I get more people to respect
CSG?”
Well,
here’s
your

answer: Respect those who run
against you. Respect those who
campaign differently than you.
Respect people when they try
to right their wrongs. Today I
am ashamed to be a Wolverine.
Not because Movement lost,
but because of how they lost.
So on behalf of this campus
and everyone who won’t say it:
I am sorry, Evan Rosen.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, March 28, 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

Anurima Kumar

Ibrahim Ijaz
Max Lubell

Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy

Jason Rowland

Ali Safawi

Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Stephanie Trierweiler

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

I am sorry, Evan Rosen

DANIEL ROTH | OP-ED

Putting health funding last

ZACHARY COX | COLUMN

Zachary Cox can be reached at

coxz@umich.edu.

ZACHARY

COX

FRANNIE MILLER | CONTACT FRANNIE AT FRMILLER@UMICH.EDU

I

was disappointed by the
University of Michigan
men’s
basketball
loss

March 23, but was thrilled
by the women’s basketball
win!
Title
IX
has
only

leveled certain aspects of
women’s athletics on campus.
Unfortunately, The Michigan
Daily
continually
sells

women’s athletics short in
how it features stories. Yes,
it offers the same quantity of
coverage story for story, but
look at the feature.

Look at the front page, look

at the total word count and
look at the color versus black-
and-white photos. The Daily’s
front page on March 24 was
about the men’s loss in full
color and featured a full piece
on page eight — in full color.
The women’s win is covered

in detail, but only in black
and white on page seven. The
front page today should have
read:
Women’s
basketball

moves on to Women’s National
Invitation
Tournament

quarterfinals!
Everyone
in

the student body should show
up to support them at home
games. The front page could
have had a smaller tease
stating the men came home
with a tough loss and have
more coverage in black and
white on page seven.

I have two daughters and

two foster daughters — we
attend many women’s athletic
events and rarely see them
treated equally in coverage
or
hype.
The
Michigan

Daily needs to encourage all
our students to attend and
support our women’s sporting

events as much as we do our
men’s. The WNIT games on
March 18 and March 25 were
very poorly attended. There
were far more students in the
band, cheer and dance teams
than students in the crowd.
Please work to correct this
imbalance. Take an active
stance on supporting the
women — at least to the
level to which the paper
highlights the men. It will
have a positive effect across
our community. I hope to see
you and many other students
at the women’s game.

JOE TRUMPEY | LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Joe Trumpey is an associate

professor of art at the School of Art

& Design and of natural resources at

the School of Natural Resources and

Environment.

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.

Let’s interact with

more respect,
because this

campaign showed
there is a serious

lack of that.

Daniel Roth is an LSA sophomore

and was a general team member of the

Movement party.

DAILY STORY SLAM

Join The Michigan Daily for our annual Story Slam featuring original

pieces sorrounding the theme of relationships. The Story Slam will occur

on April 7 at 7 p.m. at 420 Maynard Street.