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. 

