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.