A

t this point in the Trump 
presidency 
— 
and 

especially on this campus — 

criticizing President Donald Trump 
has become so common 
and routine that doing 
so feels unproductive. 
According to Gallup, 
Trump’s approval rating 
is 36 percent — a record 
low. And on a campus 
where only 12 percent 
of students polled before 
the election said they 
would vote for Trump, 
I suspect that approval 
rating is much, much 
lower. It doesn’t help that 57 percent 
of millennials view Trump as an 
illegitimate president. 

As airwaves, social media 

feeds and personal conversations 
become increasingly saturated 
with criticisms of the new 
administration, 
it’s 
gotten 

harder and harder to sift out 
the 
news 
about 
important 

policy changes from the rest 
of the noise surrounding the 
White House’s personal and 
familial conflicts of interest, 
potential ties to the Russian 
government, 
unsubstantiated 

press statements, inane Twitter 
wars and other repeated scandals 
that have plagued the president 
and his administration. In many 
ways, that makes it easier for 
Trump and his congressional 
allies to ramrod policy changes 
that the majority of Americans 
oppose. That’s not just a problem 
— it’s a slap in the face to our 
representative form of government 
and the constituents whom these 
leaders have a duty to represent.

One policy that has the potential 

to profoundly affect the University 
of Michigan — and our lives 
as students and graduates — is 
Trump’s 
budget 
proposal. 
To 

be sure, Trump’s budget has no 
real legal power unless Congress 
actually adopts it — a big “if” 
considering this budget would 
effectively eliminate 62 federal 
agencies and programs, many 
of which are quite popular with 
constituents. However, the fact that 
Republicans hold majorities in both 
the House and Senate should make 
it more likely that a budget this 
radical could pass.

While Trump’s budget makes 

many devastating cuts that will 
ultimately hurt the country as a 
whole, some have a particularly 
strong impact on the University. 
The proposed cuts to the National 
Institutes of Health, Department 
of Energy, National Endowment for 
the Humanities and the National 
Endowment for the Arts will 
directly and adversely affect the 
University and those who attend, 
graduated from or support it.

As the number-one public research 

university in the country, the University 
received $1.39 billion in research 
funding in fiscal year 2016, two-thirds 
of which came from government 

agencies. 
That 
year, 

University 
researchers 

produced 
more 
than 

400 new inventions; on 
average, a new company 
is launched every five 
weeks due to technology 
pioneered here.

That 
research 

directly 
contributes 

to 
the 
strength 

and prestige of the 
University, enhancing 

both the value of our degrees and 
the quality of education students 
receive here. Not only does the 
strength of the University as a 
research institution contribute to 
its ability to recruit top faculty and 
graduate students — giving students 
the opportunity to learn from the 
leaders in their respective fields — 
but it also provides opportunities 
for students to directly participate 
in research themselves. More than 
1,300 
undergraduate 
students 

assist with faculty research projects 
through 
the 
Undergraduate 

Research Opportunity Program.

As 
a 
sophomore, 
UROP 

enabled me to work on a research 
project for a University law 
school and economics professor. 
That 
experience 
helped 
me 

define an interest in law and 
gave me invaluable experience 
that helped me land internships 
and other opportunities. My 
research sponsor became one of 
my mentors on campus, and his 
guidance helped me define and 
achieve my goal of attending law 
school after graduation.

None of this even dives into the 

fact that both economic theory 
and empirical evidence support 
the notion that federal research 
funding produces direct, tangible 
benefits for the country as a whole. 
In fact, studies show “the return 
on investment for publicly funded 
scientific research and development 
is somewhere between 30 percent 
and 100 percent, or more.” This 
means that for every $1 the 
government spends on research 
funding, society receives $1.30 to $2 
in benefits over time, on average.

On top of all that, these 

research institutions also boost 
the 
state 
economy. 
In 
2012 

alone, Michigan’s three research 
universities generated $16.6 billion 
in economic activity for the state. 
Those numbers do not include 
the economic benefits of longer 
lifespans or higher quality of life 
due to medical or other kinds of 
innovations pioneered at these 
research institutions.

Still not convinced that this 

research funding affects you? 
Just consider the fact that if 

you’re reading this article online, 
federal research funding actually 
facilitated 
the 
technological 

breakthroughs that allow you to 
do that. The internet, lithium-ion 
batteries that power most mobile 
devices and the touchscreens used 
on most cell phones and tablets 
were all products of federally 
funded research.

Federally funded research also 

plays a role in keeping you healthy. 
One study found that 75 percent of all 
discoveries of new molecular entities 
— active ingredients never before 
used in pharmaceuticals — between 
1993 and 2004 were discovered 
thanks to research funded by the 
National Institutes of Health.

All 
of 
this 
funding 
helps 

America maintain its role as a 
global leader in innovation. Yet, 
the Trump administration wants 
to make serious cuts to already 
declining levels of federal funding 
for research. Under Trump’s new 
budget, the National Institutes of 
Health would receive $5.8 billion 
less in funding — about a 20-percent 
cut. The Department of Energy 
also faces a 20-percent cut, while 
the 
Environmental 
Protection 

Agency and National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Agency would see 
an even larger percentage of their 
funding eliminated.

Since Trump apparently likes 

to let billionaires decide how to 
run the government, perhaps 
the president should take advice 
from Bill Gates. Last April, Gates 
penned an op-ed that described 
the 
importance 
of 
federal 

research funding in the microchip 
revolution and, consequently, his 
ability to start Microsoft. Gates also 
called on the federal government 
to 
increase 
federal 
research 

funding if it wants to remain a 
global leader in innovation. Given 
that Gates himself is a global leader 
in innovation, I think he’s probably 
worth listening to on this one.

Interested 
in 
preventing 

the government from actually 
enacting these budget cuts to 
agencies that directly benefit you? 
Consider emulating the advocates 
and ordinary citizens who came 
together to prevent the American 
Health Care Act from passing —
and prevented 24 million people 
from losing their insurance. The 
civic activism of these advocates 
and ordinary citizens certainly 
saved lives. However, there are 
still millions of Americans who 
suffer from diseases that available 
medical treatments can’t cure. 
By telling your representatives 
to avoid cutting funding to the 
agencies that fund scientific and 
medical breakthroughs, you can 
help save lives as well. 

A 

friend 
once 
asked 

me, “Do you think it’s 
possible 
for 
someone 

to be so liberal that they are 
close-minded?” 
My 

immediate 
thought 

was of course not 
— that’s the whole 
point 
of 
being 

liberal. 
When 
you 

and 
your 
friends 

identify as liberal, 
you are fighting for 
human rights, civil 
rights, 
the 
rights 

of 
all 
minorities 

and anyone who is 
against what you think 
is against all of the progress we 
have made in the past 100 years.

And that is when I realized 

the answer is actually yes.

The truth is that as soon as 

you immediately disregard the 
ideas of another group, you are 
close-minded 
by 
definition. 

When one party tells the other 
its views are no longer valid, 
that it is outdated, ignorant 
and offensive, the chance for 
a compromise is lost. This is 
not to say we should allow 
hateful comments to be left to 
spread more hate, but we have a 
responsibility to allow even the 
ideas we do not agree with to be 
heard. I do not believe we were 
always like this, nor do I think 
we intended to become like this. 
But over time, the habit of falling 
back to insults as a way to win 
an argument has overtaken our 
discussion to the point where 
we can no longer even tactfully 
communicate.

Most 
people 
have 
had 

experiences like this — no matter 
where one lies on the political 
spectrum. Heavy conversations 
occur when one individual or 
another stays silent. Because 
being silent is better than 
being personally attacked by 
another who is tearing them 
apart without knowing they are 

insulting the person standing 
right next to them.

We 
saw 
this 
problem 

throughout 
the 
entire 
past 

election cycle. Neither 
side 
would 
allow 

itself 
to 
consider 

any portion of the 
other’s argument, and 
debates were decided 
by the number of 
insults Donald Trump 
or 
Hillary 
Clinton 

could throw at the 
other. However, this 
situation 
did 
not 

happen 
over 
the 

course of one election. 

This has been going on for many 
more years than we even know.

A study published in 2011 on 

250,000 tweets sent out during 
the six weeks leading up to 
the 2010 midterm elections 
found that groups of Twitter 
users who interacted with 
one 
another 
were 
heavily 

segregated 
by 
partisan 

structure 
with 
very 
little 

interaction between the left 
and right users. This means that 
conservatives only interacted 
with other conservatives and 
liberals with other liberals. 
When this isolation happens, 
you get what we saw in 
2016 — two groups that look 
around themselves to only see 
others of the same views, feel 
affirmed, and once again turn 
to the other group and say, “Of 
course you’re wrong; everyone 
knows this.”

What is truly alarming to 

realize is that people have 
seen this happening. The same 
study 
ended 
its 
conclusion 

with, “The fractured nature of 
political discourse seems to be 
worsening, and understanding 
the social and technological 
dynamics underlying this trend 
will be essential to attenuating 
its effect on the public sphere,” 
yet very little has been done 

about it so far.

This is where millennials come 

in. It will be on our shoulders to 
once again bring compromise 
back into a system that has two 
sides that shame those that take 
a middle stance. Whether this 
involves initiating the much-due 
change of the political parties, or 
beginning the elimination of the 
two-party system, we are the next 
generation to take political power. 
The country cannot continue our 
current split mindset.

It is going to be hard. It 

is going to involve having 
uncomfortable 
conversations 

with 
your 
acquaintances, 

friends and family about why 
they believe what they believe. 
Clearly it is not enough to 
simply know what the other side 
believes because it has devolved 
into making assumptions about 
others, which we have seen is 
only detrimental to the progress 
we are seeking.

The type of discussions that 

need to take place need to end 
with members of each side 
admitting they understand the 
other. We do not need to agree, 
but we need to at least give each 
side 
adequate 
consideration 

before 
we 
truly 
decide 
to 

support one ideology.

We are lucky enough to be 

living in a country, and on a 
campus, that was founded on 
the idea of open discussion. 
Let’s make use of this and have 
these difficult conversations. 
I call on those who usually 
speak up first to offer the 
spot to others before they say 
anything. I equally call on 
those who normally go with the 
flow of the conversation to find 
the courage to say their views 
even when they are afraid 
they will be suppressed. Let’s 
bring conversation back to 

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, March 29, 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

The art of debate

ALEXIS MEGDANOFF | COLUMN

Trump’s budget and you

VICTORIA NOBLE | COLUMN

Victoria Noble can be reached at 

vjnoble@umich.edu.

Alexis Megdanoff can be reached at 

amegdano@umich.edu.

VICTORIA 

NOBLE

ERIN WAKELAND | CONTACT ERIN AT ERINRAY@UMICH.EDU

W

hy 
might 
we 
be 

happy to do things 
for 
free 
but 
not 

when we are paid to do them? If 
your neighbor asks you to watch 
their dog for a night, you will be 
happy to do it. But if they pay 
you after, you may 
not only be offended 
by the amount, you 
might expect to be 
paid even more next 
time. Humans are 
social animals and 
we are happy to help 
out others. But when 
we are paid for our 
work 
and 
market 

norms enter into the 
scene, social norms 
run out the door.

This is also the case for me. 

Recently, I started working 
in two research labs. One lab 
pays me per hour, and the other 
lab is completely volunteer. 
Intuitively, you might think 
that I’d like the lab that pays me 
per hour — why not get some 
money while doing the work? 
However, the volunteer lab 
offers something that the paid 
lab doesn’t: social exuberance. 
I go out of my way to do extra 
work and the adviser, in return, 
gives me personal mentoring. 
This 
type 
of 
relationship 

doesn’t exist in my paid lab. I’m 
expected to do a certain amount 
of work and leave. 

It is clear that we live in 

two kinds of worlds: social and 
market. In the social world, 
we surround ourselves in a 
community and thrive off of 
social 
relationships. 
In 
the 

market world, “the exchanges 
are sharp-edged,” writes in his 
book, “Predictably Irrational” 
— you only get what you pay for. 
In the money-minded society 
that we live in, it is important to 
keep market norms away from 
social norms and recognize 
that following social norms can 
bring us invaluable profit that 
money simply cannot.

As it turns out, mixing market 

and social norms is like drinking 
orange juice after brushing your 
teeth — it’s not good. Consider 
this example from “Predictably 
Irrational”: A guy takes a girl 
out on multiple dates. By the 
third time, his wallet is thinning 
out and he is hoping to get some 
physical affection. So on the 

fourth date, he decides to tell 
her how much this romance is 
costing him. Her response? She 
calls him a beast and dumps him 
on the spot. (No “Beauty and the 
Beast” happy ending here.)

The trouble was that he failed 

to reconcile between 
market 
and 
social 

norms. By crossing 
the line, he offended 
her 
by 
implying 

that her romance is 
something 
he 
can 

buy. Here is a lesson: 
Do not mention the 
cost of the date if 
you want to impress 
someone. 
In 
fact, 

according to research 

by Kathleen Vohs, Nicole Mead 
and 
Miranda 
Goode, 
even 

thinking about money makes us 
behave differently. Therefore, 
it is likely that money-minded 
intentions will be taken in a 
wrong way.

Life is good when market 

and social norms stay separate. 
However, when they do collide, 
market norms always win and 
the trouble is often permanent. 
Here’s another example from 
“Predictably Irrational”: When 
an Israeli daycare began to fine 
parents for tardy pick-ups, it 
not only made parents later, 
but they also no longer felt 
guilty about it — parents felt as 
though their tardiness could be 
justified with compensation. 
More importantly, even long 
after the school removed the 
fining policy, parents continued 
to pick up their kids late. 
This is the permanent effect 
of market- and social-norm 
collision. Money, though useful 
and necessary, turns out to be 
an ineffective motivator in a 
social context. We sometimes 
forget that money is not the 
answer to social problems, and 
it never will be.

I was made aware of the 

dangers 
of 
mixing 
market 

and social norms a lot more in 
college. With the popular app 
Venmo, people instantly request 
and pay money with friends. For 
example, if you go out for an ice 
cream and your friend doesn’t 
have money on them, you 
purchase the total amount with 
your card, while at the same time 
requesting money from your 
friend on Venmo. Oftentimes, 

I see that people fuss about 
their friends not paying them 
back a few bucks. I’ve also seen 
cases where people won’t hang 
out with their friends until 
their 
Venmo 
requests 
have 

been resolved. I think that this 
obsession with “request and 
pay” is detrimental to building 
long-lasting friendships.

So how do we keep market 

norms out of the equation 
in social relationships? This 
brings us to the notion of 
“give and take” and the power 
of gifting, suggested by Dan 
Ariely. Here’s a similar scenario 
from “Predictably Irrational”: 
Imagine that you invite me 
over for dinner and I decide to 
bring you wine that cost me 
$30. There are a few problems 
with this decision. Maybe you 
don’t like wine and would have 
wanted beer. Or, maybe you 
would want to use that $30 on 
something else. Maybe gifting 
is a waste of money because 
you’re 
spending 
$30 
on 

something else would give just 
as much, if not more, happiness 
as receiving my wine.

But gifting is not a rational 

activity. If I came over and said, 
“I was going to spend $30 on 
wine but I thought you might 
want to spend it on something 
else,” and hand you 30 bucks, 
you 
would 
probably 
think 

that I’m arrogant. Also, from 
my point of view, I would not 
feel 
comfortable 
requesting 

a favor in return when we 
encounter 
each 
other 
next 

time. Though gifts may be 
financially inefficient, “they are 
an important social lubricant,” 
writes Dan Ariely. “Sometimes, 
it turns out, a waste of money 
can be worth a lot.”

So in the case with Venmo 

and the ice-cream shop with 
your wallet-less friend, why not 
you buy the ice cream this time, 
and have your friend get your 
meal next time? If you think 
that your friend is someone 
who has no sense of the social 
norms of give and take, then 
gift them the book “Predictably 
Irrational” and maybe they’ll 
come back around. Remember, 
there’s nothing warmer than 
social reciprocity.

The faulty social consumer

GINA CHOE | COLUMN

Gina Choe can be reached at 

ginachoe@umich.edu.

ALEXIS 

MEGDANOFF

GINA CHOE

