100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

March 29, 2017 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

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

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan