I
n November, I was one
of
over
1,100
seniors
who signed a petition
expressing
disappointment
with
the
spring
2017
commencement
plans.
Replacing a featured speaker
with a video of past speeches
seemed
underwhelming
—
especially for the bicentennial
event. Following the petition,
seniors held out hope that a
featured speaker would be
announced and the issue would
subside. After all, what good
reason could the University
of Michigan have to deny us
something
so
standard?
It
doesn’t lack notable alumni
to call up, nor does it struggle
to bring interesting, relevant
speakers to campus.
On Monday, I was surprised
and upset to read that the
University
did
not
invite
a featured speaker to our
commencement and instead
moved forward with a video
production. I am proud to
be a part of the University’s
200-year history, and many of
my memories here have been
among the set of traditional
Wolverine
experiences.
However, many more have
been the result of my place as
a student at this particular
time, whether contributing to
campus-wide Snapchat stories
or marching in November’s
post-election
walk-outs.
A
video of current faculty and
students
reading
decades-
and
centuries-old
speeches
will not capture these unique
experiences and certainly will
not honor them.
Rather,
the
video
communicates to graduating
seniors that our experiences,
talents and futures are not
worth addressing and that
encouraging words from any
commencement
speech
can
just as easily apply to any
of us. Collectively, perhaps
this is true. Maybe we are
not so different from classes
before or after us, and maybe
all commencement speakers
speak in clichés that only
momentarily inspire.
However, many graduates
are non-traditional or first-
generation
students,
many
have accrued thousands of
dollars in debt and we have all
encountered hardships over
the past four years to make it
to April 29, 2017, when it would
be “worth it.” Our individual
paths to graduation have not
been as uniform as a video
of recycled speeches would
suggest, and we deserve even
momentary inspiration from
someone who understands us
in the here and now.
What is most angering is that
this is just another instance of
a much more troublesome habit
of University administrators:
consistently
ignoring
or
inadequately
responding
to
student
concerns
and
demands. For many of those
cases, I can acknowledge —
though I disagree with — the
University’s stated perspective
and
hesitance
to
respond.
There
are
more
serious
problems than dissatisfaction
with a commencement speaker,
or lack thereof, that require
reflective, nuanced and long-
term
responses
from
the
University.
Thus,
the
University’s
refusal to address the class
of
2017’s
concerns
about
commencement
renders
me all the more shocked.
Confronted
with
relatively
uniform opposition to a non-
controversial University-only
event, the University decided
(again) to disregard student
sentiment. A simple and clearly
articulated problem with a
tangible solution was ignored
in the name of prioritizing
the University’s history and
reputation above its students.
Rather than celebrating the
graduates
—
the
express
purpose of a commencement
ceremony — the University is
hijacking our day in order to
celebrate itself.
Admittedly, this may seem
trivial in light of more serious
issues affecting students and
graduates, but it is nonetheless
frustrating that the University
ignored
student
concerns
for no reason other than to
promote
itself.
After
four
years of hard work here, it
is disappointing to me and
many other seniors that the
University would not consider
a simple student request.
The NIH, NEA and NEH
have
promoted
crucial
research in the sciences, as
well as scholarship in arts,
culture and history and have
helped create thousands of
jobs in all 435 congressional
districts. On our campus, the
proposed 20 percent budget
cut to the NIH may have the
most tangible effects, as the
University prides itself as one
of the world’s leading public
research
institutions.
The
NIH devotes over 80 percent
of its resources to provide
grants for research projects
and programs in the sciences
across
the
country.
Many
institutions of higher learning,
including
the
University,
depend on such grant money
to pay for research costs,
including graduate student and
research assistant salaries and
the equipment and materials
necessary to conduct research.
As a result of such a deep slash,
all members of the University
community — undergraduate
and graduate students as well
as staff and faculty — would be
deprived of resources central
to their abilities to conduct
research.
NIH
funding
for
grants is already exceptionally
competitive, and this cut will
make research funding even
less accessible.
Beyond
the
negative
implications the cuts would
have
on
the
University’s
scientific research, educational
development
and
rankings,
there is no mention of the
National Science Foundation
in the budget blueprint. The
omission of the NSF, a similarly
large federal funder of science
research
for
universities,
is
another troubling sign for future
research funding in Ann Arbor.
However,
the
natural
sciences are not the only place
where
the
University
and
the nation as a whole would
feel
the
negative
impacts
of the budget. An outright
elimination of the two agencies
paramount to supporting the
arts and humanities across
the country, the NEA and
NEH, would severely limit
programs that promote the
arts. With little public funding
available elsewhere, programs
at the University are largely
dependent on grants from these
endowments.
For
the
2016
season, the NEA awarded the
University Musical Society with
$30,000 to bring performers,
residencies
and
educational
programs
to
Ann
Arbor.
The
money
that
University
programs,
like
UMS,
have
received has been instrumental
in jump-starting young peoples’
careers in the arts.
Public
media
is
also
in
jeopardy in the proposed budget.
Funding for the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, which
largely funds local radio and TV
stations, would be cut to zero. A
2016 nationwide survey showed
that PBS and other member
organizations
were
among
the most-trusted information
sources in the country. In an
era of increased distrust of
government and news media,
it is vital we preserve the
organizations
we
trust
the
most to deliver us reliable and
unbiased information.
The national effect of placing
such little value on the arts,
humanities and research and
so much on defense depicts the
United States as a defensive
and
shortsighted
nation.
The NEA and NEH, which
each received around $148
million last year out of a $4
trillion budget, have brought
about
lasting
celebration
and appreciation of the arts.
Eliminating these agencies is
a shameless ignorance of the
invaluable
output
that
has
been generated from a merely
fractional input. The NIH has
been — and continues to be — a
chief funder of research and the
sciences. Slashing its funding
by 20 percent is a surefire way
to usher in a “lost generation”
of scientific innovation and
careers. Investments in these
three programs have led to or
supported thousands of jobs.
The
argument
that
the
proposed cuts are necessary
in order to finance a massive
defense
department,
one
that already spends as much
as the next seven countries
combined, undermines many
of the educational and cultural
values upon which the United
States has been built. It seems
to demonstrate that our values
lie more in the military than in
the arts and sciences, despite
the proven importance of the
sciences and the arts. While
the budget has yet to pass,
these tangible repercussions,
both monetarily and culturally,
should
be
very
concerning
not only to members of the
University community, but to
the nation as a whole.
T
he day I was accepted
to
the
University
of
Michigan, I thought all
my problems were
solved. I had been
admitted to a top
public
school
and
knew I would get an
education that would
help me to grow in
a productive way.
At first, I was not
sure if I was going
to get in, and I felt
reassured
reading
my
acceptance
letter. I never thought of myself
as the top of my class. I could
never get by just by reading over
the study guide, and I always had
to work hard to do well. That is
why when I was accepted to this
elite university, and I was in awe
and excited for the four years
to come. I was excited to take
advantage of the opportunities
the University had to offer and
was eager to jump right in.
But after being here for six
months, I am surprised at the
number of applications I still
have to fill out, even after being
accepted to and coming to the
University. I recently applied
to and was accepted to the
Sweetland Minor in Writing,
which was a program I did not
expect to apply for. And I am
continuing to struggle with the
fact that I have to constantly
demonstrate my commitment
to my studies and activities
because of the number of
admissions processes looming
after my initial acceptance.
I dreamed of college as a place
where, once you are accepted,
every educational opportunity is
at your fingertips. When I came
home for Winter Break to friends
who attended other schools and
had already declared their majors
without applying, I was surprised
to learn they were living my fantasy.
I have noticed recently that friends
my age become intimidated and
question their interests
as
they
hear
about
sophomores getting into
different programs. I am
constantly
wondering
if I am making the
right decisions or if
I am missing out on
opportunities
with
applications that may
come around once an
academic career. When
I see the congratulation
posts on Facebook I can’t help but
think, “I am interested in political
science. Am I going to miss out if
I don’t apply to the Ford School of
Public Policy next year?”
I also question if I am applying
to
the
right
extracurriculars,
because this campus offers clubs
ranging from a capella to observing
squirrels on campus. Am I missing
out on opportunities by not
spending time on going through
rigorous application processes?
And if I do apply, am I wasting my
time trying when I know there is a
slim chance of acceptance? Similar
to academic programs, will I
second guess myself after applying
and realizing I have wasted my
time and effort?
College is supposed to be a time
to explore, but the culture created
through competitive application
processes
disincentivizes
exploration in favor of choosing
one path and sticking with it. I’d
love to spend my time exploring
all my interests, but it poses a
large challenge when I have to
apply to and commit myself to
few specific things.
Yes, it’s true that college
isn’t easy and comes with lots
of tough decisions. But these
decisions
should
not
limit
exploration of our interests.
College
presents
us
with
opportunities to grow, but if
our explorations are limited
by a yearly deadline, then how
will we ever get the chance to
explore our every interest?
I cannot deny the goals
I have in transferring to an
upper-level
program
have
made me more invested in that
program’s subject. But I worry
that this has come at the cost of
not pursuing other interests.
The constant need to evaluate
my choices in what I have decided
to dedicate myself to at such
an early time in my career is
exhausting. There is a time and
a place in life to know that my
professional decisions will have
major consequences for my future,
but that time and place is not in
my freshman year. My freshman
year should have been the time to
explore all the opportunities that
would feed my many interests.
Instead, it was spent constantly
looking over my shoulder making
sure I was setting myself up for the
best opportunities for success, and
I shouldn’t have to feel this way.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, March 31, 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
Ibrahim Ijaz
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Anurima Kumar
Max Lubell
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Why keep applying ourselves?
MICHELLE PHILLIPS | COLUMN
Michelle Phillips can be reached at
mphi@umich.edu.
A simple student request
ELISABETH BRENNEN | OP-ED
MICHELLE
PHILLIPS
Elisabeth Brennen is an LSA senior.
FROM THE DAILY
Don’t cut our progress
E
arlier in March, President Donald Trump’s administration released its
“skinny budget” proposal for the 2018 fiscal year, causing a lot of bipartisan
controversy. To offset a 10 percent increase in defense spending, raising
funds to $52.3 billion, the proposal would significantly reduce funding for the
National Institutes of Health and eliminate federal funding for close to 20 agencies,
including the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment
for the Humanities. Cuts and closures of these programs will be detrimental, as
they have had a profound and lasting impact in every corner of the United States.
Extensive cuts in federal funding for — much less the elimination of — these
agencies will have overwhelming ramifications for a wide array of educational
opportunities at the University of Michigan. Though these proposals are not
expected to be passed into law in their original forms, The Michigan Daily’s
Editorial Board is deeply concerned by these proposed cuts because of their
tangible effects on the University and how they reflect our country’s values.
NIA LEE | CONTACT NIA AT LEENIA@UMICH.EDU
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.
— Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) in protest of a bill which
was tied 50-50 and passed with the vote of Vice President Mike
Pence to remove funding from health care clinics supported by
Title X, including Planned Parenthood.
“
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
40 percent of women
who receive care at Title X
clinics consider it to be their
only source of health care. ”
I dreamed of
college as a place
where, once you
are accepted,
every educational
opportunity is at
your fingertips.