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.

