Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A— Thursday, September 14, 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.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Anurima Kumar
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Ashley Zhang
N
ot
long
ago,
when
iPods could effortlessly
moonlight
as
bricks
with buttons and the term
“millennial” had not yet been
spoken into existence, baseball
was all the rage. Before I had
turned 11, I had spent four
birthdays at Yankee Stadium
and collected a rosters’ worth of
ice cream-holding mini-helmets
to boot. From kindergarten to
sixth grade, highlights from the
night before would interrupt
my breakfast. The school day
brought arguments about the
pennant race and card trading.
In the evening, there was
wiffleball, which graduated to
T-ball, then Little League, travel
baseball and so forth.
None of these experiences in
my childhood would be too out
of the ordinary for any young fan
hungry for sports. But something
irksome happened as I entered
my teen years. Baseball became
less of a presence in my life and
in the lives of almost everyone
around me. My meals slowly won
the morning competition with
the highlight reel, my previously
heated
arguments
about
Cy
Young
and
the
designated
hitter cooled and, one by one,
my friends stepped away from
the diamond. I myself stopped
playing at the end of junior high,
and my interest in baseball soon
waned as well.
Growing up seemed to me to
be the leading factor in baseball’s
steady decline. The junior high
and high school years are times
for kids to meet new friends
and explore a world gradually
opening itself up. Yet in my
corner of New Jersey suburbia,
an interest in baseball became
not just an afterthought, but a
relic of the past.
Sure, the thought went, the
years of card-collecting and
backyard wiffleball always have
a spot in our hearts, but they
were nothing more than any
plain old interest of our younger
years. The days of being a fervent
disciple of all things baseball may
as well be known as “the baseball
days,” and binders brimming
with Topps and Upper Deck
cards took up a new residence
next to a box of Silly Bandz and
snapback hats.
Baseball and baseball culture,
though, is making a resurgence.
The kids who fondly remember
Kerry
Wood’s
20-strikeout
game or Aaron Boone’s walk-off
homerun in the ALCS to send
the Yankees to the World Series
have begun to resurface in the
baseball world. Nearly 8.7 million
people tuned into the 2017 Home
Run Derby, MLB revenues are
approaching a record $10 billion
and viewership for playoff-bound
teams is on the rise.
On a more grassroots level,
I have noticed that many of my
own
friends
will
mirthfully
make their way to the stadium
and share their time at the game
on social media. Baseball games
after work, on the weekends or
as a way to spend a night out are
slowly creeping out from a lull
and into the nostalgia-fueled
interest of young people.
The lynchpin preventing more
encouraging figures of millennial
engagement or game attendance
is a common one for a generation
that
feels
“significantly
less
financially secure than baby
boomer parents:” the price. Most
obviously, teams can improve
by reducing ticket prices. The
New York Yankees, who have an
average ticket price of $106.05,
second only to the reigning
champion Chicago Cubs, have
seen a per-game decline of
3,793 people through May 25 of
this year, the third-sharpest in
baseball. Meanwhile, the Los
Angeles Dodgers, with tickets
averaging $44.99, the fourth-
lowest in the MLB, have had a
league-leading
average
game
attendance of 46,302. The St.
Louis Cardinals boast the second-
highest attendance at 42,584.
The other expense to trim
is
the
glaringly
overpriced
concessions. One team model to
consider after this year may wind
up being the Atlanta Falcons of
the National Football League.
Last month, the Falcons unveiled
their
new
“fan-friendly”
concession prices, which include
$2 water bottles, $2 hot dogs and
$5 beer. If a complete overhaul
of the concession stands is not
in Major League Baseball’s best
interests, frequent promos for
similar “fan-friendly” concession
prices could entice new fans to
come to the ballpark.
Finally, continuing to advertise
through social media will help
connect a younger audience
to baseball and its rising stars.
Teams have found recent success
in using Twitter to engage fans
with highlights and entertaining
moments. Likewise, promotions,
like the Tampa Bay Rays’ “DJ
Kitty Onesie” night have used
culture to their advantage in
piquing more youthful interest.
Marketing young league stars
is another area where the MLB
ought to improve if they want
to win over the 18-to-35-year-
old demographic. Promisingly,
teams seem to have begun to take
notice of the need to promote its
young stars, like the Yankees’
Aaron Judge, in popular media
and culture.
Still, much popular media and
culture today would have one
believe that millennials have
fallen victim to the information
and technology age and are
thereby crippling long-standing
industries like baseball. But
in the millennial generation,
Major League Baseball has a
unique, golden opportunity. The
millennial appetite — an appetite
that is predominantly anecdotal,
but also backed by research — that
values experience and nostalgia
intersects perfectly with the best
of what baseball offers. Moving
into the 21st century and offering
a more fan-oriented experience
with
modern
and
creative
advertising will help the MLB
tap into a trove of a generation’s
love for baseball — the same love
that thankfully has recently been
rekindled in me.
Scotchka
MICHAEL MORDARSKI | COLUMN
EMILY WOLFE | CONTACT EMILY AT ELWOLFE@UMICH.EDU
Baseball: The sport for millennials
LUCAS MAIMAN | COLUMN
S
cotch and vodka. Two
different types of alcohol
that,
when
consumed
individually,
are
tolerable and even
enjoyable.
Yet,
“scotchka,”
the mixture of these
two drinks, is not
enjoyable
or
even
tolerable.
Scotchka
is
disgusting,
because
combining
equal parts scotch
and vodka does not
create a “beverage.”
It creates a liquid tragedy — a
cloudy iced tea look-alike with
the aroma of paint thinner that,
if consumed, is guaranteed to
induce panic to your liver.
Therefore,
no
sensible
person with even a beginner’s
knowledge of alcohol would
ever think to make a glass
of scotchka. They know that
certain things just do not mix.
Which makes it amusing
that, despite nearly decades
of prior knowledge of the
countless family fights due
to the topic of politics, one
of my family members will
eventually inquire to the group,
“Hey guys, how ‘bout that
(extremely divisive political
topic that is guaranteed to
start a screaming match)?”
Mixing family with politics
is painful. From the single-
family
unit
to
the
mass
gatherings of relatives, the
multiple
viewpoints
and
positions of your loved ones
often
mutate
into
harsh
accusations
and
arguments
that never end well. I have been
to quite a few graduations,
baptisms, weddings, birthdays
and just casual dinners that
have descended into battles
full of vulgar insults, Alex
Jones-ian rants and far too
many examples that use some
iteration of “back in my day.”
There are several reasons
why political dialogue within
the family is so difficult. From
generational gaps to different
lifestyles and experiences, the
political
ideologies
held
by
our family members become
all the more divisive because
the emotional stakes are far
greater. Your view of a loved one
becomes
muddled
when their ideology
does not match your
own. There arises
a conflict in which
you
struggle
with
understanding
how
you can love someone
you see as undeniably
wrong on a clear
moral issue.
Politics
become
amplified within the
family when these ideologies
do not match, and it becomes
extremely difficult to hold
civil conversations on issues
that are even slightly political.
The squeamishness and hot
tempers that are so often tied
to politics have only further
increased
in
intensity
due
to the chaotic nature of our
current political environment.
Because, surprisingly, the
result of the 2016 election
did not mend the nation back
together.
Our
TV-reality-
star-turned-president
has
only further led the country
into the divisive politics that
plague
the
United
States’
progression. Each side of the
political spectrum is becoming
more and more filled as the
moderate middle evaporates.
And with the average news
week filled with so many
divisive and chaotic stories,
it’s as if Aaron Sorkin teamed
up with methamphetamine to
write a twisted “precedent to
the apocalypse” season of “The
West Wing.”
It is truly disturbing that
I can no longer use facts and
truths
in
discussions
with
family
members
who
have
ultimately decided that they
refuse
to
believe
anything
that does not adhere to their
ideologies, and that I now have
to
have
discussions
where
the facts don’t matter, where
everything is entirely based
on opinions, where personal
feelings supersede truth.
This combination of divisive
times, rejection of facts and
constant news has degraded
the political communication of
this country to the point that
simple family discussions on a
particular issue can erupt into
emotional arguments. The 2016
election and its results have
almost permanently divided
families. And although politics
and family never mixed well
before, the loaded anger on
both sides seems always ready
to bubble over; the consistent
amount of chaotic news allows
for ample opportunities to
start a screaming melee at the
next family outing.
Political discussions should
be hard — they are complex
and involve emotional issues.
And
speaking
about
these
topics with loved ones should
be harder to do than with
strangers. But it is a testament
to the times of how divisive the
U.S. has become when politics
are near impossible to discuss
at the dinner table.
Yet as much as it pains
me, family and politics may
be where the change occurs.
That
somewhere
on
the
other end of these screaming
matches and slammed doors,
love and family bonds will
overcome the divisive hate
plaguing our country. That
we can somehow, with calm,
cool, collected manners, find
a way to communicate again
and reverse the polarization,
at least on the family level.
If not, I am more than
likely going to be downing
scotchkas to get through the
next family party.
Michael Mordarski can be reached
at mmordars@umich.edu.
Lucas Maiman can be reached at
lmaiman@umich.edu.
MICHAEL
MORDARSKI
FROM THE DAILY
Protect DACA recipients
A
nti-Latinx, pro-Trump graffiti was found on the Rock at the
corner of Hill and Washtenaw on Sept. 1, defacing what Assisting
Latinos to Maximize Achievement, a Latinx student organization,
had recently painted. Three days later, Attorney General Jeff Sessions
announced the current administration would terminate former President
Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The
decision would retract the immigration status of some 800,000 DACA
recipients — 90 percent of whom identify as Hispanic or Latinx. That
night, University President Mark Schlissel and Provost Martin Philbert
sent an email expressing disappointment with the White House’s decision,
emphasizing this decision’s weight on our campus. The Michigan Daily
Editorial Board believes that President Donald Trump’s handling of
DACA is unacceptable, and we call on Congress to pass legislation to stop
DACA recipients from being deported, and work toward a structurally
better solution for DACA recipients.
Detractors of DACA, which
gave work permits and some
protections against deportation
to undocumented immigrants
brought to the United States as
children, view it as executive
overreach and see a termination
of the program as a return to rule
of law. Additionally, Trump’s
decision was spurred in part
because 10 states had threatened
to file a lawsuit against the
Trump administration if it didn’t
repeal the program. However, the
context of the decision implies
that the president’s stance on
the issue was fueled purely by
political considerations, rather
than a firm resolve to provide
a long-term solution for DACA
recipients.
Many
defenders
of
the
immigration
policy
have
made strong cases on the
potential economic downfalls
of deporting DACA recipients
—
arguing
they
contribute
much to the nation’s economy
and many are either pursuing
degrees in higher education or
serving in the armed forces.
However,
the
humanitarian
implications of Trump’s repeal
are even more pressing.
DACA
recipients
were
children when they immigrated
to the United States and didn’t
have a choice in the matter.
They grew up in this country
and are American in every
sense if not by law. As such,
they do not have connections
in their parents’ homeland.
Deporting
DACA
recipients
would result in sending them to
foreign lands they have never
known. Many would be sent
back to countries where they
have no homes or jobs; it would
completely uproot them from
their American lifestyles.
University
of
Michigan
students would be naive to
believe rescinding DACA would
not have an impact on their
community. There are about
6,430 people who receive DACA
protections in Michigan, some of
whom are Ann Arbor residents,
University students or both, and
their deportation would be cruel.
The University has vocalized
its commitment to protecting
undocumented students through
policies like not inquiring about
students’ citizenship status. Still,
Trump’s decision would directly
endanger the immigration status
of students on our campus.
DACA
was
never
meant
to be a permanent fix for
undocumented
children.
Enacted in 2012 by executive
order, DACA was supposed
to be a bandage solution until
Congress
could
provide
a
permanent, legislative solution.
DACA
recipients
were
still
required to reapply for the
program
every
two
years,
with no clear path outlined
regarding
the
transition
to
citizenship.
Furthermore,
as
it was an executive order, the
program was always vulnerable
to
easy
repeal
by
future
administrations.
Following
the
president’s
decision to terminate DACA,
Congress now has six months
to provide a solution for DACA
recipients. Now, Congress has
the opportunity to create a
more sustainable pathway to
citizenship, something it has not
been able to do in the five years
since the program began.
There are currently three
proposed pieces of legislation
put forward in Congress that
could be potential solutions. The
Bar Removal of Individuals Who
Dream and Grow Our Economy
Act, the Recognizing America’s
Children Act and a 2017 version
of the Development, Relief, and
Education for Alien Minors
Act. Any of these bills would
provide some sort of legislative
protections from deportation
to DACA recipients. We call on
Congress to pass one of these
bills, or something similar, to
defend DACA recipients.
The decision to repeal DACA
has the potential to affect
the lives of nearly a million
Americans and must not be
taken
lightly.
The
decision
shakes a foundational pillar
of the nation’s future, and the
actions to follow in the next few
months will play a huge role in
determining the fate of DACA
recipients. We must remember
that we are dealing with human
lives — not numbers or statistics.
Resources
for
DACA
students may be found on the
FAQs page of the University’s
Public Affairs and Internal
Communications
website.
Central Student Government
has also posted information on
social media relevant to certain
DACA students able to renew
their benefits. Independent law
offices have also promised to aid
in the financial and logistical
difficulties
with
renewing
their current status.