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.