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.

