W

hen I voted for 
Hillary 
Clinton 

in 
the 
general 

election, I, like many other 
Americans, 
swallowed 
my 

distaste for her personality 
to do the right thing — avoid 
electing a man whose policies 
threatened the very fabric of 
our democracy and time-tested 
values. Unfortunately, it didn’t 
make enough of a difference to 
sway the election in Clinton’s 
favor and now, Democrats, 
moderates and Republicans 
need time to heal from this 
disaster of an election year 
and mobilize against the new 
administration. But, rather 
than leading this resistance, 
Clinton chose to drag us back 
into the past with her new book 
and its accompanying tour. 

Clinton’s 
book, 
“What 

Happened,” is a new low for 
the politician who just can’t 
figure out that she’s the root of 
her own problems. Excerpts 
from the book reveal that 
she attributes the loss to just 
about everyone but herself. 
She berates Bernie Sanders 
for 
“echoing” 
her 
own 

ideas, writing “No matter 
how bold and progressive 
my policy proposals were 
… Bernie would come out 
with something even bigger, 
loftier and leftier.”

Apparently Clinton doesn’t 

understand that two opposing 
candidates 
should 
have, 

and are expected to have, 
differences in policy. Sanders 
wasn’t stealing her ideas; he 
had radically different, yet 
sensible, approaches to policy. 
Clinton wanted a continuation 
of 
moderate 
Obama-era 

policies, such as subsidized 
insurance and student debt 
relief. 
Sanders 
saw 
this 

solution as putting a bandage 
on a torn artery, the systems 
so flawed they required total 
transformation 
into 
public 

programs. Sanders sought a 
shift toward the European 
model; 
Clinton 
accepted 

gradual reform.

A more egregious example of 

finger pointing in the book was 
her speculation of what would 
have happened had former 
President 
Barack 
Obama 

done a prime-time address on 
Russian interference in the 
election. These kinds of what-
if musings are emblematic 
of post traumatic denial. It 
appears 
her 
post-election 

funk, where she admitted, “I 
couldn’t feel, I couldn’t think. 
I was just gobsmacked, wiped 
out,” has lingered to this day.

Her anger toward former 

FBI Director James Comey 
is 
understandable, 
but 

openly doubting a man who 
gave her one of the most 
powerful positions on Earth 
after defeating her in an 

election is shameless. Obama 
was a steadfast ally during 
the campaign, not an aloof 
observer. 
Even 
Clinton’s 

staffers 
are 
sharing 
a 

“collective groan,” according 
to Politico. Having worked 
tirelessly to defend her image 
from both conspiracy-ridden 
nonsense 
and 
legitimate 

criticism, they were looking 
forward to some time off. 
Even colleagues in Congress, 
such as Senator John McCain, 
R-Ariz., 
dodged 
questions 

about the book tour, not 
wanting to be caught in the 
webs of her mistake. 

It seems Clinton doesn’t 

understand 
the 
beating 

heart of political thought in 
the United States. It’s raw, 
straight to the point and 
embraces strong values over 

intellectual 
debate. 
Most 

Americans 
don’t 
peruse 

through 
political 
science 

dissertations 
or 
subscribe 

to policy magazines — that’s 
obvious and expected. But 
most 
don’t 
even 
engage 

in “soft” civic duties like 
writing their senators or 
brushing up on United States 
history and law.

There is nothing inherently 

wrong with this, but it does 
illustrate a divide between 
the ways Clinton and Trump 
interacted with the public. 
Rejecting 
Clinton’s 
policy 

approach, Trump understood 
that the most effective way 
to win the hearts of people in 
the United States was through 
direct, no nonsense messaging 
and an avoidance of excesses, 
which blundered Clinton. Her 
carefully controlled speeches 
struck many Americans as 
elitist and emblematic of a 
career politician. As Clinton 
admitted 
in 
her 
book’s 

introduction, “In the past 
… I’ve often felt I had to be 
careful in public, like I was up 
on a wire without a net. Now 
I’m letting my guard down.”

While many cringe at her 

change in persona after the 
election, a sizable number of 
people are willing to pay to 
see her. Tickets to some of 
her book signings this year 
have reportedly been as high 
as $2,000. Not too shabby for 
someone who charged $675,000 
for a couple of speeches to 
Goldman Sachs. The real icing 
on the cake, however, is her 
planned tour in Wisconsin, a 
state she notoriously neglected 
to visit during the campaign. 
It’s hard to tell whether Clinton 
realizes 
these 
actions 
rub 

people the wrong way, and 
that’s exactly her issue. She 
doesn’t read the mood of the 
general public well enough to 
understand the cringe-worthy 
similarities of high ticket prices 
and speaking fees.

Americans 
tend 
to 
elect 

presidents 
because 
of 

personality, not policy. If a 
candidate “feels right” with 
voters, they enjoy a massive 
advantage. Al Gore, Walter 
Mondale and George H.W. all 
lacked the personal spark that 
their opponents had, leaving 
many pundits to conclude it 
cost them their elections. Those 
were just blunders that included 
a 
couple 
of 
sighs 
during 

debates, an odd campaign ad 
and frequent watch checks.

For a modern candidate, 

Clinton was disliked on a 
whole new level. To put it 
simply, she isn’t as relatable 
as she thinks she is. She’s 
wonky, 
and 
couldn’t 
act 

like the average gal if her 
life depended on it. Her 
personality 
is 
so 
sour 

that 
Americans 
chose 
an 

inexperienced 
reality 
TV 

star to run the country over 
a politician with the best 
résumé 
in 
the 
business. 

Whether 
her 
reputation 

is the result of sexism or 
legitimate 
grievance 
can 

be debated extensively, but 
doesn’t change the fact more 
Americans believed her to 
be dishonest. While Trump 
also possesses a repellant 
personality, 
the 
American 

public 
concluded 
that 
it 

was more “genuine” than 
Clinton’s. 
Trump 
may 
be 

cruder, twisted and morally 
repugnant, but he clicked 
better 
with 
the 
public’s 

craving for authenticity.

Continuing to ignore the 

public’s 
collective 
groans, 

she 
drudges 
on, 
speaking 

about herself and charging 
hefty fees for you to hear it. 
We won’t help our country 
by more finger pointing, so 
please — for once, stay out of 
the spotlight, Hillary.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A— Friday, September 15, 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

I

n my early teens, my ears 
began to ring. Friends and 
family began to sound 

like what I can best describe 
as the voice of Charlie Brown’s 
teacher. At the time, I had 
chalked it up to just not paying 
attention as well as I should 
have. As the years went on 
my hearing got progressively 
worse, and after struggling 
through a basic hearing exam 
at my doctor’s office I knew 
something was wrong. I went 
to an audiologist to have a 
more rigorous hearing exam. 
I was told that my hearing 
was impaired. I was fitted 
with hearing aids and was 
immediately struck with how 
clearly I could hear those 
around me. My quality of life 
improved greatly and I became 
more independent. 

While 
hearing 
aids 

significantly 
improved 

my ability to hear people 
in smaller settings, I still 
struggled to hear a speaker in 
larger rooms. With increased 
background noise and echoing 
causing interference in my 
hearing 
aids, 
the 
Charlie 

Brown teacher voice returned. 
Hearing loops saved me in 
those situations.

A hearing loop describes a 

system in which a wire that 
surrounds an audience, usually 
installed in the ceiling or 
the floor, directly transmits 
electromagnetic sound from 
a sound system that someone 
with 
a 
hearing 
aid 
or 
a 

cochlear implant can pick up 
by switching their device to the 
“T-coil” setting. Rooms with 
a hearing loop installed will 
have a sign that indicates to a 
deaf or hard-of-hearing person 
that a hearing loop is available.

While hearing loops can 

be installed in any size room, 
they 
are 
especially 
useful 

in large spaces like lecture 
halls, where echoing tends 
to be a larger problem. By 
directly transmitting sound 
to someone with a hearing aid 
or a cochlear implant, hearing 
loops 
cut 
the 
unnecessary 

noise 
caused 
by 
echoing, 

providing increasing clarity of 
the speaker to the listener. Not 
all hearing aids and cochlear 
implants are equipped with 
the T-coil setting, but the 
majority are, meaning that this 
is a technology that benefits a 
large percentage of people who 
are hard of hearing.

This technology is standard 

in 
religious 
and 
academic 

institutions around Europe, but 
the United States has been slow 
to catch on. Facilities equipped 
with hearing loops are few and 
far between; even The Kennedy 
Center in New York City, a 
popular event venue, does not 
make permanent hearing loop 

technology available to its 
patrons. Instead, most venues 
in the United States use FM 
or infrared systems which are 
easier to install but require the 
user to wear a bulky headset, 
which is conspicuous and can 
make the user uncomfortable.

In contrast, all London taxis 

are equipped with hearing 
loops. Most European churches, 
including Westminster Abbey, 
also have hearing loops. With a 
hearing loop, the cumbersome 
headsets are ditched and a 
hearing aid or cochlear implant 
can become the headset, a 
system that is much preferred 
by people who are deaf and 
hard of hearing. The United 
States needs to upgrade its 
technology for people who are 
deaf and hard of hearing and 
what better place to start than 
at the University of Michigan?

While the University has a 

variety of services for those 
with hearing loss listed on 
the Services for Students with 
Disabilities 
site, 
including 

ASL 
interpreters, 
video 

captioning and student note 
takers, hearing loops are not 
mentioned as a service at all, 
even after I requested a list 
of on-campus buildings that 
contained hearing loops. In the 
many classrooms and lecture 
halls I have been in over the 
past year at the University, I 
have not encountered a single 
hearing loop sign. This has 
been frustrating for me in 
larger lecture halls and has 
made it very difficult for me to 
clearly hear the lecturer. The 
previously mentioned services, 
while helpful to many, do not 
cover all the needs of people 
who are hard of hearing. Not 
all people who are hard of 
hearing, 
including 
myself, 

know ASL — and while student 
note takers are helpful, it does 
not allow for much personal 
independence. Hearing loops 
will help meet the needs of 
a larger number of students 
who are hard of hearing at the 
University of Michigan.

The University does a great 

job 
accommodating 
for 
its 

students with disabilities, but 
more can be done. Hearing loop 
technology in lecture halls on 
campus will not only greatly 
improve 
sound 
quality 
for 

students who are hard of hearing 
but will provide independence 
to those using hearing aids 
and cochlear implants. Other 
colleges and universities like 
the University of Iowa and 
Grinnell College have already 
started to introduce hearing 
loop 
technology 
in 
various 

lecture 
halls, 
libraries 
and 

theaters across their campuses. 
Even our rival Spartans have 
installed hearing loops in their 
basketball arena. It’s time for 
the University of Michigan to 
follow suit.

Reopening old wounds

LUKE JACOBS | COLUMN

ERIN WAKELAND | CONTACT ERIN AT ERINRAY@UMICH.EDU

Get the University in the loop

EMILY HUHMAN | COLUMN

Emily Huhman can be reached at 

huhmanem@umich.edu.

Luke Jacobs can be reached at 

lejacob@umich.edu.

— Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., endorsing Bernie Sander’s Medicare 

for All bill which was released on Wednesday.

“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

I’ve always believed that health care 
is a right for all Americans — not a 
privilege — and that every person in 
our country deserves access to the 

care they need. ”

Hearing loops 
will help meet 
the needs of a 

larger number of 

students.

WANT TO JOIN OUR TEAM?

Come to The Michigan Daily’s mass meetings!

Mass meetings will be located in the newsroom at 420 

Maynard on Sept. 18 and 19 at 7 p.m. Hope to see you there!

Clinton’s 

book, “What 

Happened,” is a 
new low for the 
politician who 
just can’t figure 
out that she’s the 
root of her own 

problems.

