I
called my grandparents,
hoping
to
hear
their
whereabouts.
With
the
stress of a new school year and
a new house distracting me
from my family and home life,
I was overwhelmed with guilt
as I watched the coverage of
Hurricane Irma on CNN. As
residents of Boynton Beach,
Florida, my grandparents were
poised to be in the center of the
path of the second deadliest
hurricane to pass over the
United States this year.
I was relieved to hear my
grandma pick up, and that both
her and my grandpa were safe
at a nearby cousin’s house. But
the stress of this uncertainty
sparked my attention to the
destruction of this hurricane
and its predecessor, Hurricane
Harvey, and the relief efforts
following each.
For such a colossal natural
disaster, surpassing Hurricane
Katrina’s
statistics
with
an
estimated
$190
billion
in
damages
to
housing,
infrastructure
and
the
environment,
one
would
expect the president to play a
prominent role in relief efforts.
Instead,
President
Donald
Trump’s initial response was
both distracting and distant
from the lethal hurricane,
exemplified by his out-of-place
tweets. And while it would
seem to be common sense that
the government is the best
outlet for relief funding, a
variety of musicians, athletes
and other celebrities stepped
up while the president hid
behind his keyboard — an
indication of the power of
the
entertainment
industry
that should serve as a wake-
up call to the entire Trump
administration.
“With Mexico being one of
the highest crime Nations in
the world, we must have THE
WALL. Mexico will pay for
it
through
reimbursement/
other,” Trump tweeted on Aug.
27, the day that record rainfall
began to destroy Houston. By
tweeting about Mexico and the
plan to build his infamous wall,
Trump’s stubborn obsession
with border control seemed
to be on the forefront of his
mind, despite 30,000 Houston
residents losing their homes
over the weekend.
Not
only
did
Trump’s
initial response demonstrate
his
devotion
to
campaign
promises (despite other, more
immediate concerns), but the
rhetoric and method of his
action were consistent with
his entire presidency — saying,
rather than doing.
Using
Twitter
as
the
primary
platform
for
his
concerns, policy ideas and
insults, Trump has maintained
distance from the hands-on
work necessary in situations
like this.
However,
others
have
stepped up. Houston native
and Grammy Award-winning
rap artist Travis Scott traveled
to
the
disaster
scene
to
personally work the phones
during a Dell- and Verizon-
backed telethon, which raised
over $55 million. It is worth
noting that the telethon was
organized by the same people
who put together the One Love
Manchester benefit concert,
which raised over $13 million
for victims of the bombing at
an Ariana Grande concert.
In an equally admirable
show
of
support,
Houston
Texans
defensive
end
J.J.
Watt raised over $17 million
through online donations —
with estimates of the total fund
reaching over $20 million. On
the other hand, Trump raised
only $1 million on his own,
despite his business success
placing him at a net worth of
$3.5 billion, reopening the
door to the criticism he faced
when he bailed on a $5 million
promise to veterans last year.
This all goes to show that
singers and athletes hold a place
in society far more important
than we would think. While
Travis Scott has garnered fame
for his rowdy performances and
stage dives, his involvement
with Hurricane Harvey relief
illustrates that the power of a
musician extends beyond the
bounds of a stage.
Similar to the scrutiny faced
by former President George W.
Bush after his slow response
to Hurricane Katrina, I argue
that Trump’s initial action
was no better — especially in
contrast to the generous and
upstanding behavior of the
entertainment industry.
To his credit, Trump did
eventually act on the situation.
On Sep. 1, he asked Congress
for $7.9 billion to aid in relief
efforts, a promising sign given
his initial hesitation.
But the eventual asking of
Congress for relief funds, a
no-brainer for any president
confronted with this situation,
should not cloud out the fact
that Trump’s rhetoric and
the slow speed with which
he acted are not admirable.
In fact, when the president
finally made the trip down
to Houston, he encouraged
victims to “have a good time”
as he left the shelter — a stark
contrast
to
Travis
Scott’s
empathic and hands-on work
with the telethon.
Ultimately, the fact that
athletes
and
entertainers
garnered
more
positive
attention than the president
for
their
relief
efforts
should sound an alarm in
the Oval Office. A swift and
compassionate response to one
of the most destructive natural
disasters in recent memory
would have been a beneficial
move for a president whose
overall
administration
has
been divisive.
Instead, immigration policy
and personal matters seemed
to cloud Trump’s brain as he
once again took to Twitter
to express his thoughts. And
even in the wake of Hurricane
Harvey,
Trump
continues
to face opposition for his
comments,
highlighted
by
an NFL-wide protest of the
national anthem this Sunday.
As
racial
and
political
tensions
continue
to
rise
across
the
country,
the
entertainment
industry
capitalized on a crucial chance
to unite and give back where
Trump did not — a missed
opportunity that was much
needed as public distaste for
the administration continues
to grow.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, September 29, 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
What entertainers got right
BEN CHARLSON | COLUMN
Ben Charlson can be reached at
bencharl@umich.edu.
I
t’s ironic when you think
about it: White, cisgender
men
have
ridiculed
marginalized
groups
for
needing safe spaces and called
us snowflakes, yet they are now
demanding a safe space of their
own. Of course they are. They
simply cannot stand us having
something they don’t.
As a transgender man, I was
socialized as a woman for 18 years
before I began transitioning. I
have navigated the world as a
man for the past six years and
have a complicated relationship
with masculinity. Since I began
passing as a man, I have constantly
reflected on my privileges as
a white man. I have done this
both through self-education and
listening to the people of color in
my life, especially women of color,
learning how I can effectively
show up in spaces as a white man.
When I’ve shown up for
marginalized
groups
and
refrained from taking up space,
I’ve found that most will call
you in rather than call you out.
Marginalized groups do not want
to exclude people from their
movements. They want people
who will show up, respect their
movement and their cause and
take what they’ve learned back
to their circles to educate and
encourage critical conversations.
I’m not saying that all men
are evil or incompetent. It is,
however, necessary as a whole,
to acknowledge all of the ways
in which men are socialized to
put the burden of emotional labor
on women, femmes, LGBTQ
people, people of color and other
marginalized folks. If you seek
validation for doing any little bit
of emotional labor, you contribute
to the problem.
Marginalized
folks
need
safe spaces because these are
often the only places they can
be
simultaneously
authentic
and safe in. In a world full of
microaggressions
and
blatant
discrimination, there is always the
chance of confrontation. Along
with this, perhaps surprisingly,
I agree that straight white men
need “safe spaces,” too.
I
agree
that
privileged
people — including straight,
white,
rich,
able-bodied
cisgender men or people with
any
combination
of
these
identities — do need to have
“safe spaces.” They need spaces
where they can come together
and work on these issues
and engage deeply with their
privilege
without
needing
people
of
color,
women,
LGBTQ people, those who are
disabled or other marginalized
folks there to educate them.
Ben Bugajski claims, “The
very
tactics
feminists
have
adopted to become heard in
a
patriarchal
society
have
alienated men and stopped them
from listening. If in a patriarchal
society men overpower and
silence women, then let’s use
men to spread the message.”
Nobody is telling them that
they cannot have spaces to
themselves. In fact, most people
would argue that most of society
is very safe for folks who hold
those identities. The problem is
not that they do not have safe
spaces; it is that they do not
use them intentionally to make
progress or change. The problem
is that people who are straight,
white, rich, able-bodied, cis men
are not stepping up and leading
those spaces.
It is not up to marginalized
folks to make room for straight,
white, rich, able-bodied, cis men.
We are already too busy trying
to fight for room for ourselves.
In fact, we have asked them
to create these spaces where
they can hold one another
accountable and engage with
people that look like them about
these issues. We are tired of
having to be the ones to do it. It is
exhausting to continuously share
our pain, traumas, struggles and
realities so that straight, white,
rich, able-bodied, cis men may
begin to understand the ways in
which they are privileged and
oppressive. The world would be a
better place if they would create
those “safe spaces” and educate
each other about why something
is sexist or why misgendering
someone — or any of the other
oppressive actions or biases they
might enact — isn’t acceptable.
I believe that if straight, white,
rich, able-bodied cisgender men
spent as much time educating
themselves and others as they
did arguing that they “aren’t all
bad,” then marginalized folks
wouldn’t even need safe spaces
in the first place.
BRENDON HOLLOWAY | OP-ED
Your safe space is everywhere
Brendon Holloway is a graduate
student in the School of Social Work.
NATALIE BROWN | CONTACT NATALIE AT NGBROWN@UMICH.EDU
FROM THE DAILY
Support student-parents
I
n his proposed budget for fiscal year 2018, President Donald Trump
recommends slashing funding for the Child Care Access Means
Parents in School program, which allocates $15 million a year to 5,000
students who are simultaneously raising families. Despite its miniscule
budget, these student-parents rely on CCAMPIS funding to continue their
studies by ensuring their children are taken care of during the school day.
To give some perspective, in 2015, the Department of Defense budget was
$496.1 billion. Family status, gender and age should not inhibit access to
education. Eliminating CCAMPIS directly contradicts the Department of
Education’s core mission of guaranteeing equal access to education. The
Michigan Daily Editorial Board calls on the Trump administration to
reconsider defunding CCAMPIS, and on the University of Michigan and
other universities nationwide to continue to independently support student-
parents.
The CCAMPIS program only
covers a paltry 0.001 percent of
the 4.8 million student-parents
currently
working
toward
higher
education
degrees.
Current funding for CCAMPIS
is extremely low compared to
other federal programs, like Pell
Grants. At a mere $15 million
per
year,
which,
compared
to the entire Department of
Education’s 2017 $68.2 billion
budget, CCAMPIS’s budget is
a negligible expenditure. Four-
year public universities have also
steadily cut on-campus childcare
while the percentage of student-
parents in the United States has
only risen.
This
combination
of
cuts
to on-campus childcare and
the impending elimination of
CCAMPIS will hang student-
parents out to dry. Lack of
childcare access poses a unique
challenge to these hard-working
student-parents as they attempt
to balance their schooling, home
life and, oftentimes, a job or two
on the side.
The majority of the people
affected by these CCAMPIS
cuts are women and people of
color. Forty-seven percent of
Black
undergraduate
women
have dependent children and
women are nearly twice as likely
as men to be student-parents.
Furthermore,
statistics
show
that of the 4.8 million student-
parents in the United States,
nearly 43 percent were living
below the federal poverty line
in the 2011-2012 school year.
Therefore, nearly half of all
student-parents
would
not
be able to afford reliable, safe
daycare
without
CCAMPIS.
Cuts to this program will only
hurt those who are already
underserved in the United States.
If
the
Department
of
Education truly values equal
access to education regardless
of race, class or gender, which
they tout as core to their mission
statement,
then
they
must
acknowledge the transformative
benefits
of
subsidized,
on-campus childcare. Childcare
already
poses
a
significant
financial burden on working
families, but it is especially
onerous on student-parents. In
the state of Michigan, infant
care costs can reach $9,882 a
year, or $824 a month. For the
average Michigan family making
the median annual income of
$59,940,
childcare
consumes
over 16 percent of their yearly
pay. Parents should not have to
sacrifice an education due to
expensive childcare.
Studies
show
individuals
with bachelor’s degrees make,
on
average,
$21,100
more
per year than those with
just a high school diploma.
For many parents, $21,000
more annually can make a
substantial difference in their
well-being and the well-being
of their children, and it can
also help future generations
more
easily
achieve
their
educational goals.
CCAMPIS
mitigates
the
enormous
stress
placed
on
student-parents
when
they
have no option but to balance
work, school and childcare. A
recipient of CCAMPIS should
not have to choose between an
education and caring for their
child. While this program is by
no means the be-all and end-all
solution for student-parents, it
significantly aids parents for
the few years they are in school
working toward a degree.
With CCAMPIS, education for
student-parents directly translates
to intergenerational benefits.
The advantages of a college
or
vocational
degree
are
undeniable.
This
program
enables
parents
to
access
higher
education;
slashing
CCAMPIS funding would only
hurt
motivated
Americans
who want an education for
themselves and their children.
The
Department
of
Education must take action to
help support student-parents
by making child care resources
more accessible and affordable.
Family status should have no
bearing on whether a person
can
attain
an
education.
With CCAMPIS, this dream
becomes a reality and leads
to innumerable benefits for
parents, their children and
society as a whole.
Rather
than
eliminating
CCAMPIS,
Trump
and
Secretary
of
Education
Betsy DeVos should consider
expanding the program to
reach more of the 4.8 million
parents in the U.S. working
toward their degrees. In the
meantime, we implore the
University
and
universities
nationwide
to
continue
to
step up, even if the federal
government
will
not,
and
continue to create programs to
support student-parents.
Trump’s rhetoric
and slow speed
are not admirable
We are too busy
trying to fight
for room for
ourselves