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

