I
really just cannot bear
it
any
longer.
In
the
aftermath
of
the
2016
presidential election, and even
somewhat
before
then, I had heard
about this mysterious
phenomenon
by
which
Americans
became
unable
to
stomach
another
headline,
another
minute
of
CNN
programming
or
another picture of
Donald Trump. As
a
political
junkie,
though, this phenomenon had
never affected me; the palace
intrigue,
celebrity
feuds,
party
infighting,
scandalous
revelations, love and loss — I
was tuned into all of it with
laser focus.
However,
the
eight
weeks since the avalanche
of
allegations
of
sexual
harassment,
sexual
assault
and rape hit Harvey Weinstein
squarely in the chest have been
just exhausting. And not just
for the brave women who have
come forward, but for me too.
With each new day comes
another name that needs to be
dragged in the mud. And it’s not
just the Roy Moores of the world,
the presidentially-endorsed evil
and hypocrisy you might expect.
No, it’s been beloved television
stars like Louis C.K, Kevin
Spacey and Jeffrey Tambor (God
help us if something scandalous
comes out about Bryan Cranston
or Ty Burrell, or next year’s
Emmy’s will be so depressing),
charming politicians like Al
Franken and trusted newsmen
like Charlie Rose. Creeps, it
seems, one and all. Allegations
like these have come out in
the past, but something is
profoundly different this time.
Namely, I never watched much of
The Cosby Show and I’ve always
been lukewarm on Bill Clinton,
so I wasn’t that disappointed.
What’s
perhaps
most
infuriating about all this is
that the discussions that have
been sparked in the wake of
this
so-called
“Weinstein
effect” are not the right ones.
Unimpeachable
outlets
we
all
trust
to
provide
sober,
thoughtful commentary on the
news of the day have instead
chosen
to
tackle
issues
of
variable, though all secondary,
importance. I’m talking about
the elite class of journalists on
Fox & Friends, Morning Joe, the
Blaze and pretty much all CNN
programming. What does all of
this mean for 2018,
they ask? What do
Trump voters think
of all this? What’s
worse:
a
criminal
or a Democrat? And
why is our society
one that is inherently
hostile to victims and
institutionally sexist?
Important questions,
one and all.
None
of
them
attack the very root of the
problem. We need a better
vetting process, so that men like
this are not elevated to positions
of power in the first place —
whether that comes in the form
of political office, celebrity or
regular time on a television
network. After all, what do we
have in place now? Scrutiny from
the media and public opinion?
Clearly, our investigative powers
are subpar at the moment.
The natural solution would
be to add a layer of scrutiny.
For each potential office holder,
Hollywood star or television
icon, why not consult a group of
people with intimate knowledge
of their lives? The first three
members of such a commission
could be chosen from among
the applicant’s ex-girlfriends,
at random. Some of them may
have parted on good terms, but
there will have been a messy
break-up or two in the mix and
those are voices we need to hear
as well. Next, a low-level staffer
at Wikileaks looking to prove
themselves. I’m not entirely
sure what the dark web is, but I
want to know what’s on it about
a potential senator or whomever
might star in the next hit Netflix
series. Then, to round things out,
a casual acquaintance — friends
on Facebook, but not close —
from their high school years
could share the juiciest gossip
that was circulating about them
40 years ago.
Forget
bland
statements
from senior members of their
own
party
or
nominations
from the Academy, these are
the endorsements I care about.
The public could count on their
absolute honesty. Only truly
worthy candidates with squeaky
clean records would receive all
five yeses. Two to four votes
would make it a judgment call
for each individual voter and
anything below that would be
an immediate red flag. These
committees of five would single-
handedly revolutionize primaries
and casting calls. Think how
much time, column inches and
heartache we’d owe them!
But then again, as I think
about it, that would be a
logistical nightmare. Plus, there
are too many potential holes in
the system. We need something
simpler, cleaner.
So naturally my mind turns
to eunuchs. Harassing women
would be a lot harder without
a sex drive. And what ever
happened to them? For hundreds
of years, they played important
roles at court, in religion and
in
entertainment.
Nowadays
they’re
little
more
than
a
gimmick on Game of Thrones.
It wouldn’t be a requirement by
any means — don’t be ridiculous.
Instead, it’d be more of a strong
suggestion. People could even
frame it in a folksy way. “Well
everyone knows, if you want to
get elected in the Wisconsin 1st,
you’ve got to be like a Ken doll
down there!”
See the problem with that
is I’m not sure any man is so
obsessed with power, committed
to public service or needy for
fame
that
they’d
willingly
submit themselves to that kind
of lifestyle. There might be a few,
but not enough to fill both houses
of Congress.
All seemed lost, as though we
were condemned to a world run
by perverts. Then it hit me like a
ton of bricks. All of this scandal,
scrutiny
and
disappointment
has one common denominator.
They’re all men.
We could just elect women,
watch shows starring women
and get our news from women.
I’ve never been represented in
Congress by a woman, but it
seems like the safer bet. I’d like
to try it sometime soon; “Veep”
is consistently funny, and I’ve
always enjoyed Martha Raddatz.
Ever heard of sexual misconduct
from
Debbie
Stabenow
or
Julia Louis-Dreyfus? Probably
not. Until the culture shift is
complete, electing men and
then hoping that resignation or
public shaming will be enough
to right the wrong is just too
risky. That horse is already out
S
ome people know exactly
what they want to be
when they grow up. I am
not one of those people. When
I started my first semester of
college, the only thing I knew
was I wanted to study a subject
that would allow me to help and
support people.
My
adviser
recommended
an
introductory
course
in
biomedical science because at
first, I wanted to explore going
into medicine. To put it nicely, I
did not enjoy the class one bit and
knew this type of science was
not for me. Then, I began to take
classes in psychology, religion,
women’s studies and sociology. I
decided to pursue psychology, so
I could go down multiple paths
that would allow me to work
with individuals in any field.
In
these
courses
and
conversations with friends and
family, I have realized that I
want to go into social work one
day. But first, I must finish up
my degree, and this will take
about another year and a half. I
think it’s extremely frustrating
that after my first two years of
college, I feel like I am ready
to apply to graduate school,
but instead I have to continue
courses for graduation and major
requirements.
So, I’m here taking classes that
do not build off of one another,
where I feel like I am learning
the same thing over and over
again. Every once in a while,
I learn something new, but it
doesn’t feel profound. I am aware
some fields of study have courses
that build from one to the next,
but not every field does. I’m just
filling my audit checklist so that
I can get my degree and move
on to greater things. It feels
incredibly
meaningless
and,
honestly, like a waste of time.
I find this pathetic. I am sad
that I feel like I am wasting
money, time and energy taking
courses I don’t have interest
in nor will teach me the skills
to grow and learn. It makes
it feel like I’m here only for
the diploma, just waiting to
graduate. I am here to just go
through the motions until I can
reach the finish line.
I know some would argue they
learned so much from a full four
years of undergraduate school or
taking those college requirements
changed their entire field of
study and impacted what they
do now. I see this in the way LSA
has Race and Ethnicity and area
distribution
requirements
to
give us opportunities to discover
new fields and to become well-
rounded graduates. However,
this
learning
can
definitely
happen in a shorter amount of
time than four years.
I never imagined my college
experience to be so repetitive,
mundane and even bureaucratic.
I have many friends who feel
the same way. It’s not that we
don’t want to have extra time to
be with our friends for another
year or two, enjoying our social
lives and student organizations;
it just feels like the institution
of undergraduate education is
not respectful of students’ time
and money.
I have friends who have
changed majors or transferred
programs between schools and
are now required to take extra
semesters. I even have friends
who started off taking fewer
credits after consulting with
advisers and now have to take
an extra semester. They then
have to spend more time and
money to take requirements that
will ultimately just result in one
sheet of paper.
I can’t help but see the way
this impacts the higher education
industry. A bachelor’s degree
is the new minimum required
for many careers. Still, some
would argue a bachelor’s degree
is the new high school diploma,
because students regardless of
major are not guaranteed a job
with just their undergraduate
degree. This indicates students
will have to complete graduate
degrees on top of all of these years
of education — which ends up
requiring more time, and, unless
the graduate degree is funded or
subsidized, more money.
Graduate degrees are going
to be the new way to guarantee
you are knowledgeable in your
field.
This
means
students
are spending more money to
get degrees at higher ranking
undergraduate institutions or
getting graduate degrees that
expands their debt before they
enter the workforce.
I think we need to take a closer
look at our institutions of higher
education and see if students are
truly gaining what we deserve
from the way programs are
designed. We spend thousands
of
dollars
every
semester
expecting to learn new things,
be challenged and graduate in a
timely manner.
Some smaller or more elite
colleges have programs that
are designed to give students
more freedom. One program
is Open Curriculum at Brown
University, where students have
the flexibility to study and take
classes they want. Brown makes
curriculum
suggestions,
and
students can opt to use these or
create their own paths.
With all of this to consider,
I will still need to finish my
undergraduate
degree
to
apply for a job or master’s
degree programs if I want to
be successful in a society that
values
professionalism
and
wealth. So, here I am — just
taking my courses and trying
my best to get the most out
of my current situation. The
way undergraduate education
is
designed
at
big
public
universities will not just change
overnight. As students, we have
every right to point out the flaws
in this system because it will
ultimately affect our futures as
individuals and as a society.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, December 11, 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
ELLERY ROSENZWEIG | COLUMN
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Ashley Zhang
Ellery Rosenzweig can be reached at
erosenz@umich.edu.
A modest proposal
Brett Graham can be reached
at btgraham@umich.edu.
BRETT GRAHAM | COLUMN
BRETT
GRAHAM
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
Rethink undergraduate degrees
“A
re you sure that
sitting at the front
of the class won’t
help?” “Are you sure it’s not
that you just aren’t paying
attention?” “Why can’t you just
get a translator?”
Since my diagnosis as hard-
of-hearing at 14, I have heard
these types of questions from
many of the adults in my life.
These
questions
make
me
cringe; I always get the feeling
that the asker thinks they know
more about my disability than
I do. While I understand those
who ask these questions mean
well, they reflect ignorance
surrounding the issues of not
only the deaf and hard-of-
hearing community, but the
disabled community as a whole.
All of these questions have
made me wonder: What type
of training and how much of it
do educators receive to support
disabled students?
The answer? Very little.
Current teacher training does
not seem to be servicing the
students that need the most
support. As of 2007, the average
general education teacher only
takes about 1.5 courses with
a major focus on inclusion or
special education. Additionally,
university and job site training
does little to prepare teachers
for the situations they might
face teaching students with
disabilities.
Looking
back,
I
have
experienced problems dealing
with educators because of the
lack of training they receive.
Mostly, it is the occasional
snarky comment on how I am
just not paying attention in
class or that I should change my
behavior to make my own life
easier — believe me, if I could
I would. I hope if educators
are trained better on disability
education, there might be a
realization that these comments
are insensitive and misguided.
It is natural to wonder why a
general education teacher would
need special education training
in the first place. In the past,
general education teachers did
not need this training, as they
only dealt with “traditional”
students. Today, however, there
is a push to include special
education students in general
education classrooms.
Studies
show
this
push
for inclusion has a variety of
benefits for a special needs
student. A 2017 article from The
Atlantic
explains,
“Students
with disabilities who are placed
in general-education classrooms
get more instructional time,
have
fewer
absences,
and
have
better
post-secondary
outcomes.” For students who
have
social
or
behavioral
issues, being incorporated in
a general education classroom
helps them develop greater
social skills. Because of the
benefits that disabled students
receive,
schools
should
continue to integrate special
education students into their
general education classrooms.
Consequently, teachers should
receive training that will allow
them to cater to the needs of a
variety of students.
At the University of Michigan,
the School of Education does
not mention an explicit special
education
requirement
for
their elementary or secondary
education
programs.
Most
university education programs
do not emphasize training on
the needs of special education
students, and the University
of Michigan is no exception —
but we need to set an example
for other universities to follow.
The University needs to update
its
requirements,
especially
as schools move to integrate
special education students and
students with disabilities into
its classrooms.
Training
programs
will
better prepare educators for
the adaptability necessary to
teach disabled students. It is
obvious each student’s needs are
different, regardless of whether
they are a disabled student
or not. For myself, I am very
independent and do not need
much assistance. As I said earlier,
I mostly deal with insensitive
questions or people who refuse
to modify their speaking so I can
understand them.
However,
some
students
with physical, behavioral or
emotional
disabilities
need
more support to succeed. An
important part of this kind
of training is learning how to
adjust teaching styles to the
needs of the student. The lack
of training current teachers
have makes it difficult for
them to adapt the way they
need to in order to support
disabled students.
I am excited schools are
becoming
more
willing
to
include
students
with
disabilities in their classrooms.
Strong evidence points to the
success disabled students who
are taught in a general education
classroom can have. However,
we need to start preparing our
educators for teaching a wider
variety of students. It is unfair
of us to expect teachers will just
know how to support a disabled
student without the proper
training. Universities and job
training programs need to aid
teachers by requiring special
education courses and training.
EMILY HUHMAN | COLUMN
Teaching teachers
Emily Huhman can be reached at
huhmanem@umich.edu.
ERIN WAKELAND | CONTACT ERIN AT ERINRAY@UMICH.EDU