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