Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, January 24, 2018
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
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
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
Given the high amount of
time
CSG
representatives
dedicate
toward
serving
their
student
constituents,
the desire for compensation
is
legitimate.
However,
monetary
compensation
for CSG members, whether
through University funding
or a tuition waiver, is not
equitable to the leaders of
thousands of other student
organizations
who
invest
equally significant time into
their organizations. Sponsored
Student
Organizations
are
barred
from
paying
their
members due to University
regulations on the allocation
of
student
organization
funding. This, despite the
fact that for students who
need to take a job while
in
school,
uncompensated
extracurricular
leadership
may
put
valuable
opportunities out of reach.
While
CSG
may
exist
outside SSO policy — it relies
primarily on a student fee
of $9.19 per semester for its
$800,000 annual budget — it
should not view itself as more
valuable to the University and
its leaders more deserving of
compensation
than
others.
Directing public funds into
financial
compensation
for
the
CSG
executive
board
would,
therefore,
place
a
greater financial burden on all
students, with an inequitable
benefit for only CSG. As the
LSA
Student
Government
noted in a statement against
the
CSG
proposal,
“The
opinion of the body (CSG) is
… that involvement in CSG is
more important than any of
the other 1,400 plus student
organizations on campus.”
CSG’s unique role as the
representative body of the
entire campus does bolster
the argument for member
compensation.
However,
CSG’s current makeup falls
short of accurately reflecting
the
University’s
student
body
with
24.5
percent
of the 2016 entering class
coming
from
households
that make $250,000 or more
annually. According to the
Central Student Government
Demographic
Report,
approximately 37.2 percent
of CSG members come from
households
that
bring
in
$250,000 or more annually.
This socioeconomic disparity
between
CSG
and
the
University as a whole reflects
the barriers to membership
confronted by students of low
socioeconomic status.
Although
financial
compensation is meant to
increase
accessibility
for
students of lesser means, we
are concerned that Sarkar
has suggested modifying the
proposal to only compensate
executive
board
members.
Here, the proposal falls short
in its mission to increase
CSG’s accessibility to students
whose participation may have
previously been financially
impossible by only providing
compensation
for
a
select
number of students. Seeing as
the majority of the executive
board is comprised of non-
elected students, there is also
no guarantee that monetary
compensation will not further
exacerbate this barrier by
serving
as
a
vehicle
for
nepotism, promoting students
with similar backgrounds as
existing representatives.
In addition, the lack of
participation
in
elections
undermines CSG’s legitimacy
as
a
body
deserving
of
outsized compensation. Only
17.9 percent of students voted
in the 2017 CSG election,
reflecting low mobilization
on the part of the student
body. This is not to say that
CSG does not work in the
best interests of students, but
rather that most students may
not be wholly aware of CSG
and its important duties.
Members
could
perhaps
attempt to better fund the
Leadership
Engagement
Scholarship, a program created
by CSG last year in an effort to
compensate student leaders
for unpaid hours involved
with
their
extracurricular
commitments.
This
would
give all students, regardless
of financial need, the ability
to
become
more
involved
without
emphasizing
the
value of any one organization
over another. While previous
efforts by CSG to fund the
scholarship
through
a
$5
increase
to
student
fees
aroused opposition, we would
hope that the discussions of
funding mechanisms for CSG
compensation
could
easily
be extended to scholarship
funding.
Clearly,
better
outlets for extra funds are not
impossible to find.
Other
initiatives
for
addressing
the
executive
board’s
concerns
exist
such
as
academic
credit
compensation. Even though
newer members of CSG are
able to partake while taking
full course loads, executive
members
often
take
on
minimal credit commitments
due
to
the
longer
hours
needed for their positions.
Similar
credit
compensation
options exist for internship and
research programs, and we can
see how CSG experiences could
provide
similar
educational
opportunities.
We
understand
the
reasoning
and
motivations
behind
CSG’s
most
recent
efforts to secure compensation
for their time, effort and
dedication.
However,
the
issues that may arise from
monetary
compensation,
and, further, compensation
for
only
the
executive
board, would place unequal
value on CSG as a student
organization
compared
to the hundreds of other
student groups and leaders
on campus.
CSG should pursue compensation for all student leaders
O
n the morning of Nov. 9,
2016, my high school was
drowned in grief. Teachers
hugged
distraught
students,
classes
were canceled and an
atmosphere
of
defeat
filled the hallways.
Donald Trump was to
be the next President of
the United States, and my
small liberal high school
was in mourning.
In
contrast
with
many of my peers, I was
furious. I didn’t feel
sadness, but rather anger at the
hopelessness of the situation. I was
17, on the brink of actual political
influence, and yet I could not truly
voice my opinion. Yes, I could make
an impact through protest, writing
Facebook posts and encouraging
classroom discourse, but I could
not physically sign a ballot. Young
people need to be allowed to vote
earlier, and we deserve to have
influence in a political world that
affects us directly.
In the United States, the voting
age is 18. This is rarely questioned,
as most people are in agreement
that anyone younger than 18 is
too immature and uninformed to
actually vote consciously. They
argue that 16-year-olds are naive
and distracted; that they are
more concerned with high school
dramas than foreign policy or
healthcare initiatives.
This,
however,
is
a
great
misconception. In fact, through my
own experience, I know that young
people are politically conscious
and eager to influence change. The
issue arises in their motivation to
vote. Millennials are known to have
low voter turnout rates; about 50
percent of eligible youth, ages 18-29,
voted in the 2016 election. This is an
increase from the 2012 election, in
which 45 percent of millennials
voted. However, these low rates
do not directly translate into
indifference. This is a product of
their education and the stigmas
around youth voters.
Firstly, voting is not seen as a
privilege anymore but rather a
bland assignment that takes time,
effort and can be confusing. Low
voter turnout can be credited to
misinformed youth. There is little
taught in schools that inspire
students to exercise their right. I
made the observation that in high
school, classes like AP History
rushed students through facts,
so students focused more on
memorization
than
actually
learning
about politics. In fact,
in 2010 one-third of
high school seniors
don’t
understand
the basics of how the
American government
functions, the effect of
media on politics and
how
international
politics affect the U.S.
I remember that as a
16-year-old, I felt outraged at certain
political decisions, but my passion
was misguided. I had political
stances that were aggressive but
uncited. It wasn’t until my freshman
year of college when I received
in-depth schooling on these issues,
that suddenly, I found nuance and
direction in my ideals.
If the voting age is lowered,
schools will have to discard surface-
level history lessons and implement
dynamic,
relevant
coursework.
This will likely spark interest, and
more students will go to the polls.
It’s like any learned skill: The earlier
one starts playing an instrument or
speaking a language, the more likely
they are to stick with it, be good at
it and love it. High school political
curriculum simply needs to become
more complex; after this, the
responsibility will lay in the hands of
the youth.
This lack of trust of the youth’s
political potential is not only
discouraging but unfair. What
is decided in elections greatly
impacts millennials. For example,
the
2016
election
determined
which president would hold office
for the next four years; it happens
that those four years constitute my
undergraduate education. Donald
Trump’s presidency will directly
impact me as a college student; that
is, he will make decisions regarding
education that will affect my life, but
I have no say in it.
It is unjust that people on the
cusp of adulthood cannot have a
say in the laws and leadership that
will influence their lives. My high
school, whose student body was
devastated after Trump’s election,
became active in campaigning for
candidates; ninth graders would
attend Bernie Sanders rallies and
a group of sophomores started
a Young Democrats club. This is
not just an Ann Arbor liberalist
phenomenon;
it
demonstrates
that young people care about their
future and will do whatever they
can to influence it. For example,
in Portland, Oregon, hundreds of
students from more than three
different
schools
marched
to
Portland City Hall in anti-Trump
protests, and there have been many
more nationwide demonstrations
led by adolescents regarding a
variety of political issues. These
are simple, yet crucial examples of
participation young people have
in politics and how it is unfair that
they cannot apply their sentiments
to voting.
Additionally,
young
people
feel like their voice, or vote, is
insignificant. “One vote is never
going to be the difference,” LSA
freshman Arturo Perez stated
dejectedly. “Elections aren’t decided
by one vote.”
This mentality is dangerous, as
it discourages youth from voting:
Why should they make the effort
to register, drive to the polls, wait in
line, etc., if what they say isn’t heard?
It’s not that millennials are lazy, they
just don’t understand the importance
of their voice. The process of
registering to vote, especially if they
are away for college, can appear
tedious and after no reward. This
misconception is dangerous and
can be quelled through inspiring
education; if these students feel they
have a responsibility, if the nation
entrusts them, they will combat this
“laziness” and voter turnout will
skyrocket.
Former
Chilean
President
Salvador Allende once said: “Ser
joven y no ser revolucionario es una
contradicción hasta biológica.” In
English, this translatees to: “To be
young and not a revolutionary is
a biological contradiction.” These
words, however aggressive, hold an
important message. Young people
are arguably the most influential
members of society, and politics
affect us greatly. If we lower
the voting age, the youth will
realize their power and utilize
it. Millennial voter turnout will
increase, political consciousness
will expand and we will gain access
to the brainpower of a sometimes
hidden, but always stirring, subset
of our nation: the youth.
The need for a younger voting age
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA | COLUMN
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our Editorial Board meets Mondays and Wednesdays 7:15-8:45 PM at
our newsroom at 420 Maynard Street. All are welcome to come discuss
national, state and campus affairs.
Maggie Mihaylova can be reached
at mmihaylo@umich.edu.
“
Can
we
please
watch
anything else?” I implored
my mother as I sat down
for my after-school snack while
secretly hoping she wouldn’t
acquiesce to my demand. My bus
dropped me off every day just
in time for “The Oprah Winfrey
Show” to come on at 4:00 p.m.,
and I had grown very fond of the
woman who seemed to ooze
charisma even through the TV
screen. Oprah became a part of
our families; she was our mom,
sister, daughter and aunt all at
the same time. She reminded
us of this infectious personality
with
her
monumental
and
empowering speech last week
at the Golden Globe Awards.
Seemingly instantaneously after
the speech started, an all-too-
familiar call to action resurfaced:
“Oprah for president.”
I understand the appeal. I
really do. In many ways she is the
opposite of President Trump so
many of us crave; she is soft when
he is abrasive, generous where he
is stingy and likable while he’s
laughable. However, I cannot
in good conscience endorse her
for president.
Her
candidacy
would
fundamentally lessen what it
means to be president of this great
country. It is a slap in the face to
so many who dedicate their lives
to just have the chance to be in a
position to lift up a nation. What
does it say to John McCain, a war
hero and lifetime civil servant, if
Oprah wins and he didn’t? What
does it say if we elect the second
person in a row with no political
experience or related educational
background (a vast majority of
presidents since the beginning of
the 20th century have law degrees
or advanced degrees in business
and economics)? In a time where
we wouldn’t hire an electrician
in our homes without thoroughly
reading their reviews and making
sure they have the requisite
training,
it
seems
absolutely
insane that we would be willing to
give the hardest job on the planet
without any record of how they
would act in such an environment.
This past week, I learned about
electoral politics in the developing
world, the weaknesses of different
times of autocracies and even
the legal responsibilities of the
president. As I sat in these classes
and heard my peers discuss checks
to presidential power, I couldn’t
help but let my mind wander to the
proposition of Oprah for president.
Just by being an upperclassmen
majoring in political science, we
probably have more of a baseline
of knowledge for the job than
Oprah does. Having interned
for
various
campaigns
and
political organizations, I have
seen countless people who have
foregone more lucrative career
paths to start on a path of public
service. Oprah didn’t do that. You
don’t become a billionaire by
sacrificing your life to public
service. There is a very real
difference between being a
good person and being a good
public servant.
We don’t need Oprah. If you
want a candidate with a record of
taking on gender issues, especially
sexual assault, see Senator Kirsten
Gillibrand, D—N.Y. She has had a
history of advocating for women’s
rights,
especially
combating
sexual
harassment.
Gillibrand
got her bachelor’s degree from
Dartmouth in Asian Studies and
went to law school at UCLA. In her
career, she has worked as special
counsel to Andrew Cuomo, then—
U.S. Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development—and served
as a member of the House of
Representatives. She is eminently
more
qualified
than
Oprah
Winfrey and deserves your vote.
If a minority woman who has
broken down barriers her whole
life is more your speed, look no
further than Senator Kamala
Harris, D—Calif. Harris, a senator
from California, is the second
African American woman in the
Senate and first Indian American.
She received her bachelor’s in
political science and economics
from Howard University and
her law degree from Hastings
College.
Furthermore,
the
senator has worked as a district
attorney
and
as
California’s
attorney general. She is also
richly deserving of your vote.
That right there is the crux
of the issue — as soon as you
pit Oprah against any qualified
politician who has committed
their life to serving, she should
never stand a chance. Yet, a recent
poll of a possible Democratic
primary
has
her
handily
beating Gillibrand and Senator
Elizabeth
Warren,
D-Mass.
in a hypothetical one-on-one
matchups. So, it’s up to Oprah to
do what’s best for our country
and come out and definitively say
she’s not running.
Oprah,
we
all
love
you.
Your
humanitarian
work
is
unparalleled, and your impact
as a role model can never be
forgotten. I’m not even saying
you would be a bad president —
you have shown your ability and
intellect time and time again.
However, this isn’t about you.
This is about the office of the
President of the United States.
This is about having enough
respect for that office to say that
not just anybody can do the job.
This is about reaffirming the fact
that to be president, you actually
need to know what you are doing.
Selfishly, this is about me. This
is about me waking up at 8:30 a.m.
and learning about autocracies
and then campaigning in the
evenings because I hope to one
day be the President of the United
States and be in the position to lift
up a nation. Oprah, please don’t
do it because I want to one day
run for office in a country where
we still recognize the work and
sacrifices it takes to have that
unparalleled responsibility.
Rishabh Kewalramani can be
reached at rkew@umich.edu.
Don’t do it Oprah
RISHABH KEWALRAMANI | COLUMN
FROM THE DAILY
C
entral Student Government President Anushka Sarkar, an LSA senior,
concluded the Fall 2017 semester by vetoing resolution A.R. 7-026,
which would have called for the use of University of Michigan funding
to monetarily compensate members of CSG for their work. While this veto
means CSG cannot further pursue the specific resolution, Sarkar has said that
she is continuing to reach out to University bodies such as the Office of Student
Life to seek an alternative solution to compensate members.
The lack of
participation
in elections
undermines CSG’s
legitimacy as a
body deserving
of outsized
compensation
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.
MAGDALENA
MIHAYLOVA