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