Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A— Monday, March 12, 2018
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
The responsibility of the endowment
The FBI Man
MATTHEW FRIEND | COLUMN
HANK MINOR | COLUMN
T
he unusually persistent
national focus on gun
control has given rise
to online satire of proposals —
particularly in Florida — to arm
teachers as a countermeasure
for mass shootings. Twitter,
as usual, delivered the most
popular examples — all of which
centered around the idea of how
comical it would be for less-than-
threatening high school teachers
to carry handguns.
This reaction doesn’t seem
to be unique to the gun control
discussion, though; we have a
habit online of satirizing terrible
things as a way of dealing with
them. Trump becomes Drumpf,
and his antics are exaggerated on
“Saturday Night Live” every, well,
Saturday night.
The “FBI man” — a fictional
government
agent
watching
you
through
your
webcam,
commenting on your life — became
a joke earlier in the year, too, with
some tweets on the topic reaching
100,000 or more retweets.
The worrying thing here is that
all of these things are real — either
as legislation, executive policy
or political reality: The National
Security Agency can watch you
through your webcam; Floridan
politicians are pushing a measure
appropriating
funds
to
arm
teachers; and our president does
actually say ridiculous, incoherent
things on a daily basis.
I don’t think this is some
coordinated effort to normalize
shocking
state
action.
I
do,
however, think that it’ll become
increasingly damaging to our
political environment to treat
everything as an absurd joke. It’s a
way of coping — and we certainly
need ways of doing that — but it
numbs us to the legitimate flaws of
our government.
We can only joke about a
guardian-angel-esque “FBI man”
because Edward Snowden is in
exile in Russia after leaking a
cache of government documents,
and because Chelsea Manning
was tortured for doing the same
only three years prior. Somewhat
similarly,
President
Donald
Trump’s strange way of speaking
only matters because half of
the electorate voted him into
office. We’ve found this way of
acclimating to dramatic change
in our status quo, but I worry it
comes at the cost of our ability to be
genuinely outraged.
Sure, there’s the good side
of this tendency — the way the
Stoneman Douglas teens have
managed to hold our attention on
gun control is a fantastic example
— but it seems like the majority of
our outrage has come to resemble
the two-minute hate from “1984.”
Liberal college students and the
right wing alike fly into a fury for
the weekend. Rick Gates pleads
guilty to financial fraud and lying
to investigators, and the left wing
speculates on exactly when Trump
will be put in handcuffs.
It’s not easy to find a
solution, though. Satire is an
arguably important part of
political discourse; asking that
we stop making light of political
events is impractical and could
take something away from the
public dialogue — still, the risks
remain. We could ask people to
know more about their political
system, but assuming everyone
has the time to understand
every issue that will be parodied
is
naïve.
Satirical
political
content is widespread, because
people don’t have the time to
study the news in meticulous
detail and want to consume it in
a different medium.
Asking
comedians
and
partisans to censor their content
for the health of the system is
borderline absurd, and legal
regulation — if it was even
possible — would be a solution
worse than the problem it tries
to solve.
What’s most likely to happen
— and what happens most
often now — is that partisan
interests will conduct clarifying
messaging out of self-interest.
Social movements have to be
grown
and
encouraged
by
organizers, and parties filter
their various factions through
the primary process. Perhaps
one of the responsibilities of
evolving media is to clarify pop
culture politics.
That said, I think it’s most
likely
nothing
will
happen,
and there will be no significant
reaction. Instinctual desire for
social gratification will push
people toward participation, and
we will simply have to grapple
with the consequences of a public
discourse that treats everything
as a joke by default.
I don’t want to emulate Fox
News and come off as if I’m
just complaining about the way
Americans can’t name every
state capitol or recite the Pledge
of Allegiance. Civic engagement
is complicated, and lots of
people live lives that don’t give
them the luxury of sustained
investment in daily political
drama. That said, overcoming
our growing tendency to cope
with
political
problems
by
making them into comedy is
going to be a major problem of
future and current activists.
Hank Minor can be reached at
hminor@umich.edu.
D
uring their respective
seasons, I watch both
“The Bachelor” and “The
Bachelorette.” I’m pretty invested
in the franchise. I love the drama,
the mindlessness and the excuse
to hang out with my friends, snack
and procrastinate on a weeknight.
Last week brought us the finale
of this season of “The Bachelor.”
If you don’t know the premise
of the show, I’ll give you a quick
rundown.
The
season
starts
with 29 women competing for a
(supposedly) eligible bachelor’s
attention. Each week, beginning
with the very first episode, some
women are eliminated while other
women get roses and security until
the next week. They travel to a few
exotic locales all the while going on
single and group dates and trying
to deal with the fact they’re living
with all of the other girls their love
interest is dating. The show has
its flaws, but I’m going to set them
aside for this column to look at an
unexpected positive.
The
show,
of
course,
focuses on the relationships
between the individual women
and the bachelor. It rarely
shows the relationships among
the women, unless the scene
in some way contributes to
some narrative of discontent.
The women as we see them
are either indifferent toward
each other or actively negative.
The network likes to show the
audience instances of women
mocking, doubting or trying to
undermine others. The editing
of the show often portrays the
women in fierce competition;
there are tears, gossip and
aggressive
confrontations.
There is always a villain who
can be picked out right away
by experienced viewers, and a
significant portion of the show
is always spent on encounters
between the “bad guy” and
the rest of the women. When
she is finally sent home, often
in a way that is designed to
maximize her embarrassment,
there is a sense of triumph.
The producers work for
drama on “The Bachelorette”
too, when the house is instead
filled
with
men.
However,
the tone the drama takes is
different.
The
anticipatory
scenes suggest violent, physical
altercations. The outcome of a
disagreement is fists instead
of tears. On both shows, you’ll
see pettiness. You’ll see hurt
feelings, gossip and contestants
seizing
opportunities
to
convince the love interest that
someone else is there for the
wrong reasons. Despite the
similarity in behavior, it seems
the way contestants are treated
often suggests there are far
more instances of animosity
and personal attacks among
the women.
There’s
an
underrated
highlight that comes out of
the show, and it’s a surprising
one. You have to search outside
the two-hour episodes to find
it because the network won’t
show you. If you turn to the
social media accounts of the
contestants on the show, you’ll
find that strong friendships
form over the course of their
competition. You’ll find that,
sure, not everyone was best
friends — that never happens
when you stick 20 strangers in
a house together. But all of them
emerge with bonds to the other
women, those who they were
supposed to view as an obstacle
between them and their happy
ending. The network edits in
such a way that they show the
most contention and drama
possible — they do this because
the audience asks for it.
The world outside the show
reveals the women care deeply
about each other. They travel
together beyond the show, they
encourage
each
other,
they
support each other. In this
season’s heartbreaking finale,
the bachelor, Arie, proposed
to one woman, Becca, before
calling it off for a second chance
with the “runner-up,” Lauren.
The women banded together
to show support for both Becca
and Lauren and call out Arie’s
immature
and
disrespectful
behavior. It would have been
easy in that moment to take
sides and place blame on one
of the women, but they didn’t.
They reminded the nation of
viewers Lauren wasn’t to blame
for Becca’s heartache, and Becca
herself shared her well wishes
for the couple.
It’s
important
to
me
because I, and many others,
grew up with the narrative
that women always had to be
in competition. In movies, in
TV shows, in whatever media,
we so frequently see female
characters tearing down other
women. We see “frenemies”
and mean girls. It’s refreshing
to see the way that real women
(even if they’re in an unrealistic
situation) behave when they’re
not directed by a writing team
who suggests drama is the
only
highlight
of
women’s
relationships. Here, in maybe
the unlikeliest of circumstances,
where the situation could excuse
competition and high emotion,
strong
and
lasting
female
friendships formed.
The friendships don’t exactly
redeem the show. Seeing the
relationships that come out of
it doesn’t make me feel better
about the way the shows rely on
manipulation and necessitate
heartbreak. But they do make
me hopeful, in a way. On one
side, you see the women as the
network wants you to see them:
petty, dramatic, emotional and
hoping to get a proposal at the
end of the show, no matter the
cost. But on the other side, you
see women who wanted an
adventure, who really did sign
up to find love and who found
it, even if it wasn’t where they
expected.
A bright spot on the Bachelor
DANIELLE COLBURN | COLUMN
Danielle Colburn can be reaached at
decol@umich.edu.
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
NIA LEE | CONTACT AT NIA AT LEENIA@UMICH.EDU.
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.
O
ver the past couple of
months, a series of articles
published by the Detroit
Free Press has exposed several
controversial practices regarding
the
University
of
Michigan’s
endowment and its investment/
distribution. Some of the practices
in
question
include
potential
conflicts of interest arising from
the investment of endowment
funds in large University donors,
the decision-making process of
how much of the endowment is
annually allotted to the University
and the lack of investment in
businesses and funds located in the
state of Michigan.
To address these issues and
determine the validity of these
concerns, I think it is important to
better understand the purpose of
the University’s endowment. Does
the endowment, an $11 billion fund
meant to support the University
and its initiatives, exist solely
for the purpose of maximizing
financial returns, or does it have an
additional responsibility?
According to materials provided
by the University, the endowment’s
mission is to create “a guaranteed,
never-ending source of income
to support student scholarships,
professorships, innovative programs,
learning opportunities and life-
saving research.” In other words,
it exists to earn as much money as
possible in the long-run, and to pump
a portion of the earnings back into
the school. I found no mention of
any political or ethical guidelines for
where the funds are invested or of
any specific types of industries they
choose to support. In fact, when the
Central Student Government passed
a resolution urging the University to
consider divesting from groups that
are associated with anti-Palestinian
interests, the University responded
by saying they “strongly oppose
any action involving the boycott,
divestment or sanction of Israel
… (the University of Michigan)
remain(s)
committed
to
the
University’s longstanding policy to
shield the endowment from political
pressures,” further reiterating their
non-partisan
stance
regarding
investment decisions.
Perhaps this singular focus on
financial returns is justified, as the
University’s finances are heavily
dependent
on
the
endowment
and its performance. According
to financial statements provided
by the University, the endowment
contributed over $300 million to all
U-M campuses this past year, about
26 percent of all University revenue.
The endowment provides almost
as much money to the University’s
budget as is contributed by the state
of Michigan. So yes, I do agree with
the University’s stance that the
endowment’s primary purpose is
to continue to grow at high levels,
at least enough to support critical
practices such as providing financial
aid, paying competitive salaries
to attract the best faculty and
maintaining our beautiful campus.
I feel it would be ignorant,
though, to end the conversation
here and ignore the endowment’s
secondary responsibilities. The
University of Michigan is a public
university with the purpose of
educating the future leaders of
Michigan and preparing the state
for future success. From firsthand
experience,
I
can
state
the
University consistently preaches
positive values and behaviors to
the student body, including direct
statements by University President
Mark Schlissel denouncing acts
of hate and violence that occur on
campus and beyond.
Money equals power and
influence — a perhaps unfortunate
but important truth. The University
has nearly $11 billion worth of
power and influence at its disposal
via the endowment. Economic
boycotts have the potential to be
successful tools to enact change,
as demonstrated by the successful
divestment
movement
against
apartheid-era South Africa in the
1980s. Positive change doesn’t just
come from withholding capital
from harmful movements, as
investing money in struggling or
capital-scarce communities has the
potential to create good as well.
A
close-to-home
example
of how investments can benefit
communities
can
be
seen
through Shinola, a luxury goods
retailer based out of Detroit.
Shinola performs the bulk of its
manufacturing
and
operations
locally, rather than pursuing less-
expensive alternatives outside of
Detroit. This deliberate investment
in the city of Detroit created
hundreds of jobs during one of the
most economically-trying times in
the city’s history.
Admittedly, my experience and
knowledge of investing are much less
than that of the individuals in charge
of our University’s endowment, and
I don’t claim to possess a detailed
plan about how to create the most
good with the endowment funds.
With this said, I do believe there
are plenty of opportunities for the
University to pursue its primary
goal of maximizing financial returns
while making investment decisions
that could benefit students, the state
of Michigan and society as a whole.
One potential idea of how the
endowment could achieve this is
investing in socially responsible
funds, which make the conscious
decision to not invest in companies
or ventures that they feel are
harmful to the world. And yes,
despite popular opinion, data
exists demonstrating that socially
responsible funds can in fact
perform just as well as their “sinful”
counterparts. With the continually
growing concern surrounding gun
control and school shootings, the
University could at the very least
consider ways to leverage their
investing power to put pressure
on firms related to firearms
manufacturing and retail.
Creating a mandate requiring a
certain portion of the endowment,
no matter how nominal, to be
invested in projects that create
growth and employment in the
state of Michigan is another
option. There are many legitimate
financial reasons for why the
University
invests
its
money
globally, but I cannot imagine
the state of Michigan lacks so
greatly in economic activity that
the endowment cannot find more
investment
opportunities
to
support the state while keeping
their investment goals intact. It
may take more effort, but I believe
the duty the University has more
than justifies this extra time.
Perhaps
even
exploring
the idea of using endowment
dollars to provide subsidized,
low-interest loans for students
as
an
avenue
for
making
education
more
affordable
while growing the endowment
(albeit at a slightly lower rate)
is a possibility the University
could consider.
The endowment’s continued
growth is crucial to the future
success and stability of our
University. Those in charge of
the endowment hold a great
responsibility, making decisions
that
will
affect
students,
alumni, employees of the school
and many other stakeholders
for years to come. I believe the
responsibility of the endowment
extends beyond purely financial
returns though. It is certainly
up for debate how much those
individuals in charge of the
endowment can support these
initiatives while achieving their
primary objective of making
money for the University, but it
is a topic that requires further
discussion. But all else equal,
if we have the option to invest
our money in ventures or funds
that might make our state and
the world better off, it is the
responsibility of those in charge
to make that happen, and for
the University to put its money
where its mouth is.
Matthew Friend can be reaached at
mjfri@umich.edu.