T

his 
year, 
I 
recently 
enrolled 
in 
the 
Ross 
School of Business from 
the College of Literature, Science 
and Arts to be on track for 
pursuing dual degrees in English 
and Business. Now that the first 
semester is nearly over, I’ve 
noticed some notable differences 
between 
the 
schools. 
More 
specifically, I’ve found that the 
Business School is very different 
from what I expected.
One key difference is that the 
Business School focuses on the 
future while LSA focuses on the 
present. As a Business student, 
I’ve noticed that I am constantly 
pushed to think about the future: 
There are recruiters in the Winter 
Garden most days and I constantly 
overhear people talking about 
upcoming interviews and job 
offers. 
Every 
sophomore 
is 
required to create a résumé and 
refine it until we get a certain 
score on an online résumé grader 
— VMock — as part of one of our 
classes.
In contrast, my LSA professors 
rarely discuss our future careers, 
and instead will only ask about 
my major. Sometimes, they’ll 
ask whether or not I have any 
idea what kind of career I want 
to pursue. Granted, most of my 
courses were humanities and 
social science-related, so I don’t 
know if this is the same in other 
disciplines. I’ve also found that 
my LSA professors are much more 
likely to discuss current issues 
than my Business professors are 
(though instructors in general 
usually shy away from such 
topics), and that the coursework 
more easily ties in with non-
business related current events 
than my Ross coursework does.
Other differences include the 
ambience: While LSA courses 
are so diverse and plentiful that 
defining an exact atmosphere is 
impossible, Ross is most decidedly 
cutthroat and stressful. This is 
largely due to the Business School 
distribution (or the “Ross curve”) 
that assigns a certain percentage of 
students to a grade range for each 
class. While this system suggests 
that receiving good grades in 
Ross courses is easy, the exams 
are extremely difficult, making it 
difficult to receive an A. Moreover, 
because 
of 
the 
distribution, 
students don’t necessarily have 
to do well on the exams to receive 
a good grade: They just need to 
do better than their peers. This 
creates an extremely competitive 
atmosphere in which students are 

constantly worried about their 
peers’ performances just as much 
as they are worried about their 
own.
Interestingly, 
the 
Business 
School also places a great deal of 
importance on teamwork. Most 
of our assignments are completed 
in groups and often take hours to 
finish, requiring students to meet 
with their teams on a regular 
basis. We’re provided with tutors 
who are available multiple times 
a week, as well as peer advisors 
with whom we can speak should 
we have any questions about 
academics or recruiting.
This stark contrast between the 
nature of the distribution, which 
pits students against each other, 
and the need to work in teams, 
which connects students, baffles 
me. How can a school that stresses 
the importance of collaboration 
in every part of its curriculum 
use a grading system that fosters 
unhealthy competition among its 
students? I do understand that 
the grading system does mimic 
the business world — people in 
business all compete for the same 
opportunities. However, having 
to work with other students 
while knowing that they probably 
secretly want me to fail my exams 
so that they do better, and at 
times feeling the same way about 
them, makes me feel as though 
our collaboration is marred by 
superficiality. This isn’t to say 
that Business students don’t care 
about each other — students in 
the Business School commiserate 
about their shared classes (we all 
take the same core courses) and 
are always much more willing to 
help each other than I’ve noticed 
students in my LSA courses are.
The part about the Business 
School that surprised me the 
most, however, is how different 
it is from its reputation, which 
can be surmised in one word: 
Rosshole. There’s a clear image 
of who exactly a “Rosshole” is: 
He’s a rich white guy from New 
York whose parents work on Wall 
Street. He wears Patagonia and 
Canada Goose, interned or plans 
to intern at Goldman Sachs and is 
a frat bro. He rides a Bird around 
campus in a suit. Do these types 
of students exist in the Business 
School? 
Absolutely. 
However, 
they don’t make up the entire 
student population, and the term 
“Rosshole” is based on mostly 
false assumptions.
There’s a statement that a 
senior at the Business School 
I spoke with last year told me 

that sums up what it is like as a 
student at the business school. She 
said that if I do join the Business 
School, I’ll meet both the best and 
worst people I’ll ever meet. This 
is pretty spot on. I’ve met some 
really wonderful people at the 
Business School whom I hope I 
can continue to get to know even 
after I graduate. Most people in 
the Business School, including 
people I don’t even know, have 
extended offers to help me with 
anything I need, whether that 
be with fine-tuning my résumé, 
completing my homework or just 
venting about school. I’ve only met 
a couple of people who I wouldn’t 
mind never seeing again.
In addition, the awful people 
at the Business School aren’t 
exceptionally meaner or more 
annoying than the generic asshole 
(more 
high-strung, 
maybe). 
But the truth is that there are 
annoying and privileged people 
everywhere. Business students 
aren’t special in that department. 
“LSAhole” just doesn’t have the 
same ring to it that “Rosshole” 
has — and truthfully, because 
the 
Rosshole 
stereotype 
has 
little merit, I find the term to be 
strangely endearing.
Of course, the Business School 
is far from perfect. According 
to the Office of the Registrar, 
about 63 percent of students 
enrolled as of fall 2018 are male, 
while only about 37 percent are 
female. There are also 2,208 
white students out of the 4,223 
enrolled and only 142 Black 
students 
and 
218 
Hispanic 
students. These numbers belie 
the need for more diversity in 
the Business School, and while 
they have been becoming more 
even in recent years, Ross must 
be held responsible for working 
towards more diversity.
Therefore, stereotypes such as 
the “Rosshole” that are parroted 
by students are mostly untrue and 
oversimplify the real problem of 
diversity in the Business School 
and the University as a whole. 
As a student enrolled in both 
the Business School and LSA, 
it’s become clear to me that the 
strange tension between the two 
schools that is unnecessary and 
founded on misguided beliefs. 
Being in both schools certainly 
requires finesse at times, but 
it shouldn’t be because of any 
friction between the two schools.

I

n December, world leaders will 
gather in Katowice, Poland 
for the 24th Conference of 
the Parties to the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate 
Change, dubbed COP24, to review 
the ongoing implementation of the 
2015 Paris agreement and discuss 
the next steps in combating climate 
change. An air of fresh urgency 
surrounds the summit following 
the release of a special report from 
the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change, which warned of 
catastrophic consequences unless 
the world cuts its carbon emissions, 
substantially and immediately.
The conference comes shortly after 
the publication of an ominous U.S. 
government report last week. The 
report projects climate change will 
cost hundreds of billions of dollars 
due to extreme weather, decreasing 
agricultural yields, fatal heat waves, 
the spread of vector-borne diseases 
and other adverse health effects, 
ultimately shrinking the American 
economy and endangering millions 
of lives.
Despite withdrawing from the 
Paris agreement, President Donald 
Trump’s 
administration 
will 
send representatives to Katowice. 
However, rather than participate 
in 
meaningful 
discourse, 
the 
American delegation plans to give 
a presentation on the merits of coal. 
Yes, at an international summit to 
combat climate change, the Trump 
administration will be promoting the 
dirtiest fossil fuel.
Trump’s refusal to acknowledge 
the climatic impacts of coal is 
absurd, but frankly unsurprising 
given his long history of denying 
human-caused climate change and 
its grave implications. Trump and 
the Republican Party’s stubborn 
refusal to believe proven climate 
science contributes to the American 
public’s ignorance on the matter, 
particularly amongst their base. A 
majority of Republicans don’t believe 
humans cause climate change and 

say the seriousness of global warming 
is exaggerated. The result is the 
extreme politicization of what should 
be a nonpartisan, non-controversial 
issue. After all, with the exception of 
the U.S., every country in the world 
— including those ruled by both left-
wing and right-wing governments — 
is part of the Paris agreement.
While the rest of the world seems 
committed to solving the issue of 
climate change, this is not an issue 
that can be solved without American 

involvement. The U.S. is the world’s 
second-highest emitter, accounting 
for 15 percent of total emissions in 
2015 and has among the highest 
emissions per capita. Given the 
urgency of action outlined in the latest 
IPCC report, the world simply cannot 
afford for any major country, much 
less the U.S., to not aggressively cut 
emissions if the world is to avoid the 
severe consequences of warming in 
excess of 1.5 degrees Celsius. The U.S. 
prides itself on being a global leader, 
but when it comes to international 
efforts to alleviate climate change, 
the U.S. has shown little interest in 
participating, much less leading.
The scary thing is that the Paris 
agreement was just the first step of 
many in truly cutting emissions. The 
agreement instructed each country 
to devise its own emissions reduction 
target and a plan to reach it, but it 
stopped short of requiring a certain 
level of emissions cuts by any given 
time or mandating certain types 
of emissions-cutting mechanisms. 
The agreement was obviously a 
significant first step, but countries 
must now reevaluate their targets to 

ensure the world collectively reaches 
the 1.5 degrees Celcius target (or get 
as close as possible), and establish a 
concrete plan of action to achieve their 
individual targets then.
Emissions reductions will not 
happen automatically. Governments 
must be prepared to implement 
policies to guide the economy to 
lower emissions levels. There are 
two main ways to do this. First, by 
implementing carbon pricing through 
either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade 
system, which forces companies and 
consumers to consider the external 
costs (i.e. climate change costs) of 
carbon emissions. This way is the 
most efficient and effective but 
also the most politically difficult 
to accomplish — President Barack 
Obama tried to establish a cap-and-
trade system in the early years of 
his presidency but failed, despite 
Democratic majorities in Congress. 
The second way is through a bundle 
of individual regulations, such as 
fuel efficiency standards in cars and 
subsidies for renewable energies. 
In this realm, President Trump 
is derailing existing regulations, 
lowering fuel efficiency standards, 
slashing 
funding 
for 
renewable 
energy research and development 
and proposing subsidies for derelict 
coal-fired power plants to keep them 
profitable.
These actions defy logic and have 
serious implications. The time for 
dragging our feet has passed. The 
world has an extremely narrow 
window to address climate change, 
yet the Trump administration is 
pulling the U.S. backward. U.S. non-
involvement will sink international 
efforts, and that will sink the planet. 
The upcoming conference in Katowice 
is a reminder that the current U.S. 
response to climate change is not just 
inadequate, it is pitiful.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman

Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

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

KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN

Between two worlds, Ross and LSA

Trump and climate change

NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN

Krystal Hur can be reached at 

kryshur@umich.edu

Noah Harrison can be reached at 

noahharr@umich.edu.

There is also a new caveat that 
allows both the accuser and the 
accused to cross-examine each 
other through an adviser or lawyer 
in what will essentially become a 
full-on trial that colleges are not 
necessarily trained to handle. It 
also creates a narrower definition 
of sexual assault, referring to it 
as an act “so severe, pervasive 
and objectively offensive that it 
effectively denies a person equal 
access to the school’s education 
program or activity.” This will 
make the line between what is and 
is not considered sexual assault 
blurrier and effectively harder 
to prove in this new courtroom-
type setting. In essence, these 
new proposals set forth a rhetoric 
that aligns with the air of doubt 
so often attributed to sexual 
assault survivors. The Michigan 
Daily Editorial Board opposes 
the new proposals and urges the 
University to continue to support 
survivors in the face of these 
changes.
Most at stake with the new 
proposals is the fact that the 
University not only has a recent 
history of sexual assault cases but 
the existing investigation process, 
though comprehensive, has flaws 
in implementation. New proposals 
would build upon an already 
unstable investigation process. 
Just recently, the University has 
faced several sexual assault cases. 
Samuel Schultz, a New York-
based baritone, accused School of 
Music, Theatre & Dance professor 
David 
Daniels 
and 
Daniels’s 
husband Scott Walters of sexual 
assault. Daniels has taken a leave 
of absence from the University 
but still denies the allegations. 
An investigation is active but 
no arrests have been made, 
according to The Daily. In another 
instance, a senior in the School of 
Music, Theatre & Dance reported 
being sexually assaulted by her 

Graduate Student Instructor. As 
highlighted by The Daily, the 
student’s experience with the 
current Title IX reporting process 
was tedious and slow. These are 
just a handful of the known Title 
IX cases that have occurred at the 
University. We can only imagine 

how many more instances like 
this have affected students across 
campus.
The new Title IX rules will also 
essentially make schools less liable 
for sexual assault charges. Under 
the new proposal, schools are 
only responsible for investigating 
if they have “actual knowledge” 
of the assault, meaning a formal 
complaint would have to be 
correctly reported to the right 
person or group to take care of 
the claim. Not only does this 
inhibit the reporting procedure, 
but the requirement of “actual 
knowledge” 
inherently 
casts 
doubt 
on 
those 
who 
come 
forward.
In a similar affront to reporting 
procedures, schools are no longer 
required to deal with off-campus 
assaults, where 68 percent of the 
student body live and where many 
sexual assaults may occur. Victims 
must also prove their case through 
“clear and convincing evidence,” 
making proof of sexual assault 
elevated to a higher caliber. This 
is in stark contrast to the lower 
evidentiary 
level 
established 

by President Barack Obama’s 
administration. With the ease of 
liability, the new provisions could 
make the investigating procedure 
more difficult for survivors and 
also further deter universities 
from 
taking 
action. 
This 
is 
unsurprising, given the amount 
of time and money that goes into 
a sexual assault investigation, 
and the damage it can do to a 
school’s 
reputation. 
Instead 
of 
supporting 
sexual 
assault 
survivors, DeVos, responsible for 
the true well-being of students, 
has proactively inhibited the 
reporting process and effectively 
introduced proposals espousing a 
rhetoric and subsequent actions 
that do the opposite of protecting 
student’s well-being.
With these new rules close 
to being enacted, we implore 
the University, and all other 
universities 
and 
colleges, 
to 
hold itself to higher standards. 
The University owes it to its 
students, past and future, to 
keep survivors and students in 
mind when navigating these 
cases, and most importantly, safe 
from harm. For those who have 
been affected by sexual assault 
and violence, we encourage you 
not to be deterred by these rule 
changes. Your experience matters 
and your safety is of the utmost 
importance.
If you have experienced any 
sort of sexual assault, please visit 
the Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Awareness Center. We have listed 
some resources for those in need, 
including the SAPAC website:
SAPAC 
homepage: 
https://
sapac.umich.edu
Resources: 
https://sapac.
umich.edu/resources/list/
campus
Options for reporting: https://
sapac.umich.edu/article/options-
reporting
CAPS homepage: https://caps.

FROM THE DAILY

DeVos’s proposal fails survivors
L

ast week, our very own Michigan-born Secretary of Education, 
Betsy DeVos, decided to make sexual assault investigations even 
harder to prosecute through new Title IX rules. In an overhaul of 
campus sexual assault rules, DeVos reduced the liability of colleges and 
universities investigating sexual misconduct claims and increased the due 
process rights of the defendant. or lawyer in what will essentially become 
a full-on trial that colleges are not necessarily trained to handle. It also 

New provisions 
would build 
upon an already 
unstable 
investigation 
process 

This is not an issue 
that can be solved 
without Amerian 
involvement

EMILY WOLFE | CONTACT EMILY AT ELWOLFE@UMICH.EDU

