T
his past Monday, the White
House
Correspondents’
Association
announced
it would be departing
from its usual tradition
of inviting a comedian to
roast the president and
the press corps at next
year’s
annual
White
House Correspondents’
Dinner. Instead, in a
controversial decision,
the organization has
invited
renowned
historian Ron Chernow
to deliver a speech
on First Amendment rights and
freedom of the press. Though these
topics are certainly relevant to
today’s volatile political climate and
the strained relationship between
the media and the President
Donald Trump’s administration,
the WHCA’s decision to stray from
a decades old tradition ultimately
compromises the very principles
upon which the association was
founded.
There are plenty of reasons why
the WHCA should continue to host
comedians at its annual dinner, but
let’s first start with the obvious—the
comedy roast is literally the only
notable part of the event.
The
annual
White
House
Correspondents’ dinner is an ornate
black-tie spectacle during which
journalists and politicians get to
schmooze with A-list Hollywood
celebrities and athletes. For many
of us, the event is simply a reminder
of the stark divide between the elite
and regular, everyday Americans.
But for a mere 20 minutes or so, the
unforgiving comedy roast reminds
us that the rich and powerful are
human, and they are not invincible.
From the late Steve Bridges’ uncanny
George W. Bush impression to Seth
Meyers’s relentless mocking of
then-candidate Trump’s “birther”
controversy,
America’s
most
beloved comedians have shown us
even presidents and billionaires are
not immune to the sting of satire.
Though public regard for the
dinner is sure to dwindle following
the WHCA’s recent deviation from
tradition, perhaps the greatest
fallout from this decision is the press’
symbolic gesture of submission to
the Trump administration.
It is a dangerous time for the
media. Since his 2016 presidential
campaign, Trump has demonstrated
his inability to coexist peacefully
with journalists who
criticize
the
current
administration.
Not
only has he publicly
denounced major news
outlets like CNN and
The New York Times,
severely compromising
public
trust
in
the
media, but our president
has gone as far as to
threaten to eradicate
press briefings entirely.
Time and time again, he has shown
a blatant disregard for the principles
that are not only foundational to
our nation’s Constitution but also
essential to the preservation of a
healthy democracy.
The WHCA was established in
response to a growing fear regarding
a lack of independence between the
White House press corps and the
government itself. The WHCA is
an independent organization, and
its annual dinner is meant to be a
celebration of the freedom of speech
and the press.
Virtually every president has
issues with the press, but Trump’s
tense relations with the media are
unparalleled. Since the start of his
term, Trump has skipped both
WHCDs, making him the first
president in 36 years who has not
attended the event. Hasan Minhaj
put it bluntly in his 2017 WHCD
roast
when
he
acknowledged
Trump’s absence, stating “I think
he’s in Pennsylvania because he
can’t take a joke.”
Historically,
the
president
has been a centerpiece of the
dinner. His presence represents
an important and foundational
principle in this nation: The
government
will
protect
journalistic integrity and refrain
from scrutiny or interference.
In refusing to attend the event,
Trump is not only breaking a
decades-old tradition, but he is
solidifying this administration’s
continual unwillingness to respect
an independent, free media.
At the center of this contentious
decision to substitute a comedy
roast for a history lesson is
comedian Michelle Wolf who drew
criticism for her controversial
routine at the 2018 dinner. Despite
Trump’s two-year-long boycott
of the event, the WHCA’s recent
announcement has prompted the
president to reconsider, tweeting,
“Good first step in comeback of
a dying evening and tradition!
Maybe I will go?”
The fact that the WHCA,
an organization comprised of
well-educated and experienced
writers, cannot see the irony in
its recent decision to forgo the
comedy roast is a bit jarring.
The WHCA may think by
eradicating
a
controversial
part
of
its
annual
dinner,
it
is
mending
a
strained
relationship with the current
administration, but it is not.
Getting rid of a long-held and
important tradition simply to
appease a president who “can’t
take a joke” is not a compromise;
it is a concession, and we should
all be concerned.
This is not the time to bow
down to Trump’s demands. Now
more than ever, it is essential
that the press maintain their
integrity and independence. The
WHCD’s comedy roast may seem
like a trivial concession in the
grand scheme of things, but it is
reflective of an important and
growing threat to our nation’s
First
Amendment.
The
press
cannot allow intimidation from
the
government
to
influence
their actions, no matter how
insignificant.
If the president of the United
States won’t attend a dinner
because he “can’t take a joke,” so
be it. Carry on with the jokes.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, November 29, 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
The WHCA has surrendered to Trump
AMANDA ZHANG | COLUMN
Amanda Zhang can be reached at
amanzhan@umich.edu.
A
lbion,
Mich.,
is
an
underwhelming
place
for someone from Metro
Detroit. Aside from the small —
very small — private liberal arts
college that bears the city’s name,
there is not much else. Beyond
Albion College’s campus, you will
find rows of dilapidated houses
with peeling paint. Driving through
Albion, you get a sense that the city
has seen much better days. In fact,
if you drive through any number of
Michigan cities, you get the same
feeling. Detroit’s ongoing comeback
story is a towering achievement for
the state, but outside of the economic
engines of southeast Michigan and
Grand Rapids, the picture is not an
optimistic one. Cities like Albion,
Jackson and Monroe do not have
their own comeback stories.
Albion is located in Calhoun
County, which also contains Battle
Creek, home of Kellogg’s Cereal.
One of the 17 counties in Michigan
where there are more prescriptions
than there are people, Calhoun
County has one of the highest rates
of opioid prescriptions in the state.
When the media covers the opioid
epidemic, they depict working class
folk in rural and rundown urban
areas devoid of hope. It’s the same
stereotypical habitat of Donald
Trump voters, but that is another
matter for another time.
Now,
there
is
a
common
sentiment that criticizes American
society for meeting the current drug
crisis with empathy and concern:
a stark contrast to the police
crackdown and demonization of
people of color during the crack
epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s.
There is no question that the racist
War on Drugs has destroyed and
continues to destroy Black and
Latino lives and families. It is
deeply unfortunate that the U.S.
did not take the same approach
with crack as we are taking with
opioids, an approach rooted in
public health instead of criminal
justice. Ta-Nehisi Coates author
of the bestseller “Between the
World and Me”, is right when he
speculates about how different the
current opioid epidemic would be if
society had invested in a substance
abuse treatment infrastructure in
30 years ago.
Similar
to
previous
epidemics of crack cocaine and
methamphetamine,
the
opioid
epidemic hammers the working
class and the poor. According to
national 2016 data analyzed by the
Kaiser Family Foundation, West
Virginia has the highest rate of
opioid overdose deaths (Michigan
ranks 11th). There is not a lot of
good data directly on the rates
of opioid misuse in America, so I
like to use prescription rates and
overdose death rates as proxies.
These proxies are far from perfect,
though. Case in point, only a small
portion of opioid users overdose
and even fewer die as a result. Risk
of death is also highly dependent on
external factors such as whether the
incredibly deadly opioid fentanyl
has made it into the community.
The opioid epidemic should be
viewed as a socioeconomic issue
as well as a public health issue. The
trend generally holds that opioids
hit poorer communities harder.
Moreover, treatment for addiction
can be expensive and hard to access.
For example, there are no specialty
clinics that dispense methadone,
one of the drugs used in medication-
assisted treatment, in the entire
Upper Peninsula.
So, why do people of lower
socioeconomic status shoulder a
greater burden in this epidemic?
After all, oxycodone has the same
addictive potential whether it is
taken by a billionaire or someone
who is unemployed.
By and large, people who
become addicted to opioids begin
with opioids prescribed to them
by a medical professional for
pain. Working class people are at
a much greater risk for pain than
their
middle-
and
upper-class
counterparts.
A major cause of pain is
workplace injury, and certain
jobs are far more dangerous
than others. A study out of
Massachusetts, which has also
been hit hard by opioids, found
physically-intensive
occupations
like
construction,
fishing
and
material moving have a much higher
risk of opioid misuse and overdose
death. It may surprise some but
fishing is the most dangerous job in
America, according to data from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Turns
out cushy desk jobs result in a less
painful life.
Another
way
people
are
exposed to opioids is after dental
surgery such as tooth extractions
and root canals. The fact that
many Americans, 21.3 percent to
be exact, have not seen a dentist
in several years never ceases
to amaze me. Oral health is an
important part of overall health,
but because dentistry is separate
from medicine (the reason behind
this is ridiculous), 33 percent of
Americans do not have dental
coverage. While we are lucky
in Michigan to have expanded
Medicaid, which covers dental care,
lower income residents of states
like Texas, Florida and Georgia do
not have this option. Rotting teeth
are extremely painful, but they
are completely preventable, as are
the surgeries needed to fix them.
Dentists, love them or loathe them,
have an important role to play in
addressing the opioid epidemic.
I could go on and on about all
the links between opioids and
socioeconomic class, about how
the stress of living paycheck to
paycheck may lead people to
self-medicate with heroin or
painkillers, or how higher rates
of obesity in poor communities
leads to an epidemic of chronic
lower back pain that is the
reason many start opioids.
In the crack epidemic, society
viewed those suffering with
addiction as criminals. Today,
the stereotype of communities
hardest hit by opioids also
includes the notion that these
people are lazy and getting
high because they are bored.
Both are blatantly classist and
far from the truth. Whether it
is crack or opioids, America’s
drug epidemics are reflections
of
socioeconomic
inequality
that plagues our nation.
ALI SAFAWI | COLUMN
America’s drug epidemics are classist
Ali Safawi can be reached at
asafawi@umich.edu.
EMILY CONSIDINE | CONTACT EMILY AT EMCONSID@UMICH.EDU
M
ichael
Bloomberg,
the former mayor of
New York City and
potential Democratic presidential
contender
in
2020,
recently
donated $1.8 billion (yes, billion
with a b) to his alma mater, Johns
Hopkins University. He wrote
about the rationale for his donation
in an Op-Ed published by The New
York Times: he wants Hopkins
to have a completely need-blind
admissions process. Students will
be accepted based on their merit,
and not their ability to pay, which is
unfortunately still a factor at many
of the most prestigious universities
in this country.
Though his desire to halt
intergenerational
poverty
through need-blind admissions
is commendable and inspiring,
there exists controversy over his
donation. In a Letter to the Editor
of The New York Times, Kathleen
McCartney, president of Smith
College in Massachusetts, wrote
how the money could have been
better spent at a less prestigious
university—one that was more
widely available to low- and
middle-income
students.
She
mentioned how the City University
of New York “propelled almost six
times as many low-income students
into the middle class and beyond
as all eight Ivy League campuses,
plus Duke, M.I.T., Stanford and
Chicago, combined.”
Helaine Olen, a contributor
for the New York Times, echoed
this sentiment by writing in
her piece that while Hopkins
may be ethnically diverse (with
25 percent of the student body
African American and Hispanic)
the university is less inclusive of
those from lower rungs of the
socioeconomic ladder. With only
12 percent of Hopkins’ student
body classified as first-generation
college students, Olen suggests the
university could be doing more to
promote economic diversity.
The controversy surrounding
Bloomberg’s donation reminded
me of a powerful piece I read last
year titled “The 9.9 Percent is the
New American Aristocracy.” In it,
Matthew Stewart details how the
wealthiest 10 percent of American
households (excluding the top 0.1
percent because of their obscene
amount of wealth) like to give off
the impression that they’re a part
of some meritocracy – that any
individual from even the lowest
socioeconomic background can
work hard enough and make their
way into the top 10 percent. This
idea, however, could not be further
from the truth.
Economic mobility in the land of
opportunity is no longer a realistic
expectation for those seeking to
advance their financial position in
this world. The children of the top
decile settle down later in life near
their starting point (as doctors,
lawyers or senior vice presidents at
a major corporation). This reality
extends to children in the bottom
decile too. It is intergenerational
poverty that pulls these children
right back to where they came
from.
The wealthiest 10 percent of
American
households,
Stewart
asserts, have managed to secure the
financial security (and prosperity)
of their children through higher
education. He writes “(t)he skin
colors of the nation’s elite student
bodies are more varied now, as are
their genders, but their financial
bones have calcified over the past
30 years.”
Inequality is perpetuated in
higher education through the use of
legacy-admissions policies, which
reward applicants whose parents
attended the same university. In
addition, acoording to Stewart
private high schools serve as
“affirmative-action programs for
the wealthy” because “only 2.2
percent of the nation’s students
graduate
from
nonsectarian
private high schools, and yet these
graduates account for 26 percent of
students at Harvard and 28 percent
of students at Princeton.”
The lack of economic inclusivity
at elite institutions extends beyond
the Ivy League. Even the University
of Michigan is affected, as only
16 percent of Michigan’s student
body is made up of students from
the bottom 60 percent of earners,
while nearly 10 percent of the
student body comes from the top 1
percent.
It
turns
out
that
this
inequality in higher education
is also perpetuated through
the U.S. News college rankings.
Colleges and universities are
ranked (quite arbitrarily) on a
host of factors—with one of great
importance being the average
test scores of its student body. In
order to improve their ranking,
colleges and universities are
incentivized to admit only the
best and brightest. The problem
arises
when
you
consider
students from the top income
bracket can score more than 130
points higher on all portions of
the SAT than their peers in the
bottom bracket.
Bloomberg’s
donation
may
make his alma mater’s admissions
process
need-blind,
but
that
assumes the students from lower
socioeconomic classes are viable
contenders in the process. His
donation does nothing for the high
school students unable to prove
their worth to the institution
through high grades or test scores.
While Bloomberg’s $1.8 billion
will certainly have an impact
on the economic diversity of
Hopkins’ student body, the money
will make but a small dent (which
he admits) in the effort to halt
intergenerational poverty in the
United States. Making America
the land of opportunity once
again will require greater, more
economically
impartial
access
to higher education. It may also
require
restraining
the
New
American Aristocracy.
ERIK NESLER | COLUMN
Inequality in higher education
Erik Nesler can be reached at
egnesler@umich.edu.
This is not the
time to bow
down to Trump’s
demands
Why do people
of lower SES
shoulder a greater
burden in this
epidemcic?
AMANDA
ZHANG
The lack of
economic
inclusivity
extends beyond
the Ivy League