Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, January 18, 2019

J

ames
Burrill
Angell,
the
longest
serving
president at the University
of
Michigan,
described
the
University
as
a
place
that
would provide “an uncommon
education for the common man.”
From its founding, the University
was supposed to offer an elite
education to people without the
means to afford one in other parts
of the country. The quote is still
often thrown around to describe
what the University aspires to
be. It is a valuable goal, but the
University has fallen short. The
University has made both getting
admission as well as campus life
harder for low and middle-income
in-state students by admitting
more disproportionately wealthy,
out-of-state students. This trend
goes
against
the
obligation
the
University
has
to
the
Michiganders whose tax dollars
fund it. The University has both
the financial flexibility and moral
obligation to reverse this trend.
I need to make a disclaimer:
I make these arguments in
spite of myself, as I think this
University should admit fewer
students like me. I am a product
of this policy change. I attend
this school with unbelievable
privilege. As an out-of-state
student with a family that is
willing and able to support me
emotionally and financially, I do
not suffer from the consequences
of the University’s admissions
policies. Yet I, and other out-
of-state students, should want
the University to accept more
in-state students.
The
University’s
student
demographics
have
changed
— for the wealthier. Almost 10
percent of students’ families
are in the top 1 percent income
bracket, while only about 16
percent fall in the bottom 60
percent. Additionally, only 15
percent of students qualify for
Pell Grants (a federal, need
based financial aid package),
a percentage which, based on
results from a Washington Post
study, is the ninth lowest out
of the public universities in the
top 100 colleges and universities
list published by U.S. News &
World Report. For comparison,

at
competitor
schools
like
Michigan
State
University
and University of California-
Berkeley, 23 percent of students
qualify for Pell Grants.
A similar story can be told
about the proportion of in-state
students
at
the
University.
University
President
Mark
Schlissel
has
said
that
he
wants “to keep the majority of
undergrads from Michigan.” In
2008, the proportion of in-state
students was 67 percent, but it
was only 51 percent in fall 2016.
Considering the fact that for
tuition and fees, in-state students
pay $15,262 per year, while out-
of-state students pay $49,350,
the reduction of in-state students
from two-thirds to one-half of
the student body makes both
the University and its campus
environment
much
wealthier.
University officials are conscious
of
their
motivations:
The
University is not need blind for
out-of-state students, while it is
for in-state ones, so taking more
of the former makes financial
sense.
To be fair, the University’s
transition to accepting more
out-of-state
students
follows
a trend among flagship public
universities around the country.
Compared to other institutions,
the
University’s
shifts
look
tame.
The
University
of
Alabama’s student body went
from 72 percent in-state in
2004 to 36 percent in-state in
2014. One study found that the
University of Washington did
not even give in-state students
an advantage. However, not all
flagship institutions have the
same financial flexibility as the
University of Michigan.
One way to observe the
University’s financial flexibility
is by getting a tour. Anyone who
has been around campus can see
that the University continues
to invest in new buildings and
infrastructure
projects.
The
brand-new
Biological
Science
Building ($261 million) opened
this year, while the Kraus Natural
Science Building ($120 million)
and the Michigan Union ($85
million) have just started extensive
renovations. The University also

just released plans for the Central
Campus Recreation Building ($150
million) to follow suit.
A closer look at endowment
growth
also
demonstrates
this
relative
flexibility.
The
University’s endowment is the
eighth largest among all U.S.
universities
and
the
second
largest among public universities.
Furthermore,
the
University’s
endowment
has
a
20-year
annualized return rate of 9.6
percent, which places it in the
top 10 percentile of all university
endowments. A top 10 endowment
with a top 10 return rate should be
able to do more.
Beyond
the
moral
obligations the University has
to Michiganders, there are a few
reasons it would be in the its best
interest to accept more in-state
students.
First,
as
Sociology
professor Elizabeth A. Armstrong
argues,
by
accepting
more
out-of-state
students,
flagship
universities are creating a “party
pathway” that takes away from
their mission to be a vehicle of
social mobility. Second, based
on data from South Carolina,
in-state students are more likely
to remain in their home state
after graduation than out-of-
state students, and thus are more
likely to contribute to Michigan’s
economy.
When
Michigan’s
economy is strong, state higher
education budget cuts are less
likely.
Last,
admittng
more
in-state students would make
Michiganders think more highly
of the University. Instead of being
perceived as a wealthy University
for out-of-state students, they
might see it as a place where they
can go to school to get a great
education.
I am an out-of-state student.
These changes would make it
harder for me and all out-of-
state students to get into the
University. But also I want the
University to be the best it can
be, and one way to do that is by
accepting more in-state students.

The guilty out-of-state student

Solomon Medintz can be reached at

smedintz@umich.edu.

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
Sam Weinberger

FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
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

When solidarity proves most crucial
F

or a group of 30 close-

knit
friends
in
my

English medium school in

Bangladesh, teenage pregnancy

was not a taboo. Instead, it was

abandonment and demonization

from
my
boyfriend.
It
was

inconsistent
sympathy
and

ostracism from my friends. This

dynamic serves as an example

of the double standards that

emerged in a growing feminist

crowd, one that shied away from

solidarity when I most needed it.

In ninth grade, I started

dating the most “popular” boy in

my class — the football (soccer)

star. Everyone unconditionally

sympathized with his alarming

anger
born
from
childhood

trauma.
Two
days
after
I

informed my boyfriend of my

pregnancy
scares,
he
broke

up with me. Later, I walked

into a local pharmacy full of

judgmental
male
faces
and

bought two pregnancy tests. I

took them that night at 4 a.m.

The image of the plus sign

remains my worst memory.

I immediately called my best

friend and she offered to help

out. When the news reached

my ex-boyfriend, he ferociously

threatened
me.
I
countered

with plans to release physical

evidence, internalizing the fetus

as my fault and my fault only. I

eventually handled the situation

with the help of my dad through

a
“black-market”
in-clinic

procedure. After skipping school

for a week, I finally returned

with heavy cramps and bleeding

between my legs in my uniform.

I expected my pain to end there,

but I was surprised at what

followed.

Vicious words against me

had spread like cancer and my

ex-boyfriend broadcasted that

I had fabricated a pregnancy

to trap him into getting back

together
with
me.
I
still

remember
the
excruciating

pain I felt when I read a post

on my his Facebook wall. It was

labeled “Psycho Rams” (a not-

so-subtle nickname for myself)

and he along with two women

— individuals who now write

about women’s empowerment

— ‘liked’ the message. I still

vividly remember the mortifying

moment I learned that some

of my friends, who knew of my

misery before my abortion, had

spent fun evenings high with

him, even during the week

where I was physically emptied

and emotionally sliced open.

Not only did they not support or

believe me, but they were also

indifferent to my pain.

I
thought
our
friends,

especially the girls, many of

whom were vocal against sexism,

would
seriously
condemn

his actions and defend me. A

handful of my close friends had

warned him but were silenced

by the majority of my classmates

who disregarded my lifeline

calls and excused him with

their dangerously impenetrable

soft spot. In other words, their

favoritism towards my ex as

both a man and the most popular

boy of our school prevented

them from acting against his

malevolence,
let
alone
even

recognizing it.

When I voiced how betrayed

I felt, I received sneaky jokes that

indicated I was overreacting.

Girls who declared themselves

social
justice
warriors
the

following year — who now chide

people for using “pussy” as a

slang for coward — somehow

failed to register that calling me

dramatic snatched my slightest

defense
when
I
was
most

vulnerable. People’s insensitivity

to my suffering exacerbated the

trauma I was already burdened

with. I felt as though hiding my

sorrow was my only option to

survive. Thus, months later, I

pretended to enjoy social events

with my friends, only to then go

home and embark on a perilous

journey of self-harm. I cried

myself to sleep for a year, even

after I left for boarding school.

Prior to starting college,

many female friends, including

those
who
didn’t
support

me at the time, emerged as

radical
feminists,
organizing

women’s marches and panels

on women’s rights. By contrast,

I
refused
to
participate
in

feminist conversations because I

witnessed the lack of sisterhood

when I was harmed by a man in

my friend group. And though

almost six years have passed

since the incident, few women

friends
have
contacted
me

about it in seeking reflection.

In
conversations
with
some

other female friends, if I ever

slip my ex-boyfriend’s name,

they nervously laugh or remain

silent. I know some of them still

venerate him. Only one female

friend,
the
most
outspoken

feminist, who was also closest

to my ex during the pregnancy,

apologized to me — but only

after she had fallen prey to one

of his disrespectful deeds. She

stated that “we were so stupid

and young.”

While I did appreciate her

apology, I wasn’t and am still

not seeking apologies because I

understand that we make many

dangerous mistakes when we

are young and immature. But

our ignorance must never justify

our wrongs, especially when it

threatens someone’s wellbeing.

If we are going to march against

widespread marginalization of

victims in college, it is imperative

to also consider circumstances

of our youth when we deviated

from the feminist values we

now advocate for. We have to

confront our past injustices in

order to be genuinely supportive

of women experiencing trauma

in our current feminist spheres.

Another
woman
woefully

revealed a few days ago that she

mistrusted me last year when

my ex uttered: “I never received

solid proof of pregnancy.” I must

note that he hypocritically lied

to her, even after apologizing

to me for willfully deserting me

during the pregnancy. But even

if he didn’t have evidence, the

fact that a woman believed him

over me just shows we often tend

to side with the perpetrators and

doubt the victims. It seems to be

the norm that males, especially

popular ones like my ex, easily

gain our trust. But more often

than not, they misuse this power

to redeem themselves. In today’s

world, we are quick to post “I

believe her” when a woman

speaks out on public hearings,

but we paradoxically secretly

doubt and shame them before

providing support. Before we

simply share articles on the

#MeToo movement or campaign

to “Believe and Support All

Women,” it is imperative to fight

the
normalized,
misogynist

temptation to blindly believe men

and question the authenticity of

a woman’s agony. These are both

important and interconnected

pillars in equality and justice.

Despite my past struggle

and ostracization, I am still

incredibly
lucky.
My
life

continued without interruptions.

My
father
was
extremely

supportive and I was blessed to

have the choice of an abortion

— privileges that I cannot take

for granted. But demonization

and lack of support from peers

is fatal for someone already

fighting with herself to overcome

haunting memories. So I stress

the
importance
of
believing

and supporting women through

the recovery of a traumatic

experience. And in order to

exercise the full potential of our

feminist endeavors in college

and beyond, I emphasize the

necessity
to
reflect
on
the

blunders of our past. Blunders

where we could have offered

Ramisa Rob can be reached at

rfrob@umich.edu.

How Michigan is failing Huron Valley

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.

It is imperative to
fight the normalized,
misogynistic
temptatation to
blindly believe men

A

t the Women’s Huron
Valley
Correctional
Facility,
the
decrepit
prison conditions have now caused
an outspread of scabies. This week,
the Detroit Free Press reported
that of the 200 women found
with a mysterious rash in early
December, 24 have contracted the
skin condition.
Though identifying the rash is
a breakthrough for prison officials
in addressing the ailment, which
according
to
epidemiologists
is easily treatable, this is only
the first step in attempting to
tackle the widespread issue at
a facility already beleaguered
with overcrowding. And former
inmates
such
as
Machelle
Pearson
have
described
the
abject conditions that led to such
medical quandaries at the facility.
After Pearson was released from
Huron Valley, her primary medical
provider surmised the rash she
contracted while there was a
result of coming into contact with
mold. Pearson, in an interview
with the Free Press, recalled the
mold accumulating in the showers
— black fungus spreading across
and
eventually
encompassing
what was once a tile ceiling. When
inmates
cleaned
the
shower,
they would have to squeegee the
ceilings, inevitably leading to the
water dripping onto their clothes
and forcing them to essentially
bathe in hazardous juices that
remained in the fabric long after
they were finished mopping.
Despite accounts like those
from Pearson, officials in the
prison reframe the issue as one
brought on by inmates, not a
dilapidated infrastructure. Citing
an improper mixture of cleaning
chemicals used by the women,
rather than mold, they deflected
blame from themselves in an
attempt to dissuade the notion
there was any wrongdoing on
behalf of the leadership.
If one were to follow this
particular strain of bureaucratic
incompetence
to
its
root,
it
would once again exhibit how
overpopulation
debilitates
Michigan’s
prison
system.
Policies that ensnare the state’s

most
vulnerable
populations
weigh down Michigan’s criminal
justice system, with a state prison
population that has ballooned
to 40,000 and another 14,000
in jails. Michigan has one of the
highest rates of incarceration in
the country.
The
overstuffed
criminal
justice system, both state and
nationwide, yields the kinds of
inhumane living circumstances
seen at Huron Valley. And
this is hardly the first time
there have been complaints
lobbed against the women’s
prison. Just this September,
two experts who investigated
the prison filed reports in
federal court claiming that the
overcrowding
and
crumbling
conditions in the prison violate
the Eighth Amendment to the
Constitution
as
“cruel
and
unusual
punishment.”
The
cramped space provides little
area for recreational use or
exercise, imposing physical and
mental burdens onto those in
the prison. Officials converted
storage units into living areas
and dismissed building codes
so that, as one of the prisoners’
attorneys described, the prison
was literally “bursting at the
seams.”
Yet again and again when
both inhabitants and outside
investigators decry the facility,
officials dismiss the concerns.
Though the country is ostensibly
pushing against the trend of
mass incarceration that has
been a fixture of the criminal
justice system for decades, state
policies are as primitive as they
are resistant to change.
Federal changes to domestic
incarceration policy only impact
those in federal prisons, which
does not make up a substantial
portion of prisoners. Furthermore,
these
changes
seem
almost
cosmetic when looking at the
numbers.
The
prison
system
still groans under the weight of
esoteric, racialized policies which
place an emphasis on profiting off
imprisoned bodies.
There are opportunities for
Michigan to change, especially as

recently sworn-in Gov. Gretchen
Whitmer seeks political wins that
have the potential for bipartisan
support. Since 2007, the Michigan
prison population has decreased
from a record high of 51,000 to
40,000 inmates. And though
Huron Valley is ridden with
problems, at the center of the
issue is an overpopulation crisis
which is hazardous for inmates
and
cumbersome
for
state
bureaucrats to manage.
Policies that legislators and
Whitmer
could
look
at
are
occupational licensing, specifically
reforming the current system
in place that prevents those
with
criminal
records
from
receiving a license that enables
them to work in certain fields.
Restrictions currently placed are
indiscriminate, barring anyone
with a criminal record from
obtaining one even if the crime
they committed is unrelated to
the occupation in which they seek
a license. This has the potential to
reduce recidivism rates and enable
more people to contribute to the
Michigan economy.
Michigan lawmakers could also
look into reforming the current
bail system, which discriminately
impacts
low-income
earners
who cannot afford to pay the
exorbitant bail costs imposed on
them. Thousands of people remain
in jails without charges simply
because they cannot meet the set
bail.
This is one of many problems
facing the inmates of Huron
Valley.
The
deteriorating
infrastructure,
past
history
of
sexual
assault
and
overpopulation
due
to
the
artificial increase in capacity
has
yielded
wide-ranging
consequences for inmates. The
policing and prison policies in
Michigan are still in dire need of
reform, with change necessary
for thousands of prisoners who
are now becoming subject to
human rights violations.

Joel Danilewitz can be reached at

joeldan@umich.edu.

RAMISA ROB | COLUMN

JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD

Our Editorial Board meets Wednesdays 7:00-8:30 PM at our
newsroom at 420 Maynard St. All are welcome to come discuss
national, state and campus affairs.

SOLOMON MEDINTZ | COLUMN

JOEL DANILEWITZ | OP-ED