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