Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, February 6, 2019
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
S
ince Michigan education
lobbyist
Betsy
Devos’
appointment as secretary
of the Department
of
Education,
the sorry state of
public education in
Michigan has been
well
documented.
According
to
the
National
Assessment
of
Education Progress,
Michigan students
have seen the lowest
proficiency growth
on standardized test scores of
any state in the country.
Most education reformers
want to increase education
spending
as
a
way
to
counteract
these
trends.
They point to the fact that
Michigan ranks 29th in per-
pupil spending, that adjusted
for inflation, we are spending
less money per student today
than we did in 2011, and that
$4.5 billion directed for public
schools has instead gone to
higher education.
While proposals to increase
spending are well-intentioned,
convincing the Republican-
led legislature to substantially
increase education funding
is difficult. I have seen this
myself. Last year, I went
to Lansing to talk to state
legislators about increasing
funding for community and
junior colleges in Michigan.
Every
Republican
I
spoke
to dismissed our proposal
as soon as I explained that
it
would
require
funding
increases.
They
responded
asking
specifically
what
I
would want to take away
funding from and when I
offered my suggestions, they
told me that if there were
extra funds, fixing the roads
was their priority.
Since
state
legislators
were not willing to increase
education funding, I started
thinking about how the state
government can invest more
in students with the money
already
appropriated
and
quickly
arrived
at
public
school advertising.
Education
advertising
in the United States is big
business, taking many forms
— online ads, newspaper ads,
billboards. Michigan public
school
districts
and public school
academies that set
advertising budgets
play a role, with
$6.25 million spent
in
the
2017-2018
school year. There
are a number of
egregious examples
of
individual
schools
spending
excessive amounts.
Michigan
Connections
Academy spent about $750,000
on advertising in the 2015-
2016 school year alone, Detroit
Public Schools spent $100,000
on the “Students Rise. We All
Rise.” campaign and National
Heritage
Academies
spent
approximately
$375,000
on
one ad buy in 2014 in response
the Detroit Free Press’ report
on
charter
schools.
These
expenditures are harmful to
students and a gross misuse
of public resources. Public
school advertising spending
takes away money that could
be
invested
in
students.
Michigan should not let public
schools
and
public
school
academies advertise without
regulation.
The first reason to limit
school
advertising
is
that
when some schools increase
their
advertising
budgets,
other schools are incentivized
to do so as well, and this makes
sense. If some schools are
getting their name out, other
schools trying to compete for
students will spend more on
advertising.
Another reason to limit
school
advertising
is
that
parents should be deciding
where to send their students
based
on
school
results,
not
advertising
prowess.
Schools spend on advertising
because it works, meaning it
attracts students. But what
decisions are made should be
determined by school quality.
When
schools
advertise
without regulation, parents
are making decisions with the
wrong data. The right data
exists on the Parent Dashboard
for School Transparency on
the Michigan School Data
website.
Additionally, unregulated
advertising
hurts
schools
that invest in their students.
According to a member of
Education
Trust
Midwest,
low-performing
charter
schools that spend more on
advertising are able to attract
more
students
than
high-
performing schools with low
advertising budgets. Perhaps
the schools that spend more on
advertising are not investing
in their students, which could
lead to lower test scores.
School
advertising
does
not help anyone. It encourages
parents to make bad decisions,
takes
money
away
from
classrooms and takes away
from teacher pay. The solution
is to set a yearly cap for the
amount
of
public
school
district
and
public
school
academy advertising, based
on the public school district
with
the
lowest
projected
advertising budget. Setting a
cap for public school spending
on advertising would equalize
the
playing
field,
forcing
schools to invest in students
and compete for new students
based on merit.
Instead
of
relentlessly
advocating to a Republican
legislature deaf to increases
in
public
education
appropriations,
education
advocates
should
look
at
how the state government
can ensure that schools are
investing
their
funds
in
students.
Solomon Medintz can be reached at
smedintz@umich.edu.
DANIEL GREENE AND LLOYD LYONS | OP-ED
A message to our peers
O
ur campus has been a
trying environment for
many in the last year.
The divisive national dialogue,
volatile
campus
climate
and
the University of Michigan’s
shortcomings on the University
of Southern California Race and
Equity Center report have made
it difficult to see the University
as the symbiotic community
we all hoped it would be. As we
navigate these times together,
we wanted to reach out to
you, our fellow Wolverines, to
remind you of what lies in the
core of the University’s ethos:
You belong here.
Whether you’re new to Ann
Arbor or are toward the end of
your Michigan experience, you
have a right to a welcoming
campus
community
where
you feel safe, included and
empowered.
We
at
Central
Student
Government
know
the University has not always
succeeded in providing that,
especially to our students whose
identities are underrepresented
or underserved. CSG’s purpose
is to act as the voice for all
students,
conveying
their
concerns
and
working
to
ensure the University upholds
its commitment to enriching
the future of all of our peers.
Recently, the concerns we’ve
heard have centered around
our campus’s inclusivity and
safety, so we wanted to start
an open discussion about our
efforts to ensure this campus is
a welcoming environment for all
visible and invisible identities.
As
we
navigate
the
implementation
of
the
University’s
Diversity,
Equity
and Inclusion plan, CSG seeks to
expand the current administrative
and academic focus and turn
toward what many Wolverines
consider to be the most critical
element: everyday, peer-to-peer
interactions. We recognize that
large, institutional changes are
critical to ridding ourselves of
systemic injustice, but we feel
our Michigan community has
lost its focus on improving the
Michigan
experience
in
the
short term as well. Our peer-to-
peer interactions impact current
and soon-to-be Wolverines and
illuminate the experiences and
struggles of our peers, hopefully
allowing us to better understand
our diverse environment.
By
transforming
campus
buzzwords
such
as
DEI,
inclusivity and diversity into
more digestible concepts, we
can initiate a cultural shift
that
encourages
ownership
and accountability on campus.
Accordingly,
the
executive
branch of CSG created two
new
positions
this
past
summer: an executive diversity
officer
and
an
external
relations officer. In addition
to
improving
CSG’s
internal
inclusivity, representation and
accessibility, these two officers
are
establishing
a
student
organization
liaison
program
that, among other initiatives,
will help student organizations
construct and pursue individual,
self-created
Diversity
and
Inclusivity plans.
CSG
hopes
to
use
the
institutional
and
existing
culture
surrounding
student
organizations as a mechanism
to improve campus inclusivity.
As we work to make the campus
more welcoming and safe, we
must remember that academic
and administrative initiatives
can only go so far. New students
often join student organizations
to create a more navigable
community. It is a disservice to
students, and to the ideals of the
University, when students feels
unwelcome because they do not
see their identities reflected in
the organization’s membership.
The identity barrier serves to
perpetuate a sense of exclusion.
We at CSG have seen our
organization
suffer
from
a
similar negative feedback loop,
and as we address our own
shortcomings, we hope to help
other
student
organizations
do the same. Accordingly, we
are proud to introduce our new
initiative: the Narrative, Equity
and Transformation plan.
The new NET plan will
allow
student
organizations
to
benefit
from
reviewing
their
recruitment
strategies,
reflecting on their leadership
and membership compositions
and expanding inclusive social
event programming. The NET
plan will help organizations
reconsider simple logistics like
meeting
times
and
increase
general
awareness
within
organizations. The CSG team
will administer a demographic
survey
of
the
organization’s
membership, work with current
leaders to identify and reduce
barriers for participation, offer
inclusive
programming
and
social event options and help
create multi-year strategic plans.
Though the impact may not
be immediately apparent, CSG
believes
its
commitment
to
promoting inclusive practices
within student organizations
will be a worthy investment in
shifting campus climate and
culture toward one that is more
accepting and welcoming of
diverse identities. Our journey
will inevitably have obstacles;
we won’t always get it right, but
all of us as student leaders must
lead by example for the students
in our organizations — and other
leaders on campus.
We are asking you, our
peers, to join us in confronting
the
issue
of
inclusivity
within our communities at
the
University.
Ensure
the
organizations you’re a part
of opt into CSG’s new liaison
program and NET plan, and
hold
your
organization’s
leadership
accountable
for
pursuing inclusive change. It’s
on all of us to help current and
rising students commit to the
cultural change. If we strive
to be the Leaders and the Best,
then it is time for a Michigan
experience open to all.
Daniel Greene is the Central Student
Government President and Lloyd Lyons
is the Central Student Government
Executive Diversity Officer at the
University of Michigan. They can be
reached at lloydll@umich.edu and
greeneda@umich.edu.
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our open 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
The case for public school advertising regulations
Unregulated
advertising hurts
schools that invest
in their students
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.
You have a right
to a welcoming
community on
campus
“
Are you guys ready to
move on?” Looking back,
it’s an odd thing for me to
say to a mostly-female physics
study group. But it wasn’t until
it was pointed out to me at a
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
training seminar that I began
to question the ubiquity of
America’s
favorite
second-
person plural pronoun, “You
guys.” A second-person plural
pronoun is used to address or
refer to a group of people you
are talking to. Basically, it’s the
plural form of “you.”
“You
guys”
has
been
criticized
by
a
remarkably
intersectional audience, from
California
tech
startups
to
senior citizens. In 2002, Sherryl
Kleinman, professor emeritus
at the University of North
Carolina, described the term
as, “a reinforcer of a system in
which ‘man’ in the abstract and
men in the flesh are privileged
over women.” Defenders of “you
guys” often justify its use by
stating that it’s usually intended
and understood to be gender-
neutral when used to address
people. “Guys” in this case has
been bleached.
In other words, because it
is seen as gender-neutral in
this usage, it has lost part of its
original gendered meaning. But
does bleaching “you guys” make
it unproblematic?
When I was growing up,
similar logic was used to explain,
if not defend, the use of “gay” as
a pejorative (e.g. “those shoes
are gay”). In 2008, a compiler
of a slang dictionary told the
BBC that “gay” has “nothing
at all to do with hostility to
homosexuals,” and that it was
“nearly always used in contexts
where
sexual
orientation
and sexuality are completely
irrelevant.” This is a technically
correct description of how the
term is used as a pejorative,
but the distinction did little to
assuage my feelings of isolation
as a bisexual teenager. It was
effectively impossible for me to
separate the bleached meaning
of “gay” from the non-bleached
meaning, despite being told to
explicitly and implicitly.
I think the same is true for
“you guys.” Though “you guys”
has
become
gender-neutral,
“guys” is decidedly not gender-
neutral in all contexts. As one
acerbic Twitter user points out:
“If you think ‘guys’ is gender-
neutral, ask a straight man how
many guys he’s slept with.”
So, at least for me, it’s hard to
divorce the gender-neutral use
of “you guys” from gendered
uses of “guys” in general.
Nevertheless, replacing “you
guys” is still quite difficult
— after 20 years of saying it,
it’s hard to avoid slipping it
in, especially when I’m not
specifically focusing on avoiding
it. Part of the reason why “you
guys” has so much staying
power is a lack of alternatives.
English hasn’t had a universal
second-person plural pronoun
since we ditched the singular
“thou,”
and
the
originally
plural “you” began to be used
primarily
as
the
singular
second-person pronoun. Other
terms are regionally popular in
the U.S., such as “yins” in urban
Pennsylvania, “yous/youse” in
coastal New England, and of
course, “y’all” in the South and
elsewhere. Of course, we all
have perceptions about regional
dialects which may make it
difficult to adopt a regional
term. “You all” has become my
preferred pronoun instead of
my native “you guys,” as to me,
it seems regionally neutral and
sufficiently warm.
Of course, some may wonder
why I’m picking this battle
instead of focusing on more
important subjects. “You guys”
does seem pretty innocuous
in the grand scheme of things.
But that innocuity is precisely
what drives people like Sherryl
Kleinman to label “you guys” as
the “most insidious” example
of sexist language. There are
certainly worse things to call
women than a “guy,” but these
worse terms are often policed
and immediately called out.
“You guys” isn’t.
Some might also wonder
why I don’t focus on “actual
issues” rather than just words.
But changing the way we use
language is one of the few
things that anyone can do to
combat those “actual issues.”
I can’t solve the gender wage
gap by personally implementing
sweeping policy changes, but I
can, for instance, stop using “you
guys” to address my mostly-
female physics study group in
order to combat attitudes that
STEM is a male domain.
Changing
“you
guys”
is
ultimately not as difficult a task
as it seems. “You guys” has been
in existence for only 100 years,
and has been popular for only
about 50. Furthermore, there’s
been some demand for more
gender-inclusive language on the
University of Michigan campus,
as Central Student Government
passed a resolution last year
encouraging the use of more
inclusive terms. And language
change can happen in relatively
short periods. Back when my
parents were in college, “he” was
prescribed by many sources as
the most acceptable pronoun to
use when referring to someone
of indeterminate gender (“the
male embraces the female,” don’t
you know?). That’s changed.
Perhaps 30 years from now, the
defenses of “you guys” will be
seen as equally quaint, perhaps
not. But, in any case, I’m ready to
move on.
JASON DEAN | OP-ED
Moving on from “you guys”
Jason Dean is a senior in LSA
studying English and Ecology/
Evolutionary Biology and can be
reached at
jasdean@umich.edu.
SOLOMON
MEDINTZ