Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, April 9, 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
Erin White
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
These frustrations culminated
in a seven-hour sit-in at the
Fleming Administration Building
following the March 15 Global
Strike for Climate, after which,
at the sit-in, 10 students were
arrested for trespassing. Student
organizations on campus, such as
Climate
Actio366.n
Movement,
Students for Clean Energy and
others, have continued to pressure
the administration and Schlissel to
commit to more aggressive goals
for carbon neutrality as well as
to increase engagement with the
student body.
We applaud the climate activism
taking place on campus, especially as
the institutional processes Schlissel
implements further our mistrust
of the University administration.
There is historical precedent for our
apprehension of University climate
action. In 2015, the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Committee released a
report detailing how the University
can meet its sustainability goals, but
most recommendations have been
ignored by the University’s Board of
Regents. Both the 2015 commission
and the current commission are
toothless simply because they are
merely recommendations. The only
way to ensure action is a binding
commitment.
But our skepticism is not
just based on the past. The
current
administration
and
commission have not earned our
trust. We are suspicious of the
commission because it does not
have appropriate representation.
Corporate executives from DTE
and Consumers Energy each have
full voting rights on the commission
— the same number of votes as the
entire student body. For us, this
represents a serious conflict of
interest because, as our primary
energy
provider,
DTE
stands
to profit from the University’s
continued dependence on fossil
fuels. We understand DTE and
Consumers Energy need to be a part
of the conversation because they
have expertise in transitioning from
fossil fuels to renewables, but they
do not need to be voting members.
It would be more reasonable for
them to serve in an advisory role
instead. Furthermore, while there
are two corporate executives on the
commission, there are no faculty
representatives for environmental
justice despite many experts on
the issue from the School for
Environment and Sustainability.
We are also suspicious of the
commission because Schlissel is not
harnessing the advice of experts to
make the right decisions about the
University’s carbon footprint. The
primary way Schlissel has done
this is by stopping the commission
from discussing two of the essential
components of carbon neutrality:
the expansion of the Central Power
Plant and the University endowment
investment in fossil fuels. Though
the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change made clear that
the world needs to cut global carbon
emissions in half by 2030 in order to
avoid catastrophic effects of greater
than 1.5 degrees Celsius warming,
the University has ignored this
urgent report, opting instead to
start construction on an $80 million
expansion of the Central Power
Plant. The University claims that
expanding our natural gas profile
will reduce emissions via energy
efficiency, but in reality this decision
will bind us to fossil fuels for years
to come. The expansion ignores the
latest science that questions that
reasoning, as methane leaks are a
significant externality of natural gas
production. Methane has a higher
global warming potential than
carbon dioxide, making it unclear
if the CPP expansion will help the
University get to carbon neutrality.
The commission should be allowed
to recommend that the University
halt the CPP expansion.
Furthermore, the commission
should also be empowered to
recommend that the University
divest from fossil fuels. Though the
University does not advertise how
much of its endowment is invested
in natural resources such as fossil
fuels, numbers from the 2017
Report of Investments put the total
investment in natural resources at
$925 million. The University should
consider its investments in fossil
fuels as part of its carbon footprint.
Consequently,
Schlissel
should
empower the commission to talk
about the endowment’s role in the
climate crisis. In fact, recent trends
show investment in renewables can
yield high returns as the renewable
sector is outpacing traditional fossil
fuels.
The University has shown
reluctance toward acting in the best
interest for the community at large.
For example, in 2000, when the
University divested from tobacco
companies, the final vote from the
Board of Regents was four in favor,
two abstentions and one against,
despite tobacco representing less
than .25 percent of the endowment’s
investments.
The
only
other
example of the University divesting
was in 1988 due to apartheid in South
Africa. Other than those examples,
the University has largely avoided
engaging in dialogue surrounding
divestment, including the climate
fight.
In order to create more effective
change,
the
University
should
include more than just one student
on the commission and in the
planning and development of a more
environmentally-conscious campus.
The University has consistently
denied requests for a commitment
to carbon neutrality by 2030, even
though student support has been
rapidly increasing. One way to
integrate the student body into its
decision-making
process
would
be to give students more powerful
voting rights on a committee that has
a central role in working alongside
the University to combat carbon
emissions. The student group would
need to be diverse and have a deep
understanding of environmental
justice,
since
marginalized
communities around the world
are disproportionately impacted
by climate change. The University
needs to serve its students, and the
only way to do that is for the student
body to be at the forefront of this
fight.
Students have repeatedly asked
the University to take real climate
action, and the University should
listen and act accordingly. The
threat of climate change is dire
and the University’s actions do not
reflect its urgency and severity.
In expanding the CPP, failing to
commit to carbon neutrality and
expanding our investments in fossil
fuels, the University is failing to
be a leader on clean energy. The
University has branded itself as
an institution dedicated to solving
global problems; students flock
here to learn the skills necessary
to change the world. When the
administration works against the
values and goals of the students,
when the Board of Regents ignores
the University’s own research on
climate change and when students
peacefully protesting are arrested
rather than heard, prospective
applicants notice. The University
can still be one of the leaders in
the climate movement. By taking
steps to prevent further harm to
the environment, the University
can rebrand itself as an institution
committed to sustainability.
We recognize that transitioning
to true carbon neutrality by
2030 will be a challenge, but in
our eyes, the University has a
moral imperative to lead. The
University can and should be a
leader. Considering we are one of
Michigan’s largest employers, we
have a significant carbon footprint.
However, this also means we have
the greatest potential to reduce
such residual impacts. Moreover,
those who have felt and will feel
the impacts of climate change
first — marginalized communities
around the world — are less able
to address the crisis than we are.
We have the power to lead because
our endowment, at nearly $12
billion, is one of the biggest in the
nation, and just added a record $5
billion. If the University, a public
research institution accountable to
its stakeholders, cannot meet the
objectives set out by the IPCC, no
one can.
We want to express our
feelings
of
mistrust
toward
Schlissel as it pertains to his and
the
administration’s
handling
of climate policies based on
historical evidence of mishandling,
avoiding
and
lagging
behind
on climate issues. Despite his
attractive,
promising
rhetoric
surrounding climate change and
the commission, little has been
done or is known about how the
University plans to take the lead
and enact a just transition to true
carbon neutrality. Not only are we
behind other schools in committing
to carbon neutrality, we are lagging
on one of the most serious global
issues of our time and the future.
We demand the University become
more transparent in their plans by
giving students more power in the
internal committee or more access
to open, unfiltered conversations.
We must be proactive in creating
true, effective changes that will
not only brand the University as
a progressive and bold campus,
but as one that acts with a moral
interest in mind rather than profit.
Furthermore, we call on student
activists to sustain the energy
that they’ve exhibited recently
via protesting, organizing and
demanding serious action. If we
continue with this movement, and
if the University decides to invest in
its students’ future, we can actually
make a difference for generations to
come.
ABBIE BERRINGER | COLUMN
What is tolerance?
A
ccording to the Merriam-
Webster Dictionary, the
number
one
definition
of tolerance is: “the capacity to
endure pain or hardship,” followed
by “a sympathy or indulgence for
beliefs or practices differing from
or conflicting with one’s own.” Yet,
when I hear the word “tolerance”
thrown around on our campus, it
rarely feels like we are talking about
the textbook definition of tolerance
at all.
In fact, it often seems that when
someone is asking you to tolerate
their opinions these days, they are
telling you to affirm them. As a
conservative, when I respectfully
disagree on issues such as abortion,
gun rights, universal health care or
free higher education, I am often
told that my opinions are invalid,
insensitive or bigoted. On a college
campus as liberal as the University of
Michigan, with 90 percent of voters
at campus polling places voting
for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and a
university president who openly
applauded this while condemning
students who may have voted
for Donald Trump, it seems that
disagreeing on such contentious
issues is simply unacceptable.
While I have come in contact
with this sort of problem many
times on campus, a bright and
shining example occurred just the
other day when I volunteered to
help table at an informative pro-
life event on the Diag sponsored by
Students for Life and co-sponsored
by Young Americans for Freedom
and the Network of Enlightened
Women. While standing at the table
and engaging in thoughtful debate
with someone who disagreed with
us, a female student walked up to
us and simply said, “What’s up,
c**ts?” After this initial exchange,
she continued to stand there
while refusing to engage with us,
before asking another student if
he’d “like to get away from these
motherfuckers?” before eventually
storming off, flipping us off and
yelling, “Fuck you!”
One would hope that this
sort of experience is a rarity. One
would also hope this individual
represents a minority of college-
aged youth seemingly incapable
of defending their ideologies with
logic and intellect, who resort to
petty insults and profanity. But
this sort of interaction is actually
not that rare at all. It seems that
the mentality of the modern leftist
movement — that their ideas are
all together infallible — has led to a
stark entitlement that they should
never have to be challenged, and
when they are, the challenges are
automatically
illegitimate.
For
example, as a political science
student I have heard from other
students in my classes that there
“is not room for people like me in
America anymore,” “small town
conservatives
don’t
want
our
intelligence,” “conservatives have
small minds,” “most white people
are racist” and “conservatives hate
women.” Additionally, in my four
years at the University, only one of
my professors has openly identified
as right of center and most of my
professors
have
either
openly
identified as liberal or made clearly
liberal statements in class. This
problem is only compounded by
the “safe space” mentality that has
gripped so many college campuses
to date and allowed young liberals to
think they deserve to be “shielded”
and “protected” from opposing
opinions by their university, which
means the University affirms that
this sentiment is true.
From
my
experience,
the
political left on this campus does
not try to be tolerant of my political
beliefs. They don’t feel that they
need to listen to the reasoning for
my beliefs or respect my culture and
values. They don’t have to be tolerant
of my notion of small government,
the sanctity of life at conception or
my interpretation of the Second
Amendment. In fact, they get to
call me names, yell, protest, and use
the common scapegoats of “ists”
and “isms” to dismiss legitimate
intellectual conversation.
They don’t have to engage in
debate with contentious political
speakers on the other side of the
political spectrum, either. They
wish to shut them down, be shielded
from them by safe spaces and deny
their rights to free speech. When
conservative speaker Ben Shapiro
came to campus on March 12,
for instance, counter protesters
met to organize a protest that
goals included distracting from
Shapiro’s message by “diverging
attendees’ attention through live
entertainment.”
Comments
by
members in attendance included
people calling him a “right-wing
bigot.” At the event, Shapiro
explicitly said that anyone who
disagreed could come to the front
of the line for questions, as he does
at every event, and yet there was
not one question challenging any
of his beliefs. Even though as a
conservative, I agreed with much
of what he was saying, I don’t agree
with all of his opinions and I was
disappointed that he did not face
any intellectual challenges at a
supposedly esteemed, intellectual
campus.
While
certain
levels
of
extremism
must
certainly
be
condemned, like arguments for
racial supremacy, this piece speaks
to the alarming number of people on
the left who are labeling almost all
views contradictory to their own as
intolerable. They say the right “hates
women” when we push back against
abortion, without hearing the
complex moral, biological, as well
as philosophical reasoning behind
why many conservatives are pro-
life. Furthermore, if the left truly
believes these accusations to be true,
then shutting them down with logic
and intellectual debate should be no
problem at all. At the very least, they
could use the opportunities to do so
to prove to their base, and those who
are on the fence, why their ideas
are superior. They can’t do any of
these things if all they wish to do is
shutdown any debate at all.
As a graduating senior, I hope
that in the future my conservative
classmates feel more open to
state their political ideology in
classes and therefore have more
opportunities to debate peers on the
other side of the aisle. That is why I
challenge the left movement on this
campus. If they truly think their
solutions will work, if they truly feel
we conservatives are misguided,
they should use intellectual debate
among
peers,
professors
and
speakers on opposite sides of the
aisle to actually defend their ideas
instead of using catchphrases and
profanity to try and shut us down.
I challenge them to rise to the
occasion of true tolerance, which
isn’t forcing someone to affirm your
beliefs, but accepting that in a free
democratic society, the marketplace
of ideas allows us to disagree.
When they say, “love trumps hate”
I challenge them to mean it and to
ask themselves if they truly believe
that conservatives really represent
“hate.”
This
doesn’t
mean
they
can’t vehemently disagree as
we vehemently disagree with
them. Rather, it simply means
coming to the intellectual table
with a level of respect worthy of
such a prestigious institution of
learning. It means coming to a
place where the opportunities to
bring in speakers, host debates and
engage in ideas that cover the full
spectrum of American politics are
virtually endless. My fear is that
the left has truly gone so far as to
believe the average conservative
doesn’t deserve as much. My hope
as a conservative on this campus
is that with intellectual debate,
the left will realize that we are not
all racist, sexist or bigoted. I hope
that people on both sides of the
aisle will be able to challenge their
own biases and assumptions in a
way that benefits campus political
life and discourse.
I
n case you were living under
a rock, these past weekends
had a number of college
basketball
games.
I could not watch
all of them, but the
ones I watched were
action
packed
and
enjoyable – and they
weren’t just enjoyable
for those of you who
can’t stand Duke. Per
USA Today, the four
coaches (Bruce Pearl,
Tom Izzo, Chris Beard
and
Tony
Bennett)
who made it to the Final Four
took home a combined $1 million
in bonuses alone. The four of
them still make gobs of money
even without bonuses factored
in — Virginia’s coach makes
a total of about $4.15 million,
Auburn’s coach had a salary of
$2.6 million for the 2018-2019
season Michigan State’s coach
made $3.7 million for the 2018-
2019 season, and Texas Tech’s
coach made $2.8 million for the
2018-2019 season. The players,
who I assume are the reason
we watch these games, made a
total of zero dollars in bonuses,
which
combines
with
their
lucrative zero dollars during the
season as well as their lucrative
endorsement deals (which also
net them zero dollars) for a grand
total of zero dollars. Quite a
difference, isn’t it?
In fiscal year 2017, the NCAA
made over a billion dollars per
their financial reports. Colleges
also make boatloads of money
off of their players, whether
it be through ways that are
ostensibly ethical, like licensing
and deciding what shoes players
can wear (with occasionally
disastrous results), or through
more blatantly unethical means,
such as not allowing
students
to
enter
into
likeness-based
endorsement deals or
even admit that they
play college sports.
And what do students
get in exchange for
enabling
showers
of
gold
for
their
colleges, coaches and
conferences?
Free
Wi-Fi. One need not
be a scholar of deals to see that it
is an inordinately raw one and it is
something decent people should
want addressed for the sake of
fairness.
There are several ways to go
about addressing this – from
paying athletes directly, allowing
them to enter into likeness-
based
endorsement
deals
or
giving them a share of revenues.
Athletes
deserve
to
make
money on top of their athletic
scholarships for a number of
reasons. Usually the hours that
are put in are comparable to a
full-time job (40 hours a week)
and as a result, it can become
more difficult to have spending
money. Secondly, they should
be allowed to sign endorsement
deals with whatever brands they
choose and should absolutely
be free to license their likeness
— there is no good reason that
the league should be able to
profit off athletes if the athletes
themselves
cannot.
Lastly,
athletes generate a lot of money
for their institutions. There are
some people who disagree with
paying athletes because they
receive scholarships, but I believe
this is mistaken. While they do
get scholarships, that funding is
not remotely equivalent to the
amount of money they generate
for the NCAA. From SBNation,
the back of the napkin math
goes like this: The NCAA got
$857 million for the broadcast
rights to this tournament (from
Turner Broadcasting, if you were
wondering) and there are 68
teams each with 13 scholarship
spots
for
a
total
of
884
scholarship players and, while
no one knows the exact value of
a scholarship, it could probably
be pegged from $30,000 on the
low end to $50,000 on the high
end. Multiplying the number of
scholarships by the high value
of a scholarship (and assuming
high end costs), one gets $44.2
million in total scholarship
money given to NCAA players.
Five percent of $857 million
is $43.75 million. The total
compensation from schools to
players is just over five percent
of the money the NCAA gets
from the broadcast licensing of
this tournament. One need not
be a Marxist to think that this
distribution is skewed unfairly.
Coaches,
conferences
and
schools are all pivotal parts of
the game. However, at the end
of the day, we tune in to see the
players, and it is time that they
get something commensurate
with the wealth they create for
those above them. They have
been geese laying golden eggs
for far too long and deserve
equitable treatment.
ANIK JOSHI | COLUMN
Why we should pay college athletes
Anik Joshi can be reached at
anikj@umich.edu
Abbie Berringer can be reached at
abbierbe@umich.edu.
FROM THE DAILY
“Leaders and the Best?” Prove it.
I
n recent weeks, there has been a surge in student activism surrounding
the University of Michigan’s policies and commitments on climate action
and carbon neutrality. In October, University President Mark Schlissel
announced the President’s Commission on Carbon Neutrality, with a directive to
create a plan for the University to go carbon neutral. However, the move has been
met with frustration from students on campus who feel the commission lacks the
strength, transparency and experience to enact effective change.
ANIK
JOSHI