Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Zack Blumberg
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
Erin White
Ashley Zhang

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

T

he 2020 Democratic
primary
has
been
defined by a number
of litmus tests. Many of the
candidates in the progressive
wing of the party, including
Sen.
Cory
Booker,
Sen.
Kamala Harris, former U.S.
Rep.
Beto
O’Rourke
and
others have been pushed to
prove their progressive merits
by stating their support for
key progressive policies or
process
measures.
Which
policies
constitute
those
litmus
tests
is
important
because they offer a signal
about which issues Democrats
will prioritize if they retake
power in 2020. As of this
writing, they are in support
for some form of “Medicare
for all” and the Green New
Deal
—
the
“superstar”
policies. Different candidates
are trying to add what they see
as their unique contribution
to that list. Booker introduced
a baby bonds bill and Harris
wants to expand the earned
income tax credit through her
LIFT the Middle Class Act.
These candidates are trying
to elevate the specific policy
area they have expertise in to
the level of “Medicare for all”
and the Green New Deal. The
policy most deserving of being
promoted to superstar status
is Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s
proposal for universal child
care and affordable preschool.
Warren’s plan guarantees
that every American making
less
than
approximately
twice the poverty line will
be able to send their child
to
government-sponsored
day care and preschool for
free. Families making more
than that amount would pay
for the service on a sliding
scale tied to income, maxing
out at 7 percent for the
wealthiest. Warren’s proposal
is
important
and
timely
because child care costs are
high and rising — the median
annual price is $8,320, more
than half the cost of in-state
tuition at the University of
Michigan — and takes up
between, according to some
estimates, 9 and 36 percent
of annual household income.
Warren’s plan would also
establish quality standards
that all programs receiving
government support would
have to meet to address the

poor state of preschools in
the United States right now.
To meet that plan, Warren
proposes paying daycare and
preschool instructors more
like the teachers they are.
The
proposal
is
also
important
because
the
United States lags behind
other countries in child care
and
preschool
attendance.
According to a 2015 report,
the United States ranks 31st
in
3-year-old
enrollment
among the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and
Development, a group of 36
mostly rich countries. The
United States needs real and
dramatic
early
childhood
education reform.
Democratic
candidates
are supportive of expansions
of early childhood education,
but besides Warren, none
has supported making child
care universal. All the other
senators running for president
have signed onto a long-
running bill to double the
number of children eligible
for subsidized child care, but
stop short of universality.
Every Democratic 2020
candidate should pledge to
fight for Warren’s plan or
some expansion of child care
and preschool if elected, but
they have not felt the need to.
Voters and the media have not
considered
universal
child
care a priority for progressive
candidates for president, but
they should.
One
reason
Warren’s
policy
has
not
achieved
superstar status is because the
research seems to show that
early
childhood
education
is not actually helpful for
students. However, this line
of research takes too narrow
an
approach.
Early
child
education
proponents
cite
that
academic
differences
between
children
who
participated
in
programs
and
those
who
did
not
are negligible as early as
first grade. But this line of
research
is
fundamentally
flawed because it does not
fully consider the long-term
impacts of these programs
on
families
or
students.
Studies that look at how
access to reliable day care
impacts students long-term
have
consistently
shown
favorable tangible impacts —

higher college attendance and
graduation, lower drug use
and arrest rates — as well as
positive impacts on maturity.
The research shows that
the
benefits
of
universal
preschool, while negligible in
the classroom, are significant
in other areas of children’s
lives, at least in the short-
term. They allow parents to
avoid child-care costs, such
as hiring a babysitter, paying
for expensive day care or the
opportunity cost of a parent
staying at home to take care
of the child. With subsidized
or free child care, traditional
family
income
is
more
resilient because there will be
more sources, creating a more
stable home environment.
But
the
benefits
of
child
care
extend
beyond
the
children
themselves.
Universal
child
care
and
affordable preschool would
serve to improve the gender
pay gap. When children are
not in school, women are
far more likely to stay at
home than men. Taking a
break from work sets women
back in the workplace and
contributes to the gender pay
gap.
Both Booker’s baby bonds
bill and Harris’ LIFT Act are
trying to promote equity,
but universal child care is a
more comprehensive effort to
promote equal opportunity.
Progressives should support
universal child care, and not
just an expansion as most
do, for moral and political
reasons.
Morally,
every
child should have access to
early childcare’s long-term
benefits and parents should
not have to sabotage their
careers due to expensive child
care. Politically, pushing for
ambitious solutions may make
incremental progress more
likely, as it has for health
care
coverage
expansions.
The litmus test dynamic of
the Democratic primary is
complicated and problematic,
but voters and the media
should brand the candidates
that
have
not
decisively
supported
universal
child
care as less progressive than
those who have.

TIMOTHY SPURLIN | COLUMN

Reflections atop a dead mountain
R

ecently, I took a road
trip down to
West Virginia
to
learn
more
about
mountaintop
removal coal mining
and tour the remains
of a retired mine on
Kayford
Mountain,
located in a rural
area
outside
of
Charleston,
W.V.
Mountaintop
removal, as the name
suggests, is a process of coal
mining that involves rigging
explosives to a mountaintop
and blowing it up so coal
companies can extract threads
of coal hidden in the interior of
the mountain. The results are
devastating to the local ecology
and topography, reducing the
richly
biodiverse
area
and
leveling the mountain to a
barren rocky landscape. My
commitment to environmental
activism guided my journey
to see the horrible effects of
coal mining firsthand, yet, my
experience was not exactly
what I had pictured it would be.
In fact, while the lifeless
remains of the mountain itself
were enough to depress anyone,
it was the interaction with the
local community that moved
me more. The environmental
implications of mountaintop
removal coal mining, and coal
mining in general, are well
documented, however, the more
insidious effect is the economic
burden placed on the people
living in these communities.
West Virginia is a state that is
somewhat dependent on coal for
its economy. Coal built the state
and its ongoing slow demise has
devastated rural communities.
The trip highlighted just how
influential coal is to the people
of West Virginia. Growing up in
Michigan, I felt strong parallels
between the coal mines of West
Virginia and the auto factories
of Flint and Detroit. In both
cases local communities are
wholly dependent on a singular
employer and eventually are
left with no viable safety net.
While on Kayford Mountain,
my group encountered a local
who lived on the mountain
and coincidentally had a close
personal
tie
to
Michigan.
After
exchanging
a
few
pleasantries, he told us in his
thick Appalachian accent that
he lived and worked in Flint for
the better part of 25 years. He
said that when he was young,
the coal mine in his town shut
down, so he packed up and
headed north to work in the
auto industry. He worked at
a factory in Flint doing metal
work until General Motors shut
down some of its operations. He
moved back to West Virginia
and has been living on the
mountain ever since.
The
connection
between
Appalachia and the Midwest
runs deeper than I could have
thought. Larry Gibson, founder
of the nonprofit Keeper of the
Mountains,
responsible
for
giving tours of mountaintop
removal on Kayford Mountain,
actually spent most of his life in
northern Ohio. When GM shut
down its plant in the 1980s,
Gibson decided to move back
to West Virginia and live in an
area that his family had owned
for
a
generation.
Gibson’s
culture and heritage are rooted
deeply in a mix of Midwestern

and
Appalachian
values
of
hard, honest work.
While on the tour,
Bill
DePaulo,
an
environmental
lawyer and member
of Keeper of the
Mountains,
told
stories
about
what
inspired
Gibson to start the
nonprofit.
Back
before mountaintop
removal coal mining
started, Kayford was the lowest
point in the surrounding peaks
of the Appalachian Mountains;
however,
coal
companies
stripped down the surrounding
summits and the once beautiful
and rich landscape became flat
and dead. When coal companies
tried to buy Gibson’s land,
his
charitable
organization
instead managed to designate
his property as a public park
via a land trust agreement,
thus protecting it from further
mountaintop
removal
and
allowing public tours.
As one might expect, this
angered the coal companies
operating in the area, and
they did everything in their
power to scare Gibson away.
According to DePaulo, when
Keeper of the Mountains first
started operating on Kayford
Mountain,
coal
companies
would send people to intimidate
tourists and environmentalists
by shooting into the air or
emptying a revolver clip into
vacant trailers. While on the
tour, I walked past a trailer that
still had bullet holes scattered
throughout
the
exterior.
Sometimes
the
intimidation
turned
to
actual
violence.
DePaulo told a story of how one
morning, Gibson had woken up
to find his dog had been killed
and strung up on his front
porch. While there was no note,
the timing and circumstances
heavily suggests that someone
from the coal companies was
responsible.
While
absolutely
tragic,
Gibson’s story is not an isolated
incident. Coal and fossil fuel
industries have a proven history
of intimidation and violence,
and have played an active role
in spreading misinformation
about their practices. In the
1920s, coal companies created
an army to fight a movement
of miners wanting to unionize,
resulting in what historians
have coined the coal wars.
Their
size
and
checkbooks
give them absolute power over
their workers, residents and
politicians. When talking with
DePaulo
about
the
politics
of the region, he stated aptly
that “there is no Republican
or Democratic Party in West
Virginia — just the coal party.”
A pillar of President Donald
Trump’s
2016
presidential
campaign
was
saving
coal.
As things stand today, he has
completely failed to do so. The
coal industry likes to propagate
the idea that renewables and
environmental standards are
responsible for the closure
of mines, but this is a gross
oversimplification
of
the
problem. Natural gas is about
60 percent more efficient than
the oldest coal plants in terms of
electricity generation, and is far
more cost effective, making it
coal’s biggest remaining threat.
As for the rapid loss of jobs in
the region, coal companies

themselves are also to blame.
While miners’ employment has
been rapidly decreasing, overall
coal production has remained
relatively constant primarily
due to mechanization. It is
evident that the coal industry
and lobbyists want to frame
environmentalists as the enemy
of miners to cover up their own
influence in their misfortune.
The fact of the matter remains:
Coal is a dying industry.
Driving
through
the
mountains
and
seeing
the
burdens firsthand reminded me
that our rhetoric surrounding
the
transition
away
from
coal should change as well.
The negative effects of coal
on human health, from both
mining
and
burning,
in
addition to the environmental
implications, are well-proven.
If we are to seriously make
any progress in limiting the
effects of climate change, the
transition away from coal and
fossil fuels must be swift. Often
we talk about environmental
justice for the communities
that are most affected but have
the least power or capacity
to do anything about it. This
needs to apply to the forgotten
coal miners of Appalachia as
well. Can we blame unemployed
miners for wanting to keep
their jobs, put food on the
table or send their kids to
school? They too are victims
and deserve justice in the fight
against fossil fuel. The blame
for their circumstances falls
on the politicians, Republican
and Democratic alike, who
allow fossil fuel money to
influence their decisions and
who contribute to incendiary
misinformation campaigns.
Organizations,
nonprofits
and
startups
have
opened
in
the
region,
dedicated
to training coal miners in
new, more applicable skills
for a modern economy. The
renewables sector has already
been outpacing coal in total
jobs as well as job growth,
providing
an
opportunity
to
train
unemployed
coal
miners in wind turbine and
solar production, as well as
installation. West Virginians
have a deep-rooted cultural
connection to energy — many
talk proudly about Appalachia’s
history
of
powering
the
nation just as Midwesterners
talk
about
the
automotive
industry — and this provides
an opportunity for them to hold
onto that culture while helping
the environment instead of
harming it.
While programs like these
are beneficial, there is still
much work to be done in order
to help struggling communities.
Most important among these is
the need to keep big fossil fuel
money out of the politicians’
pockets, at the local, state and
national level, who actively
work against the transition
to renewables. Promising the
coal industry will come back
is deceitful and damaging, and
only prolongs the inevitable.
As long as politicians continue
to accept lobbying money and
influence from the fossil fuel
industry, they are only going to
continue to hurt the very people
they are elected to represent.

I

t
was
with
great
disappointment that we
read University President
Mark
Schlissel’s
interview
with The Michigan Daily,
published on March 11 under
the headline “Schlissel: ‘We
are very much a confederation
of
three
campuses.’”
In
his
comments,
Schlissel
defended
the
University
of
Michigan’s
failure
to
sustainably
and
equitably
fund our Dearborn and Flint
campuses. Unfortunately, he
did not address the concerns
of many students, faculty,
non-instructional staff and
community members whose
very livelihoods are at stake.
It’s impossible to overstate
the severity of the funding
gap between the Ann Arbor,
Flint and Dearborn campuses.
Despite the fact that Dearborn
and Flint students pay about 80
percent of the tuition that Ann
Arbor students pay, their per-
student funding is drastically
lower than that — 23 percent
and 25 percent, according to
our research. This means that
their students receive about
one quarter of the resources
that Ann Arbor provides to
its students for instructional
support, financial aid, health
services and more. Rates of
student debt are similarly
staggering.
As a percentage of average
family income, Flint students
take on almost 3 times as
much debt as Ann Arbor
students,
and
Dearborn
students take on twice as
much. The Diversity, Equity
and Inclusion initiative and
Go
Blue
Guarantee
that
this
University
rightfully
champions exist only on the
Ann Arbor campus.

These
disparities
persist
while the University sits on
a massive surplus of funds.
Every year since 2007, the
University, according to data
we’ve compiled, has had a
surplus of more than $182
million – which is more than
the entire General Funds of
Flint or Dearborn.

Schlissel has the power
and funding to rectify these
disparities. However, in his
interview,
he
stated
that
addressing these inequities is
impossible due to worries over
campus autonomy and the
different characters of each
campus. We appreciate his
considerations for preserving
the unique missions of the
Dearborn and Flint campuses.
But
without
increased
funding,
those
missions
cannot be met effectively. We
see no contradiction between
respecting
the
autonomy
of the three campuses and
equitably funding each.
We, the One University
Coalition
comprised
of
members
from
the
Flint,
Dearborn
and
Ann
Arbor
campus
communities,
are
offering to sit down with
Schlissel to discuss our needs,
the platform we have proposed
to address them and how we
might achieve them while

respecting the autonomy of
each campus. Striving for
equity in Dearborn and Flint
will increase opportunities
for
Michigan’s
residents
and
allow
the
University
of Michigan to emerge as a
national leader in enhancing
diversity,
equity
and
inclusion initiatives in higher
education. By reallocating a
relatively small portion of the
Ann Arbor campus budget —
or simply using a small part of
the University’s multi-billion-
dollar endowment — Schlissel
and the Board of Regents have
the opportunity to drastically
transform the lives of students
and faculty on the Dearborn
and Flint campuses. Instead,
the University is choosing
to
forgo
that
opportunity
and silo the budgets of these
campuses entirely.
The University of Michigan
cannot
truly
create
an
environment
of
diversity,
equity and inclusion if it
fails to support the Flint and
Dearborn campuses it calls
home.
Like
Schlissel,
we
believe that this university is
home to the Leaders and the
Best — and Leaders and the
Best can do better than this.
On
behalf
of
the
One
University Campaign Steering
Committee,
-Ian
Robinson,

President
of
the
Lecturers’
Employee
Organization
(AFT-Michigan
Local 6244)
-Daniel
Birchok,
Assistant
Professor of Anthropology, U-M
Flint
-Austin Ogle, Undergraduate
Student, U-M Flint
-Jordan Yunker, Undergraduate
Student, U-M Dearborn

The Leaders and the Best can do better than this

Timothy Spurlin can be reached at

timrspur@umich.edu.

SOLOMON MEDINTZ | COLUMN

Solomon Medintz can be reached

at smedintz@umich.edu.

A new progressive litmus test? Universal child care

IAN ROBINSON AND DANIEL BIRCHOCK | OP-ED

TIMOTHY
SPURLIN

“It’s impossible
to overstate the
severity of the
funding gap between
the campuses”