Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, November 11, 2019

Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Mary Rolfes

Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
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

KATIE OPPENHEIM AND VICTORIA HOCH | OP-ED

U-M hospitals are great. So why is parking such a pain?

NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN

VALENTINA HOUSE | OP-ED

Democrats cannot abandon the truth

The difference between education and indoctrination

A

t 
the 
second 
Democratic 
debate, 
when pressed to defend 
the cost of Medicare for All, 
liberal Sens. Bernie Sanders, 
I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, 
D-Mass., 
accused 
their 
more moderate opponents of 
repeating “Republican talking 
points.” 
The 
regrettable 
phrase resurfaced at the latest 
Democratic debate, when Sen. 
Amy 
Klobuchar, 
D-Minn., 
criticized Warren for dodging 
questions about the cost of her 
proposed programs.
The cost of Warren and 
Sanders’s extensive proposed 
reforms warrant scrutiny, but 
their casual dismissal of fiscal 
realities is far more disturbing. 
The exact fiscal impacts of 
Medicare for All would depend 
on the plan’s finer details, but 
any single-payer system would 
boost government expenditures 
by trillions, and a few neutral 
analyses 
predict 
total 
costs 
would increase. These are facts, 
not “Republican talking points,” 
and 
Warren 
and 
Sanders’s 
refusal to be transparent about 
the costs of their proposed 
programs is troubling.
If the progressive candidates 
continue to use the phrase 
“Republican 
talking 
points” 
to rebuff criticism, then the 
phrase could become equivalent 
to President Donald Trump’s 
mantra of “fake news.” Trump’s 
refusal to accept facts and his 
brazen denial of inconvenient 
truths is why nearly two-thirds 
of Americans believe he is 
dishonest. 
Trump’s 
untruthfulness 
is 
not a strength, and it is certainly 
not a quality Democrats should 
try to emulate. If Democrats are 
to prevail in 2020, the nominee 
must be perceived as honest, 
well-tempered and likable. These 
are all traits the public believes 
Trump lacks, and Trump’s poor 
character evaluation is a major 
reason for his dismal approval 
ratings 
among 
independents, 
who are the key demographic 
for 2020. Trump won the group 
in 2016, but their dim views of 
Trump’s character and their 
high disapproval of his job 
performance is advantageous 
for the Democratic nominee in 
2020.

However, 
this 
advantage 
assumes that the Democratic 
nominee 
is 
viewed 
more 
favorably. Trump’s character 
ratings were about as low in 
2016 as they are now, but former 
Secretary 
of 
State 
Hillary 
Clinton was also perceived as 
untrustworthy and unlikable, 
enabling Trump to overcome 
his low favorability ratings.
To avoid a repeat in 2020, the 
Democratic nominee must build 
a reputation of trustworthiness 
and authenticity, and it is fair 
to question whether Sanders 
and Warren are capable of 
this task. Aside from their 
“Republican 
talking 
points” 
line, both candidates have come 
under scrutiny for dishonesty 
and evasiveness. Sanders has 
been frequently corrected for 
repeatedly 
overstating 
U.S. 
health care costs relative to 
other developed countries, and 
his 
campaign’s 
evasiveness 
following 
his 
recent 
heart 
attack drew scrutiny. 
Warren, for her part, has 

insisted she has substantial 
Native 
American 
ancestry 
throughout her professional 
career, but a DNA test last 
year proved otherwise, forcing 
Warren to apologize to Native 
American groups and eliciting 
mockery from Trump. Warren 
also created controversy after 
claiming she was forced out of a 
teaching job for being pregnant, 
which seemed to contradict 
previous statements and board 
records.
Sanders 
and 
Warren’s 
untruthfulness reflects a larger 
trend on the progressive left in 
the Trump era. Rep. Alexandria 
Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a leader 
of the progressive movement, 
has 
frequently 
disregarded 

the facts during her advocacy 
for progressive reforms. In 
December 2018, Ocasio-Cortez 
grossly mischaracterized the 
nature of Department of Defense 
accounting 
errors, 
claiming 
that 
the 
funds 
supposedly 
unaccounted for could have 
funded 66 percent of single-
payer health care. The claim 
was rated “Four Pinocchios” 
by the Washington Post’s fact-
checker, but when pressed on 
the claim in an interview with 
Anderson 
Cooper, 
Ocasio-
Cortez 
defended 
herself, 
saying that “there’s a lot of 
people more concerned about 
being precisely, factually and 
semantically 
correct 
than 
about being morally right.” 
Ocasio-Cortez’s defense was 
troubling — being morally and 
factually right are not mutually 
exclusive. 
Furthermore, 
her 
defense essentially excuses lies 
told for some greater purpose, 
which 
sounds 
suspiciously 
similar to the logic used by some 
Republicans to defend Trump’s 
lies.
Of course, this problem is 
not exclusive to the progressive 
wing of the Democratic Party. 
Joe Biden has come under fire 
for grossly exaggerating and 
even fabricating stories on the 
campaign trail. After factoring 
in Biden, all three Democratic 
frontrunners have spotty recent 
records when it comes to the 
truth.
This 
trend 
is 
alarming, 
since the Democrats’ greatest 
advantage against Trump is 
the president’s poor character. 
Trump has told a staggering 
13,400 lies in less than three 
years, accounting for 76 percent 
of his total public statements, 
according to PolitiFact. The 
facts are on the Democrats’ 
side – it is unnecessary and 
irresponsible to distort the 
truth. 
If 
the 
Democratic 
nominee 
cannot 
earn 
a 
perceived “character edge” over 
Trump, the president could very 
well ride the strong economy 
and his incumbency edge to 
re-election. Now is not the time 
for Democrats to abandon the 
truth.

Noah Harrison can be reached at 

noahharr@umich.edu.

A

re we being educated 
or indoctrinated in the 
classroom? 
Education 
stems from a fact-based and open-
minded presentation of history and 
ideas. Indoctrination is an opinion-
based presentation of those ideas. 
The average college student 
today will tell you that President 
Donald 
Trump 
has 
created 
deep divisions along party lines. 
However, studies show that the 
U.S. became increasingly more 
polarized during Barack Obama’s 
administration. I often wonder 
if this development is the effect 
of a one-sided education system 
that borders on indoctrination. 
Students and especially professors 
at a majority of colleges share more 
liberal ideologies than conservative 
ones. As a result, those who 
don’t share in these beliefs seem 
extremely different from them, and 
as a nation, we feel more polarized. 
As 
Americans, 
our 
two-party 
system has forced us to view the 
opposite party as the enemy. We 
stop listening to each other when 
we hear we’re from different sides 
of the political spectrum. In reality, 
though, we are much more similar 
than we are different. We all want 
everyone to have human rights, 
our kids to be safe in schools, legal 
immigrants to come to our country 
and to not die from a planet on fire. 
Conservatives and liberals differ in 
their strategies for attaining these 
goals, but they ultimately want the 
same things. 
It’s no secret that liberal ideas 
are threaded into our everyday lives 
— CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, 
NYT, WAPO, public school teachers 
and most of Hollywood lean left. 
Most people also believe their 
social media leans left. Consistently, 
only one side’s strategy is given the 
spotlight. Is the only way to achieve 
the America we all want through 
Democratic candidates and their 
legislation? Are conservative points 
of view even necessary anymore? 
Conservative speakers face extreme 
public outcry on campuses if they 
try to share their views. If liberals 
have all the answers, is there really 
any need for debate? Any political 
theory course will teach you debate 
is vital to discovering the truth. 
Philosophers like John Stuart Mill 
encourage us to challenge our 
beliefs constantly with opposing 
arguments in order to refine our 

beliefs and ensure they ring valid 
and true. Some may think the 
only value in debate is to “convert” 
conservatives rather than learn 
anything from them. Today, we 
discuss our views only with those 
who reinforce them. Rallies and 
strikes have taken the place of 
discussion and compromise.
In college — precisely where we 
should experience interchange of 
thoughts and ideas free of bias — 
professors shouldn’t also lean to 
one side. However, they often reveal 
their left-leaning biases throughout 
their courses. My political science 
professors will primarily begin 
their courses by saying they won’t 
try and convince us of their political 
views. In practice, the effort often 
falls short. It’s not uncommon, for 
example, that professors will banter 
back and forth with students about 
how much our president sucks in a 
“come on, we all think this, right?” 
kind of way. I’ve had professors 
assign me satire readings poking 
fun at the Republican party and its 
old, white, bigoted male members. 
These viewpoints are valid, and I’m 
not saying I didn’t gain insight from 
them. However, once in a while, it 
would be nice to see the other side 
represented. I’ve also been taught 
there’s been more U.S. homicides 
in the past few years than ever 
before. If you look at any given 
chart online, however, it’ll actually 
show homicide rates have declined 
since their 1980 peak. I don’t think 
professors have any malicious 
intent to make conservative views 
obsolete. In fact, they may not even 
be aware that the way they teach 
their content leaves little room for 
debate. They probably think that 
everyone shares the same liberal 
ideology and therefore, there’s no 
need to acknowledge the other 
side. Conservatives may speak up 
against liberal claims, but they’re 
put in a position where they feel like 
outcasts in the room. 
The Washington Post has a 
slogan that reads “Democracy 
Dies in Darkness.” Freedom of 
speech and press are crucial 
aspects of our democracy. From 
these rights, we gain a wealth of 
knowledge. 
Historically, 
slaves 
were not permitted to learn to read 
as a tactic to reduce their power and 
potential. Their suppressors feared 
that any gained knowledge or skills 
would incite them to rebel. Political 

party affiliation aside, it should 
be in everyone’s best interest to 
protect our freedom of expression 
to preserve our democracy and 
strengthen our knowledge. This 
entails everyone having a voice, not 
just the majority. 
The 
problem 
with 
the 
manifestation of similar beliefs 
and like-minded groups is that any 
opinion, even slightly contrary, 
seems extreme. Author George 
Orwell warned us all of the dangers 
of groupthink, and one of his 
warning signs is that any unpopular 
opinion will stand out like a sore 
thumb. Some may already feel like 
this in class, but there’s still hope. As 
it is now, when a conservative voice 
speaks up, about 10 other liberal 
students will raise their hands in 
defense. The enthusiasm is there, 
but let’s make sure to address — 
rather than attack — the claims that 
are being made. 
I’ll argue liberals have shifted 
more left on the political spectrum 
due to constant reinforcement. 
As liberal opinions become more 
circulated, those widely spread 
views produce the baseline for 
comparison. As a result, views that 
were once considered extreme 
now 
seem 
more 
moderate. 
It’s become more popular, for 
example, for students to be in 
favor of socialism, open borders 
and sweeping gun legislation. 
In contrast, conservative views 
seem more extreme because they 
are shared less frequently in the 
classroom. The perspective that 
illegal immigration is a crime or 
that background checks are more 
effective than gun bans might seem 
controversial now just because 
they stand out starkly against 
popular 
notions. 
Unpopular 
beliefs can be true, though, and 
with greater interaction, they can 
be realized. For instance, most 
liberals reference other countries 
with tighter gun laws as evidence 
that gun laws work. New Zealand 
is the exception, then, because 
in March of 2019, they had two 
consecutive mass shootings in 
which 51 people died.

Valentina House is a sophomore 

studying Political Science and 

Communications and can be reached 

at valhouse@umich.edu.

T

he hospitals at Michigan 
Medicine are the best in 
the state and among the 
best in the entire nation. So why is 
it so hard to park here? 
The story of Michigan Medicine 
over the past two decades is a 
story 
of 
continual 
expansion: 
more hospitals, clinics, academic 
buildings, patients and employees. 
It’s painfully obvious that if 
you spend hundreds of millions of 
dollars to add buildings and people 
to an already crowded medical 
complex, you need to put some 
thought — and resources — into 
more parking, more shuttle buses 
and other transportation options. 
Unfortunately, the University 
administration does not have a 
firm understanding of the obvious. 
The result is considerable pain 
for patients seeking care and for 
workers whose jobs are to provide 
that care. 
By pain, we mean patients who 
must arrive at their appointments 
an hour or more ahead of time, 
adding another toll to what may 
be an already stressful experience 
associated 
with 
health 
care 
appointments.
By pain, we mean nurses 
leaving their homes at 5 a.m. 
to arrive for a 12-hour shift 
beginning at 7 a.m. Since a U-M 
“Blue” employee parking pass 
— which costs more than $700 
a year — is nothing more than a 
license to hunt for a parking space, 
many nurses, house officers and 
other employees arrive by 6 a.m. 
to snag a spot and catch a nap in 
their cars until their shifts start.
Resident doctors and dentists, 
meanwhile, 
often 
visit 
the 
hospital and one or more clinic 
sites during a typical workday. 
When parking is a nightmare, 
that means precious minutes — 
or hours — are wasted driving 
around looking for a space instead 
of seeing patients. Is that any way 
to run a hospital?
To be clear, as elected leaders 
of unions representing nurses, 
resident doctors and dentists at 

Michigan Medicine, we’re glad to 
see our hospitals and clinics grow 
and expand. Our members are 
deeply committed to providing 
quality health care, and it’s great 
to see the University offering 
more services in more places to 
more people.
A new, 264-bed, state-of-the-
art hospital tower sounds terrific. 
The building, however, won’t take 
care of people by itself. To remain 
a great hospital, U-M needs great 
doctors, 
nurses, 
technicians 
and support staff. But you can’t 
attract top people with miserable 
working conditions. 
Can a nurse who has to nap 
in their car before starting work 
really deliver top quality care? 
Can hospital staff do their best 
when a 12-hour shift stretches 
to 16 hours or more because of a 
two- or three-hour commute in 
each direction? 
There are currently nearly 
29,000 
Michigan 
Medicine 
employees, 
but 
only 
10,000 
parking spaces on the medical 
campus. 
Those 
spaces 
serve 
patients, visitors and employees. 
The new hospital tower will add 
about 1,600 new employees, along 
with more patients. So, when 
University officials brag about 
adding 1,000 new parking spaces 
next year, the math just doesn’t 
add up.
The problem isn’t just that we 
don’t have enough spaces. It’s 
that University administrators 
— who have privileged “Gold” 
passes allowing them to park 
steps away from their offices 
— seem to have no idea what’s 
needed to meet the needs of a 
facility that operates 24 hours a 
day, 365 days a year. 
Not 
everyone 
can 
park 
next to the hospital or clinic 
where they work. But shouldn’t 
administrators of a university 
with an $11.9 billion endowment 
be able to keep remote parking 
lots well-maintained and well-lit 
for the safety of employees who 
work shifts around the clock?

Of course they should — but 
they don’t. They also have failed 
to provide enough shuttle buses 
to get workers to and from remote 
lots in a reasonable time frame. 
Thankfully, 
there’s 
progress 
on that front: After months of 
employee complaints, Michigan 
Medicine has announced that 
more shuttle buses will be coming 
online, for exclusive use by health 
service employees. 
It’s not as though we didn’t see 
these problems coming. Parking 
has been a terrible problem at 
U-M hospitals for decades. We 
knew it would get worse when 
administrators first announced 
a plan last March to convert 
an onsite employee lot to more 
convenient parking for patients 
(which patients need and deserve). 
Our unions immediately asked 
to negotiate about how this plan 
would be implemented, as part of 
our responsibility to bargain over 
working conditions. University 
administrators said no. We asked 
for information about parking 
pass utilization for all employees 
and executives. Again, University 
administrators said no.
No wonder the frustration 
boiled over in October, with 
hospital 
workers 
chanting 
and carrying signs outside the 
groundbreaking 
for 
the 
new 
hospital tower. We’re sorry if we 
intruded on a celebration for major 
donors and blue-chip guests, but 
we’ve got a job to do: taking care 
of patients. To do it properly, we 
need safe, accessible parking so 
we can get to work on time. 
This issue isn’t going away — 
and we’ll keep making noise until 
the University gets it right.

Katie Oppenheim, RN, is chair 

of the UM Professional Nurses 

Council and Victoria Hoch, MD, 

is president-elect of the House 

Officers Association and a resident 

physician in Emergency Medicine. 

They can be reached at 

katie.oppenheim@minurses.org 

or rtarter@med.umich.edu.

LENA SISKIND | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT LENASISK@UMICH.EDU

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

If Democrats are 
to prevail in 2020, 
the nominee must 
be perceived as 
honest

