Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Alanna Berger
Brittany Bowman
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Lola Yang
ERIN WHITE
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.
ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND
MILES STEPHENSON
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
AVI RAJENDRA-NICOLUCCI | OP-ED
Detroit needs better public transit
D
etroit
has
long
been
known
for
its
production
of
automobiles,
but
the
city’s reliance on cars for
transportation has become
its Achilles’ heel. That was
not always the case. At the
end of World War II, Detroit
had a public transit system
of streetcars, buses and a
commuter rail that had an
annual
ridership
of
490
million. Today that number
is 36 million. The city needs
reinvestment
in
public
transportation to make travel
easier for those currently
living in the city and to
attract talent to the region.
From 1950 to 2010, the
city
population
dwindled
from 1.85 million to 710,000.
The
surrounding
suburbs
exploded as a result and
today the population of the
entire metropolitan area is
around 4 million. This has
led to massive urban sprawl.
As Angie Schmitt wrote for
Streetsblog, “Homes in the
central city were abandoned
— and the tax revenues that
came from those households
evaporated. Detroit, unlike
some of its wealthy suburbs
in Oakland County, only saw
one side of this migration —
the losing side. And it was
poorly equipped to deal with
the fallout.”
The typical commute for
Detroit workers is 10.4 miles,
one of the longest in the
nation. And despite Detroit’s
label as “The Motor City”, a
quarter of its residents don’t
own cars. Aggravating this
issue is the fact that 77 percent
of jobs in Metro Detroit
lie outside the city center.
These issues overwhelmingly
impact people of color and
women; 40 percent of Black
residents and 43 percent of
women do not own cars.
Workers who don’t have
cars are forced to use two bus
systems, one for the city and
one for the suburbs. The city
bus system has been plagued
by unreliability and was given
an F rating in 2011. Most
of the suburban bus routes
don’t go into the city, and
the ones that do can’t pick up
riders inside city limits due
to an old city ordinance. This
complicated and unconnected
system is a headache for
workers who live in the city
but work in the suburbs.
Some have argued in the
past that Detroit wouldn’t
be able to handle a larger
transportation
system
because they were failing
to
maintain
the
current
one, but there are signs of
hope. Detroit’s bus ridership
increased over the past two
years, which goes against
the trend of falling ridership
nationwide.
And
in
2019,
76 percent of buses were on
time as compared to just 50
percent in 2011.
A unified bus system for
southeast
Michigan
would
help solve some of these
issues.
Ideally,
it
would
be a rail system, but the
Southeastern
Michigan
Regional Transit Authority’s
rules make it difficult to have
a rail system approved. After
a 2016 proposal for public
transportation
failed,
the
issue has once again been
revived as a possible 2020
ballot proposal.
Economically,
it
makes
sense. Every $1 we invest
in
public
transportation
generates $4 in economic
return. A $1 billion investment
in
public
transportation
generates an estimated 21,000
jobs. When Detroit failed to
make the cut for Amazon’s
final HQ2 list, one of the
reasons cited was lack of mass
transit. So-called business-
friendly Republicans in the
Detroit suburbs have loved
to wage war against public
transportation and it has only
hurt southeast Michigan.
Metro
Detroit
desperately
needs better public transit. In
2015 a Detroit man went viral
for his 21-mile daily commute
on foot to work, which was
put to an end when a local car
dealership gifted him a Ford
Taurus. There are 66,000 other
households in Detroit without
a car and they cannot rely on
becoming an internet sensation
to solve their transportation
problems. A proposed rail link
between Ann Arbor and Detroit
would make the talent pool
from the University of Michigan
more accessible to companies in
Detroit. The Regional Transit
Authority plan should be on the
ballot for 2020. Everyone who
can vote for it should. Even if you
do not use public transportation,
there are plenty of people who
will, and economically it benefits
everyone.
Avi Rajendra-Nicolucci is
a sophomore in the College of
Engineering and can be reached at
avirn@umich.edu.
REID DIAMOND | COLUMN
Trump’s challenge to the environment, economy and states’ rights
U
nder
the
Trump
administration’s
destruction
of
environmental regulations,
we have seen the deregulation
of water, air pollution and
emission
standards.
We
have seen deregulation of
natural resource extraction
all
under
the
guise
of
proposed economic benefit.
In this vein, the Trump
administration
recently
proposed a cut to Obama-
era fuel efficiency standards
combined with a challenge
of states’ rights to combat
these
deregulations.
This
ill-advised decision would
create a division in the
American
auto
industry,
driving up car prices, hurting
the average consumer and
continuing to disregard the
environment.
This
policy
should not be enacted.
In 2012, Former President
Barack
Obama
met
with
leaders of the American auto
industry and worked with
them to set ambitious fuel
efficiency standards of 54.5
miles per gallon by 2025.
However, President Donald
Trump is now proposing a
slash of these standards,
setting them at 37 miles per
gallon. The EPA proposal
also revoked a legal waiver
granted to California under
the 1970 Clean Air Act,
which is now followed by
13 other states, permitting
individual states to set their
own pollution standards that
are more strict than those
of the federal government.
Important figures in the
EPA and the Department
of
Transportation
claim
increased
fuel
efficiency
standards
conflict
with
driver safety due to the
promotion of lighter cars.
However,
the
Trump
administration is completely
missing
the
point.
Yes,
cars
are
getting
lighter,
but material science and
engineering
have
also
improved and vehicles have
been able to maintain safety
standards.
John
DeCicco,
PhD.,
Associate
Director
and Research Professor at
the University of Michigan
Energy Institute, explains
“the
administration’s
efforts to roll back these
standards is a denial of
basic science and a denial
of
American
automakers’
engineering
capabilities
and ingenuity.” Meanwhile,
a consumer report on the
topic
clearly
refutes
the
claim of consumer benefit,
affirming consumers would
have to spend an estimated
$55 billion more total on gas
in 2040.
Clearly,
any
proposed
benefits of the plan have been
refuted by basic data and
science. The administration
simply picked facts out of
context
to
bolster
their
claims.
But
maybe
the
American auto industry will
benefit? Wrong.
Despite these cuts to fuel
efficiency standards, states
like California are looking
to maintain their own fuel
standards and ignore the
federal cuts. If this occurred,
the
American
automobile
market would be effectively
split into two: one market
for less efficient cars and
one for more efficient cars.
Automakers have called this
the worst-case scenario as
their production would be
less cost-effective. To avoid
two separate markets, either
the
federal
government
needs
to
adhere
to
the
standards set in 2012, or
California needs to submit
to the federal government.
American
markets
are
shifting
toward
sustainability
because
they’re following demand.
Especially
in
the
auto
industry,
the
issues
of
sustainability and economic
benefit
are
no
longer
conflicting. It’s simple. Yet
Trump is still pursuing the
deregulation, including the
revocation of states’ rights
to fit his ill-advised agenda.
The
Republican
party
is well known for their
staunch advocacy of states’
rights. Recent nationwide
legislative
and
judicial
proposals on issues such as
same-sex marriage, abortion
and gun control have been
rejected by the Republican
party because of their belief
in states’ rights. This isn’t
to say that the Republican
party
doesn’t
believe
in
the
right
to
abortion,
stricter gun laws or same-
sex marriage. Rather, the
Republican stance has been
to let states decide what laws
they want to enact or omit as
a representation of what the
electorate believes or wants.
But suddenly, when it comes
to the agenda of the Trump
administration,
states’
rights are out the window.
The hypocrisy reeks. At the
very least, each state should
be able to set their own
standards at more ambitious
levels in spite of our utterly
inept federal government’s
response
to
the
climate
crisis. But even this right is
not afforded.
If
the
Trump
administration were to go
ahead with this proposal,
states’
rights
would
be
infringed upon, consumers
would be forced to spend
more, the American auto
industry would suffer at
the hands of a split market
and
the
environment
would
suffer.
Less
fuel
efficiency
means
more
gas
consumption,
leaving
oil companies as the only
significant
beneficiary.
Trump’s
inauguration
festivities received millions
from the fossil fuel industry,
no doubt in exchange for
favors from the president
such as this repeal of fuel
efficiency standards.
While
politicians
are
lounging comfortably in the
deep pockets of the fossil
fuel
industry,
consumers,
American automakers and
the
environment
are
all
suffering. This proposal is
one of many deregulations
in the Trump administration
that
set
a
dangerous
precedent
for
the
future
of American politics and
our environment. Plain and
simple, this proposal says
that the economic success
of big companies is more
important than states’ rights
and more important than the
economic well-being of the
majority of the people in this
country.
Reid Diamond can be reached at
reiddiam@umich.edu.
DAVID LISBONNE | OP-ED
Did the University forget about the first amendment?
L
egislators
at
every
level
have
adopted
an operational ethos
of “ignore all relevant laws
and sign it.” This is a deeply
concerning trend, and one
that will result in dystopian
realizations
as
politics
continue
moving
toward
the extremes. However, my
fragile hope for the future
remains intact thanks to the
courts’ consistent rejection
of this ethos. The University
of Michigan is only the latest
subject of both this trend
and justices ruling in a case
concerning our most potent
liberty: speech.
On
May
2,
2018,
the
University
was
sued
by
Speech First, an organization
dedicated to upholding the
First Amendment on college
campuses.
The
subject
of
the legal dispute was the
University’s Bias Response
Team (BRT), which, according
to
Speech
First,
stifled
freedom of speech and was
therefore
unconstitutional.
In September 2019, the Sixth
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
ruled that the BRT “acts
by way of implicit threat of
punishment and intimidation
to quell speech,” and the
University agreed to disband
the BRT. This case is hugely
symbolic, more so than it may
appear.
The most basic freedom
belonging to each person is
life, defined by their freedom
of conscience. Both life and
free conscience are impossible
to
breach
without
direct
action perpetrated by one unto
another. Freedom of speech,
therefore, is the concretization
of our freedom of conscience.
And fundamentally, this is why
Speech First v. Schlissel is so
symbolic: The courts defended
our most basic right.
No student at the University
should ever feel discriminated
against. Yet, while the BRT
held this same belief as its
cornerstone,
the
metric
used
to
determine
if
an
offense had occurred - the
University’s anti-harassment
policy - did not offer any
objective
definitions
as
to
what
constituted
a
violation.
And
here
lies
the
unconstitutionality,
as
described
by
the
Department of Justice: “The
University imposes a system
of
arbitrary
censorship
of,
and
punishment
for,
constitutionally
protected
speech.”
This broader conflict is
not unique to the University.
Colleges across the country
face similar challenges in
trying to secure welcoming
campus environments without
infringing
upon
students’
First
Amendment
rights.
In
this,
I’m
sympathetic
with the universities. We’re
riding a 50-year wave of
legal victories for equality
in a number of areas; so, in
keeping with the trend, let’s
try to fix campus speech,
right? Sure, but not like this.
Today’s political climate is
one of friction and frustration
on both sides. Any comment
not perfectly impartial sets
off a firestorm, regardless
of
the
reasoning
behind
the statement, the context
or the speaker. We are on
a hair trigger. So, how, in
this era so characterized by
scrutinizing the most minute
actions and verbiage, did the
University fly right by the
First Amendment?
Sadly, today, the legitimacy
of actions taken in pursuit of
something noble are largely
ignored.
Those
in
charge
act
impulsively
without
considering their actions. The
University wanted to create
a safer campus climate, so it
created an agency capable of
implicitly punishing students
who voiced opinions that
offended others. To me, this
sounds like a paragon of this
trend, a laudable end to be
achieved by censorship. And
the courts said no.
At last, herein lies my
optimism for the fate of
America:
the
judiciary.
Currently,
it
seems
the
shared methodology to enact
change, among both parties,
is to act now and consider
legality later. And yet, the
courts have stood tall. The
Department of Justice filed
a lawsuit against the state
of California for violating
Article 1, Section 10; a federal
judge
blocked
Alabama’s
abortion ban; and the Sixth
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
ruled against the University’s
Bias
Response
Team.
This
case
was
altogether
important and worrying, but I
find its conclusion reassuring
for the future. The courts
remain the protectors of our
fundamental rights amidst
brazen violations, and it looks
like they might just continue
holding the torch even if
legislators at every level keep
trying to blow it out.
David Lisbonne is a junior in the
College of Engingeering and can be
reached at lisbonne@umich.edu.
COME TO OUR MASS MEETINGS!
Do you love to write? Take photos? Shoot videos? Code websites?
Create graphics? Write engaging social media posts? Sell ads? The
Michigan Daily is the place for you!
Our meetings will be held January 15th, 16th and 21st at 7 p.m. in the
Michigan Daily newsroom at 420 Maynard St. (next to the Student
Activities Building). For more info on applying, check out http://join.
michigandaily.us/
Interested in joining the Opinion section? The Daily is now hiring
for columnists and cartoonists. Apply now at http://tinyurl.com/
opinion2020. Applications are due on January 25th.
Any proposed
benefits of the
plan have been
refuted by basic
data and science.
A unified bus
system for southeast
Michigan would help
solve some of these
issues.
Let’s try to fix
campus speech,
right? Sure, but
not like this.
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.