Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Jenny Gurung
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
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
As both an editorial board and
as Americans, we understand
the importance of repudiating
Trump’s dangerous and divisive
rhetoric and promoting our true
American
strengths,
tolerance
and diversity. The endorsement
process was not easy, as many
strong candidates would make
excellent presidents and would
bring different approaches to the
position. However, through a
process of extensive deliberation
and consideration, the Editorial
Board has come to a consensus.
The Michigan Daily Editorial
Board is proud to endorse Sen.
Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for the
strength of his policies on universal
health care, climate change and
education, specifically free college
and the national forgiveness of
student debt.
As an editorial board composed
of
entirely
college
students,
we understand our ability and
responsibility
to
provide
the
college
perspective
on
issues
of consequence to our country,
making
our
endorsement
of
Sanders for the 2020 Democratic
nomination relevant and crucial.
Additionally,
this
perspective
enhances the impact of Sanders’s
policies
on
education,
which
are best known for proposing a
guaranteed federal provision of
tuition, as well as debt-free public
colleges,
universities,
HBCUs
(Historically Black Colleges and
Universities),
minority-serving
institutions and trade schools. As
students, we find ourselves face-
to-face with the extremely high
costs of attending university, and
we applaud Sanders’s commitment
to making higher education in all
its forms more accessible for all
Americans, while also assisting
those who are out of school and
suffering from thousands of dollars
in student debt. The main argument
against these policies is the financial
burden placed on taxpayers to
enact the plans, and while Sanders
has been transparent about the raise
in taxes associated with his policies,
the slight increase
will
make
American
education
more
accessible
and
practical,
supporting and enhancing future
generations of professionals.
We would be remiss to
endorse Sanders without
voicing support for his
signature
policy
issue:
universal
single-payer
health care. Ever since he
first began campaigning
for the presidency in 2016,
Sanders has focused on the
injustices of the U.S.’s highly
inequitable health care system. As
a solution, Sanders has proposed
a single-payer national insurance
program which includes zero
networks, premiums, deductibles
or copays. This health care plan,
which would eliminate predatory,
profit-driven
health
insurance
companies, is at the core of
Sanders’s philosophy of working for
the common people and fighting to
protect them from wealthy interest
groups.
However,
health
care
isn’t
important to just Sanders: The
public consistently rates health care
costs as one of their biggest concerns
and his proposal has resonated
with many Americans, something
that has contributed to Sanders’s
success in the 2020 primaries. In
2016, the U.S. spent $9,892 per
capita on health care, by far the
largest amount of any country in the
world and double the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and
Development average. Meanwhile,
a survey conducted in January of
this year revealed that two-thirds
of Americans believe lowering
health care costs should be a top
priority for the government; the
only more pressing concern being
protecting
the
country
from
terrorism. Furthermore, lowering
healthcare costs is of particular
concern to Democrats, with 80
percent believing it should be one of
the government’s top priorities.
Additionally, Sanders’s push for
universal health care is symbolic
of his ideological consistency and
his impact on the politics of the
Democratic Party, both of which
are significant. First, Sanders has
consistently advocated for universal
health care; he introduced a bill
supporting it as far back as 2011.
Demonstrated by his continual
support of Medicare for All, a key
part of Sanders’s political brand
is the strength and consistency
of his convictions. Throughout
his
political
career,
Sanders
has continually advocated for
progressive
policies
that
help
the working class and has never
compromised
these
positions
for the sake of electability or
popularity, something which is
key to his authenticity. On top of
that, Sanders’s push for universal
health care has transformed the
Democratic
Party
and
stands
as a tribute to his political clout.
Beginning with his 2016 campaign,
Sanders has moved the Democratic
Party to the left on health care,
dramatically
reshaping the
conversation.
Sanders’s
2016
primary opponent, Hillary Clinton,
ran on the platform of maintaining
the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
with slight enhancement; back
then, Sanders’s plan for universal
health care was seen as wildly
radical. Today, even Sanders’s most
moderate primary opponents, such
as former Vice Presidnet Joe Biden
and Mayor of South Bend, Ind., Pete
Buttigieg, have proposed health
care plans that would vastly expand
upon the ACA as much or more
than Clinton’s plan in 2016. This
is a tribute to Sanders’s influence
over health care policy, and more
broadly, the political trajectory of
the Democratic Party.
Sanders’s plan for universal
health care is an example of the
ambitious, progressive policies the
U.S. should look to implement going
forward as the nation grapples with
inflated health care costs and rising
inequality. While other candidates
have also put forward good policies,
none are as thorough or forward-
thinking as Sanders’s, and his
ideological consistency provides
reassurance that his support for the
program is sincere.
Finally, something that truly
sets Sanders apart from the rest of
the Democratic field is his devotion
to tackling climate change on a
large scale. More so than other
candidates, Sanders appears to
understand both the catastrophic
implications of climate change and
the resources that fighting it will
require. Sanders’s climate plan, the
Green New Deal, is by far the most
ambitious of any of the Democratic
candidates — it calls for investing
$16.3 trillion into sustainability, and
was rated the best in the field by both
Greenpeace and Data for Progress,
two prominent progressive activist
groups. Sanders’s plan calls for the
creation of 20 million jobs to help
solve the climate crisis and offers
substantive, practical answers to
our crisis while using climate justice
as a key point. As college students,
Sanders’s
devotion
to
fighting
climate
change
is
particularly
important to us. Young people are
the ones who will be most impacted
by climate change, and as a result, it
is imperative we begin taking drastic
steps to protect our futures. While
we acknowledge that Sanders’s
Green New Deal is not going to be
implemented in its current form,
we believe his ambitions meet the
severity of the climate crisis and
have the potential to reshape our
political climate.
The
2020
presidential
election is bound to be the most
consequential in recent memory.
Whoever is sworn in on Jan. 20,
2021, will need to take deliberate
and decisive action to address the
challenges that face this nation,
both foreign and domestic. The
Michigan Daily Editorial Board
finds hope in the candidacy of
Sanders; his commitments to
universal health care, accessible
higher education for all and
climate justice set him apart from
the rest of the Democratic field.
While we urge the University
of Michigan community to vote
for Sanders in the Michigan
Democratic primary, we recognize
that democracy is strongest when
everyone’s voices are heard. We
encourage all readers to vote on
March 10.
VOTE
BERNIE
on March 10
SUNGMIN CHO | COLUMN
Stamps should stop babysitting college students
T
he instant I became
eligible my first year,
right after the Winter
2019 semester, I transferred
from the Stamps School of
Art & Design to the College
of Literature, Science and the
Arts. If someone asks why I
decided to quit art, I would say
it was because of the way the
Art & Design School treats its
students. Some students refer
to the Art & Design School as a
high school, mainly due to the
excessive
requirements
and
the absence of student input,
neither of which belong in
college education.
Compared to other colleges
at the University of Michigan,
the
Art
&
Design
School
sets an exorbitant amount of
requirements. At orientation,
new first-year students are given
lists of courses with designated
sections
highlighted.
They
are taken to a computing site
the same day and required to
register for class sections exactly
as shown on the highlighted
lists. Those are “foundation
courses” required of every first-
year student and comprise 10
and 13 credit hours for the first
two semesters, respectively. The
foundation courses are different
from regular requirements as
in other colleges; withdrawing
from courses like the assigned
foundations
on
a
set
time
frame could result in academic
probation, which might prevent
students from transferring to
other colleges in the university.
The biggest problem here
is that students have no say in
selecting times and instructors
in their first semester. The
schedules, which the school
claim
to
be
random,
are
distributed
unfairly.
Some
end up with 8:30 a.m. classes
Monday
through
Thursday,
while others have no morning
class at all, but rather night
classes that end around 8 p.m.
However, class scheduling is
just a nuisance compared to
more serious issues. When it
comes to instructors, grades
become an issue. For any one
course,
grade
distribution
can differ starkly by section
and instructor. Unlike most
LSA lectures, where multiple
graduate student instructors
gather with professors and set
standardized grading scales,
most Art & Design School
courses are run completely
by section instructors with
unchecked
discretion
in
grading. Every instructor has a
different level of expectations
and a different grading policy,
like attendance policies that
drop 1/3 of a letter grade
for every absence, with no
exception for excused absences
or doctor’s notes. This was the
case in my Fall 2018 section of
Studio: 2D. Students rarely get
to change their schedules once
the lists are assigned, which
leads to the next problem.
I remember my first year of
college as an endless stream of
“no.”Every time I visited my
advisor or one of the deans, I was
never allowed to swap sections,
drop foundation courses or even
take more electives. Though all
of these requests are usually not
a problem in other University
colleges, the Art & Design
School is unnecessarily strict
and rigid. While personally
fighting the school to make these
decisions possible, I found the
school’s structure represented
by
the
assistant
dean
for
undergraduate programs to be
somewhat
authoritative.
On
Nov. 7, 2018, as I presented my
concern of students not being
able to choose their sections,
resulting in unfair grading, she
responded verbatim, “That’s the
way it works.” She then insisted
that one who disagrees with
the school’s policy would better
“withdraw out of U of M.” This
is related to why many of the
Art & Design students feel they
are treated as subjects who do
as told with little to no input.
What differentiates a college
from a high school is student
agency. College students are
adults with the full capacity
to design their own paths
academically and personally.
Setting
almost
everything
in a student’s schedule is far
from what a university would
normally do to students. This
is especially upsetting given
the Art & Design School is an
art school, aiming to educate
not only scholars but artists. It
is rather ridiculous to expect
anyone
to
be
creative
or
artistic under such a rigid and
authoritative system. The most
common answer given in return
to the above complaints is that
foundations are just for the
first year, and students can be
patient until they get to upper-
division.
Unfortunately,
however,
not all students are “patient”
enough to endure all of the
above. In fact, the Art & Design
School
loses
a
significant
number of students, and artists,
just a year after welcoming
them. According to the Office
of the Registrar, 21 out of 154
Class of 2022 students left the
Art & Design School after the
first year, and the number is
27 out of 158 for the Class of
2021. This data gauges post-
first-year drop-outs only in
order to exclude other drop-out
factors such as the sophomore
review. It is striking that 14
and 17 percent, approximately a
sixth of students each year, left
the Art & Design School after
finishing their first year. They
generally choose to transfer to
other colleges in the university
or other institutions, or simply
“withdraw out of U of M,”
adhering to the assistant dean’s
suggestion. Due to University
policy, right after the first year
is the earliest time students
looking to leave the Art &
Design School but remain at
U-M can transfer cross-campus.
Therefore, not all students are
willing to wait. In order to stop
losing passionate young artists,
it’s time to stop babysitting
college students.
Sungmin Cho can be reached at
csungmin@umich.edu.
IRISA LICO | OP-ED
The case for prison reform
T
he United States is a
world leader — in its
incarceration
rates.
The U.S. represents 4 percent
of the world population but
holds 22 percent of the world’s
prisoners,
a
clear
indicator
of how problematic the U.S.’s
mass incarceration crisis is.
This statistic raises all kinds
of questions. Are Americans
inherently
more
aggressive
than other nationalities? If not,
why has the U.S. had one of the
world’s highest incarceration
rates for decades?
In general, the American
system is set up to create
career criminals. The economic
disparity in the U.S. is far greater
than in most Western countries.
David Cole, a law professor at
Georgetown University, explains
in his book “No Equal Justice”
how the U.S. in effect operates
two distinct criminal justice
systems: one for wealthy people
and another for poor people and
people of color. The wealthy can
access a vigorous system filled
with constitutional protections
for defendants; however, this
system is largely reserved for the
wealthy alone. The experiences
of poor and minority defendants
within
the
criminal
justice
system often differ substantially
from the idealized model due
to a number of factors, each
of which contributes to the
overrepresentation
of
such
groups in the system.
Additionally, when and if
someone is released from prison,
it is extremely hard for them to
get a job. This can result in the
individual
committing
more
crimes and getting a harsher
sentence
the
second
time
around. This eventually leads
to a lot less social and economic
mobility, so the poor continue
to stay poor. Broadly speaking,
the rich are not affected by
the prison system to the same
extent that minorities and the
poor are, and they even have the
opportunity to invest in prisons
and make a profit.
This
reality
goes
hand-
in-hand
with
the
protest
school of thought that argues
human rights law is hijacked
by the elite and there will
always be further injustice.
Unfortunately, it is the rich
and powerful who dictate the
direction of laws, including
those for prison reform. This is
a problem because if something
doesn’t affect a specific group
much, it does not give it much
thought.
While the prison system
is unjust, it also entraps a
disproportionately high rate of
Black men. African Americans
make up 33 percent of the
correctional
population,
yet
12
percent
of
the
general
population. There is clearly a
system of legal discrimination
and segregation in this country
that
has
occurred
due
to
the war on drugs and mass
incarceration. White people are
not better behaviorally than
Black people. For example,
African Americans and white
people use drugs at similar
rates. In the 2015 National
Survey on Drug Use and Health,
about 17 million whites and
four million African Americans
reported having used an illicit
drug within the last month.
However,
the
imprisonment
rate of African Americans for
drug charges is almost six times
that of whites. One of every
three African American men
could expect to go to prison in
his lifetime, compared to one
of every seventeen white men.
According to The Sentencing
Project,
white
Americans
overestimate the proportion of
crime committed by African
Americans, while failing to
realize “that their communities
are disproportionately victims
of crime and discount the
prevalence
of
bias
in
the
criminal justice system.”
This relates back to the protest
school of thought because it
argues that once someone has
a certain human right, they
enjoy it for themselves, but
no longer care whether or not
others have that same right.
White
individuals
should
fight
for
African
American
human rights until the Black
community can enjoy the same
rights as the white community.
There are, as The Sentencing
Project notes, “disproportionate
levels of police contact with
African Americans” compared
to other races. Police resources
are purposely put toward low-
income areas with high minority
numbers where they assume
crime will be committed. This
increases
police
brutality
among the African American
population and creates a culture
that leads African Americans to
be seen as criminals.
For this country to truly
make meaningful reforms to
this atrocious system, there has
to be an acknowledgment of the
racial and ethnic disparities
that are occurring in the prison
system and the public must
focus its attention on how to
reduce
these
disparities.
It
is the U.S.’s responsibility to
develop training to alleviate the
influence of implicit racial bias
at every level of the criminal
justice system: among police
officers,
public
defenders,
prosecutors,
judges,
jury
members and parole boards.
Irisa Lico is a sophomore
International Studies major in the
College of Literature, Science & the
Arts and can be reached at
ilico@umich.edu.
The American
system is set up
to create career
criminals.
FROM THE DAILY
Vote Sanders on March 10
T
he 2020 presidential election is a momentous event that will shape
the political landscape of the United States for the coming years. This
election has major implications for nearly every aspect of American
politics and will drastically affect the U.S.’s approach to countless issues, ranging
from climate policy to immigration. In the wake of the 2016 election, many view
2020 as a referendum on President Donald Trump and his vision of the U.S.
The
Michigan Daily says:
Many of the
Art & Design
students feel they
are treated as
subjects.
4A — Monday, February 24, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com