5 — Monday, March 16, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg

Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Jess D’Agostino

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

SHAD JEFFREY II | COLUMN

Are we ready for a socialist reality?

T

housands of students, myself 

included, flocked to the Diag 

on Sunday, March 8 to witness 

and participate in the campaign rally 

of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Attendees 

were urged to rush to the polls to 

support Sanders in Tuesday’s Michigan 

primary in his attempt to be nominated 

as the Democratic Party’s candidate, 

the candidate to run against President 

Donald Trump in the general election.

Sanders, and his preceding speakers 

at the rally, had a common set of beliefs 

and all called for free — or at least 

heavily subsidized — housing, health 

care and college education. These 

ideals are commonly characterized as 

socialist in nature as they involve the 

nationalization and substantial takeover 

of what are chiefly private industries. 

As a result, one could consider Sanders 

and his supporters to be “socialist.”

The generation of my parents, and 

anyone who lived during the “socialist 

experiment” that was the Soviet Union, 

may have a different perspective on the 

hopefulness of Sanders’s campaign. 

While the ideals Sanders speaks about 

are utilitarian, the world has already 

witnessed the messy collapse of such 

a system and how the implementation 

of state socialism failed to provide the 

quality of life it promised in Eastern 

Europe. The world’s experience with 

socialism left a bad taste in their mouths. 

I can only speak from my experience 

as an American growing up in the 

conservative state of Indiana, but the 

words “communism” and “socialism” 

were associated with treason. To doubt 

the status quo, or to even be curious 

about different modes of political 

governance or economic regulation, 

was un-American — and frankly wrong. 

The generations that came before 

mine lived through socialism and saw 

its pitfalls, human rights violations 

and authoritarian nature. Whether 

they recognized the Soviet Union’s 

idealistic aims, or whether they now 

recognize that the United States is in 

a more technological, economical and 

ethical advantageous position than the 

Soviet Union was at its onset, they saw 

a failed experiment and the devastation 

of millions of repressed people. That 

undoubtedly shapes their view and their 

optimism for such ideals.

The 
political, 
economic 
and 

technological 
climate 
of 
modern 

America is vastly different than the 

post-World War II Soviet Union satellite 

states, but the experience of witnessing 

the failure of socialism has been enough 

to dissuade older generations from 

considering Sanders’ ideals. Socialism 

(and by extension socialist ideals) is 

considered to be “post-capitalist” in 

that its implementation requires a 

highly developed and technologically 

advanced market economy to then 

subsequently 
nationalize. 
We 
are 

currently living in such a society, with 

increasing levels of automation to work 

for the benefit of the people and with 

the amount of compiled wealth among 

the nation’s top one percent. 

A new generation of socialists, or 

so-called “democratic socialists,” may 

have been born, but America isn’t 

ready for a president like Sanders yet. 

He is ahead of his time, but the role he 

is playing in opening people’s minds 

and creating a sense of hope and 

urgency for a political revolution is not 

to be undersold — his contribution is 

invaluable. The population isn’t ready 

for such dramatic change yet, but it will 

be interesting to observe the political 

trends of the generations to come and to 

see just how left American politics lean 

as my generation transitions toward 

being middle-aged. The saying goes 

that people get more conservative as 

they age, that the burning liberalism 

and anarchical view of the status quo 

fade as the years tack on, so the socialist 

reality may never come to fruition if 

the generation whom Sanders largely 

appeals to doesn’t stay the course.

I

n the past two months, 

novel 
coronavirus 

(COVID-19) has caused 

an outbreak of mild to severe 

respiratory disease in over 144 

locations worldwide, including 

the United States. On Jan. 30, 

coronavirus was declared a 

public health emergency by 

the World Health Organization 

(WHO). 
Since 
then, 
the 

virus has reached pandemic 

proportions with over 125,000 

reported 
cases 
and 
4,600 

deaths.

It 
is 
impossible 
to 
be 

completely prepared for public 

health emergencies like this. 

Admitting to this, though, is 

the first step to executing a 

quick and effective response. 

The 
Centers 
for 
Disease 

Control (CDC) has focused on 

developing 
and 
distributing 

test kits, providing epidemic 

response 
guidance 
and 

monitoring the virus. It has 

emphasized the importance of 

the federal government’s key 

role as a communicator between 

state and local partners, public 

health institutions and health 

departments. 
In 
response 

to the coronavirus, the U.S. 

administration 
has 
instead 

provided potentially misleading 

information that contradicts 

many public health institutions 

and experts. 

President Donald Trump’s 

constant 
downplay 
of 
the 

pandemic has failed to reassure 

Americans (and raises criticism 

for his public communication of 

the crisis). During an interview 

with Fox News, Trump said, 

“Now, this is just my hunch, but 

based on a lot of conversations 

with a lot of people … personally, 

I would say, the number (death 

rate) is way under 1 percent.” 

In contrast, WHO estimates a 

death rate of 3.4 percent based 

on the number of deaths and 

people who have been tested. 

Public health experts have noted 

that due to a lack of information 

about the virus, incomplete 

testing and reporting the crude 

death rate remains unknown. 

Trump’s history of distrust 

in 
scientific 
evidence 
and 

subsequent condemnation of the 

media questions the credibility 

of his “hunch.”

Last week, Trump put Vice 

President Mike Pence in charge 

of the U.S.’s response to the 

coronavirus. Pence announced 

that any American could get 

tested for coronavirus with 

health insurance coverage. He 

stated there would be 2,500 test 

kits available with the capacity 

to test one million individuals 

and an additional one million 

tests would be manufactured in 

the coming week. In reality, only 

certain public health labs have 

the resources to accommodate 

the initial testing demand after 

delays in test manufacturing. 

These labs have administered 

fewer than 100 tests a day, 

amounting to significantly less 

than the one million predicted. 

With the rapid increase in virus 

cases, especially in densely 

populated states like California 

and New York, testing demand 

has heightened. Public health 

labs all around the country not 

only lack the resources but also 

the capacity to conduct testing.

In addition, in early February, 

Trump eliminated the global 

health unit of the National 

Security Council and instead 

proposed various programs and 

budget cuts because he believed 

the unit was not necessary. 

Tom Inglesby, director of the 

Johns 
Hopkins 
Center 
for 

Health Security, commented 

on this by saying, “You build a 

fire department ahead of time. 

You don’t wait for a fire. There 

is an underappreciation for the 

amount of time and resources 

required to build a prepared 

system.” It is, in fact, almost 

impossible to reassemble an 

institutional unit such as this 

during an ongoing crisis. The 

result: The U.S. is not 

prepared for this pandemic. 

Pence’s 
empty 
promises 

of 
preparedness 
and 
the 

misrepresentation 
of 
the 

U.S.’s 
response 
capabilities 

reflects a lack of experience 

in responding to public health 

emergencies 
and 
his 
poor 

public health record as former 

Indiana governor. Pence’s role 

in this response is more akin 

to “a political damage control” 

for 
Trump 
than 
a 
public 

health 
emergency 
response. 

The 
administration’s 
poor 

communication 
both 
among 

health 
institutions 
and 
to 

the public has resulted in the 

hindrance of U.S. response 

efforts. 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading 

infectious disease public health 

expert who led U.S. response to 

SARS, HIV, MERS and other 

outbreaks, has been correcting 

Trump’s 
recent 
assessment 

of the crisis. He believes that 

“... the public needs solid, 

understandable 
medical 

information, especially during 

crises.” When responding to an 

emergency such as this, federal 

governments need to be: “... 

encouraging calm, providing 

key information and leading an 

assertive response.” 

While Trump has stressed 

that Americans should “remain 

calm,” 
his 
communication 

and response to this crisis 

have 
not 
provided 
any 

reassurance to the public. In 

fact, the administration’s lack 

of transparency in terms of 

making informed decisions and 

communicating to the public 

has 
impeded 
our 
response 

to this crisis. Public health 

experts 
like 
Fauci 
should 

be the spokespeople during 

epidemics. They understand 

that what needs to happen 

is a public health response, 

not 
a 
political 
cleanup 

effort. What’s important to 

Americans, like you and me, 

is faith in our administration 

in their ability to promise and 

deliver. It is a necessity that 

our representatives must have, 

especially 
during 
times 
of 

crisis.

Trump’s response to pandemic is far from reassuring

JENNY GURUNG | COLUMN

Jenny Gurung can be reached at 

jennygrg@umich.edu.

T

hank you for the Feb. 18 article 

headlined “Students opt to take 

math classes outside of the 

University” in which you describe some of 

the issues with STEM and mathematics 

courses at the University and the complex 

set of considerations students navigate in 

deciding whether to take required courses 

at the University or to transfer credit from 

other institutions. We are acutely aware 

of the financial pressures that your article 

highlight, and sympathetic with the goal 

of lessening one’s course load during the 

regular term.

However, we are concerned that none 

of the individuals you quoted in the article 

have first-hand knowledge of the courses 

about which they were speaking. It is 

difficult for your reporting to be factual 

when all of the reasons students give 

for taking mathematics courses at other 

institutions, save the concerns of cost or 

course load, are based on hearsay. Students 

may hear that “Michigan math is just the 

worst,” especially when this is printed in 

your article, but if your goal as a newspaper 

and reporter is to be factual and objective, 

you should have some support for the 

assertion beyond unsubstantiated claims 

from students who have never actually 

taken the courses in question.

We agree that there is room for 

improvement in the instruction in all units at 

the University, which includes mathematics. 

At the same time, however, the Department 

of Mathematics works hard to ensure that 

our students learn as much as possible in 

our courses. There are many aspects of our 

program that are recognized nationally 

as being best practices in mathematics 

instruction. Moreover, we are currently 

working with the University’s Center for 

Research on Learning and Teaching and the 

College of Literature, Science & the Arts to 

improve the assessment in our introductory 

courses and the support that we provide 

our instructors. At the end of the day, our 

goal is for students to learn mathematics 

at a deep and fundamental level. Learning 

at this level is not easy, but we believe that 

goal is the core of the University’s mission 

as an elite academic institution. We believe 

that Michigan students can succeed at this 

level, and that rising to the challenge is the 

best preparation to gain the knowledge and 

tools to ensure their success when they 

graduate and take on the challenges of the 

world.

Shad Jeffrey II can be reached at 

shadj@umich.edu.

Kristen Moore is Associate Chair for 

Education in the Department of Mathematics 

and can be reached at ksmoore@umich.edu.

President Donald 
Trump’s constant 
downplay of the 
pandemic has 

failed to reassure 

Americans.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

KRISTEN MOORE | LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Addressing the difficult reputation of STEM courses

