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