Opinion
GEO’S 2020-2021 OFFICERS | CONTRIBUTORS
JESSIE MITCHELL | COLUMNIST
SAM WOITESHEK | COLUMNIST
Wednesday, February 10, 2021 — 12
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
I
n recent weeks, thousands of
University of Michigan students,
alumni
and
community
members signed a petition demanding
University Regent Ronald Weiser (R)
be removed from his post for failing
to unequivocally disavow the Capitol
riot and the chain of events leading up
to it. Though Weiser condemned the
violence itself, he failed to account for
how he, his colleagues in the Michigan
Republican Party and the politicians
he funds — one of whom was former
President Donald Trump — stoked
the fires of mistrust and faux-populist
rage that led to this disgraceful event.
One of Weiser’s connections to the
riot is his soon-to-be co-chair of the
Michigan Republican Party, Meshawn
Maddock, who was at the center of the
racist and anti-democratic campaign
to overturn Michigan’s election results
and who happened to organize the
busing of protestors to the rally that
became the insurrection.
For Weiser to claim that Maddock
didn’t incite the riot is to pretend
that there is no connection between
the movement to undermine the
legitimacy of the election and the
riot itself. It is to say Maddock is not
responsible for a fire, despite pouring
kerosene and handing out matches.
It simply defies belief, and it is an
instance of a U-M Regent excusing
actions that contributed to a violent
attack on our nation’s Capitol.
We write this op-ed to call Weiser
to resign due to his fundamental
conflicts of interest and immoral
conduct regarding the Capitol riot. But
we also write this op-ed to connect
Weiser’s troubling links to the Capitol
riot to the problematic nature of his
relationship to the University, which
far predates the events at the Capitol.
We call on all of us, as members of
the U-M community, to hold Weiser
accountable.
In
particular,
we
believe the faculty at the ironically
named Weiser Center for Emerging
Democracies should be more vocal
about the ways Weiser has worked
to undermine democracy at our
university and in the state of Michigan.
Professor Dan Slater, the director of
the WCED, released a statement on the
events at the Capitol. His statement is
worth reading — it throws the tensions
between the values of the Weiser Center
and its namesake into sharp relief. Slater
is clear that “to claim that the election
was fraudulent or stolen is to betray the
democratic foundations of our Republic.”
Thus, from Slater’s own perspective,
Maddock, a close colleague of the man
who funds the center Slater heads,
has betrayed American democracy.
The WCED’s mission is to study “how
democracies emerge and the conditions
necessary for assuring and extending
freedom.” Its namesake, however, is a
man who actively works to undermine
democracy, both in our country at large
and at the University. The Graduate
Employees’ Organization calls on Slater
to issue a statement about the tension
between the source of his funding and
the admirable mission he undertakes
through his important work.
That Weiser would be implicated
in this reprehensible series of events
comes as no surprise to us at GEO. It
has long been our position that it is
completely inappropriate for Weiser,
a major landlord in Ann Arbor and
donor to the University, to sit on the
Board of Regents. Weiser is the founder
of McKinley Associates Inc., one of
Ann Arbor’s biggest landlords.
As Regent, he has significant
input over the University’s budget.
As the University has increased its
student population over the past
decade without building new dorm
space, rental prices in Ann Arbor
have skyrocketed. Weiser has likely
profited
handsomely,
given
the
unfettered increase in the cost of
living and housing. According to an
online petition, the company raised
their monthly rent by up to $200 in
the summer of 2020, in the thick of the
pandemic, despite having received $5
to $10 million in low-interest, federally-
backed loans which may be forgiven.
Over the summer, when the
University made the questionable
decision to bring undergraduates
back to Ann Arbor for an in-person
pandemic semester, Weiser’s profits
from McKinley properties in Ann
Arbor were potentially on the line
should the students not return and
leave his rental units vacant.
Weiser’s assault on American
democracy goes beyond his support
of the far-right and financial interests
as a landlord. As any scholar at the
WCED would tell you, democracy
means much more than simply voting.
GEO sees ourselves as working at the
intersection of two important sites of
democracy: the University as a public
institution and the labor movement
as an expression of workers’ self-
determination. Weiser has insidiously
worked to undermine both, and we
believe it is incumbent on Slater and
others at the WCED — if they are
serious about “Reviving Democracy,
Globally and Locally” — to comment
on his role therein.
The University’s standing as a
democratic institution is seriously
undermined by the unaccountable
power Weiser wields as a donor.
In our view, Weiser only has many
millions of dollars to donate to the
University since the top 1% have been
undertaxed for decades.
As tenants, many of whom line
Weiser’s pockets with rents equalling
half our salaries, we believe this money
is not his to give away. That money
belongs to the people of Michigan and
should go to the University without
Weiser getting to put his name on
buildings or direct how it is spent. A
university is not truly a public entity,
and will not be directed to work in the
public interest especially if it receives
an ever-dwindling share of its funding
from the state. Relying on private
donations mans that the University is
perversely incentivized to prioritize
projects that would attract donations
over those that are in the public
interest. This shift to relying on private
donations goes far beyond Weiser and
ultimately undermines the University’s
mission as a public institution. Weiser,
in his triple role as Regent, mega-donor
and landlord, exemplifies a troubling
broader trend while at the same time
existing uniquely beyond the pale of
anything even resembling democratic
accountability. This is fundamentally
at odds with the mission of the WCED
and, indeed, the University itself.
Weiser
has
also
worked
to
undermine
Michigan’s
labor
movement and, with it, workplace
democracy.
University
professor
Elizabeth Anderson has argued in
her book “Private Government” that
workplaces, where employees have
no say in their management, are akin
to dictatorships. Trade unions are
one of the few bulwarks against such
dictatorships and give workers a say
in the decisions that govern their lives.
Robust trade unions are a critical
feature of any society that would claim
the mantle of democracy.
Weiser, together with the DeVos
family, worked for the campaign
to pass so-called “Right-to-Work”
legislation in Michigan, which has
hamstrung the labor movement here
and across the country. This was
nothing less than a full-scale assault
on democracy in Michigan. When
the Editorial Page Editors reached
out to Weiser for comment, he did
not respond. In the conclusion of his
statement on the Capitol riot, Slater
eloquently
and
wisely
asserted,
“Democracy never finishes emerging.
It is a set of actions, not a finished state
of being. American democracy has
always been incomplete. It has never
worked for all of us. This week’s violent
events show just how fragile and faulty
our incomplete democracy is as well.”
GEO could not agree more.
Weiser’s place in the University is an
affront to the principles that Slater
and his colleagues at the WCED work
to defend. We call on Slater and all
those at the University whose work
seeks to further the righteous cause
of democracy to speak out against
Weiser and join GEO in the fight for a
truly democratic university — one that
would serve the public interest and
respect the rights of its employees to
have a say in the management of their
workplace.
M
ore than 1,100 students
at Columbia University
in New York City are
refusing to pay tuition until the
university lowers the cost by at least
10% as students face another semester
of mainly-online classes. Tuition for
undergraduates this academic year
is $29,460 per semester. In the fall,
Columbia allowed fewer than 1,000 of
its over 6,000 undergraduates to return
to campus. This spring, roughly 1,800
undergraduates will be on campus.
The tuition strike, organized
by Columbia’s chapter of Young
Democratic Socialists of America via
their Twitter account, also includes
demands for increased financial
aid, for the university to engage in
good faith bargaining with campus
unions, for defunding the university’s
Public Safety and for providing
increased economic opportunities
and outreach to the neighborhood
surrounding Columbia. Though not
all students are able to participate in
the tuition strike due to their financial
aid situation, Willem Morris, a senior
and organizer for Columbia’s YDSA
chapter, told The Daily that there
are thousands of students who are
supporting the strike in other ways.
Organizing, emailing administrators
and pledging to withhold donations
are some of the ways students on
campus have gotten involved.
On Jan. 29, Columbia’s YDSA
chapter called for a national tuition
strike. Howard University’s YDSA
chapter
announced
they
were
similarly planning a tuition strike for
the fall semester. The Columbia strike
was inspired in part by the University
of Manchester’s rent strike that
resulted in a 30% reduction in rent.
The demand for a 10% reduction
in tuition is in line with the tuition
discount given by many comparable
institutions
for
the
2020-2021
academic year. American University,
Georgetown University and Princeton
University offered 10% off tuition while
Williams College cut tuition by 15%.
Already, the strikers have won
some concessions, including increased
financial
aid
payments.
Billing
statements issued by the university in
December said that late fees would be
suspended “to minimize the financial
hardship” caused or exacerbated by
the pandemic. However, some students
who did not pay tuition in January
were still assessed the $150 fee.
The question of whether tuition
rates should reflect the ongoing
pandemic is not unique to Columbia.
This past spring, some University of
Chicago students also held a tuition
strike, calling for a 50% reduction in
tuition. The University of Illinois was
set to increase tuition after an in-state
tuition freeze between 2015-2019, but
decided to hold off on the increase
until the 2021-2022 academic year due
to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Students at the University of
Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus will
recall the 1.9% tuition increase for the
2020-2021 school year passed back
in June despite student advocacy. At
the time, University Regents told The
Daily that the increase would only be
felt by those who could afford to pay it.
At
both
Columbia
and
the
University of Michigan, discussions
about lowering tuition during a
pandemic seem to circle the same main
points. Students point out massive
endowments that could be used to
help them out during a financially
precarious time. Administrators sigh
and tell students that endowments
aren’t just unrestricted rainy-day
funds. On and on.
Really though, the pandemic
has made it clear that we’re paying
too much, always. As Morris said,
the “price of higher education is
completely detached from the
quality of the education.”
That’s not to say that both
schools don’t offer high-quality
education, but it is to point out
that tuition rates are far outpacing
inflation. If we were paying the
inflation-adjusted tuition rate that
a student paid in 2002, an out-of-
state student with fewer than 55
credits would be paying $16,617
per semester instead of $25,919. An
in-state student would be paying
$5,196, instead of $7,760. Is our
education worth more now than it
was in 2002? All signs point to no.
Wages for new college graduates
are barely rising. CBS reported that
between 1989 and 2019, average wages
for recent graduates rose less than half
of one percent every year. That’s tough
to chew on when staring down a 1.9%
tuition increase.
The University of Michigan, no
doubt, attracts students based on its
excellent reputation. But it also recruits
students
marketing
the
“college
experience” — who among us doesn’t
remember being told how many clubs
the University offered during admitted
student days? Without clubs and game
days, it becomes clear that the “college
experience” was a way to conceal
the bloated tuition. If the college
experience was more than that —
more than just a shiny object to attract
undergraduates — wouldn’t college
cost less without it?
This column is not about why and
how college is so expensive. There are
already plenty of articles about that,
such as this piece in The Atlantic.
This column is about one thing that
might be done about college tuition, the
burden of which is falling on students
and on their families. What seems
inevitable is that, as long as students
will keep paying, tuition will keep
rising. It is in that context that a tuition
strike seems not only reasonable, but
necessary. I’ll be watching closely
as Columbia students fight for a fair
tuition amount that is one tiny step
closer to what their degree is worth
and taking notes for the fall.
T
he other day I received an
email. One of my friends
from back home is a student
at Azusa Pacific University in Azusa,
Calif., and he wanted me to watch a
lecture from his professor, Dr. Courtney
W. Davis. I had no true indication as to
why he wanted me to watch that video,
specifically. I hit “play” and settled in
for 20-plus minutes.
Davis, who teaches communication
management, claimed to be “skeptical
of things that other people think
are cool and amazing.” She states
that she never had crushes on boy
bands, dresses anti-trendy and rarely
downloads the latest iOS update
upon its release. Davis, in summary, is
someone who is anti-hype.
As I listened to this way of
thinking, I could not help but applaud
the professor for her unwavering
originality. Throughout life, there
will always be a strong contingent
of people that latch on to the latest
trends, unconsciously submitting to
the laws of groupthink. Moreover,
these people sometimes base their
happiness in the behaviors of others,
surely an unhealthy action.
However, I reject Davis’s notion of
rejecting “hype.” While it may be true
that, yes, sometimes experiences do
not live up to expectation, if it were
not for such precursory anticipation
and energy, how would anyone be
motivated to do anything? We, as
humans, love the build-up to a strong
rush of adrenaline. Psychologically,
this hormone rush is similar to the
release of dopamine; physically, we
feel as though we are superhuman
because of the increased blood flow
to our muscles.
In the 1970s, psychologist Marvin
Zuckerman, a professor at the
University of Delaware, created
a personality questionnaire that
identified four types of sensation-
seekers. An article from The Atlantic
describes the first three of them
as people who look for adventure,
people who seek new experiences
and people looking for ways to lose
their inhibitions. There are some
easy actions that fulfill the last one,
but the other two can go hand-
in-hand. Yet, what do these three
behaviors have in common? Before
they occur, they are preceded by
“hype.”
Davis, however, seems like the
fourth type of individual: people who
are susceptible to boredom. Did she
never wait in line for concert tickets?
Refuse to go to the movie on opening
night because Rotten Tomatoes said
it was bad? Decide to go to class on
senior skip day?
These are often labeled as essential
human
experiences
by
society,
but not for the events themselves.
They are sensational because of
their respective buzz — the eager
anticipation of personal enjoyment.
For this reason, I must express
my sympathy for Davis. Perhaps, as
Zuckerman concludes, she craves
individual novelty. To her credit,
Zuckerman notes that the payoffs of
these four sensations are the same.
While her character is undoubtedly
authentic and she appears to be a kind
individual — the two traits that are
perhaps most important in this world
— I wish she would buy into the hype,
if only a little bit.
In fairness to Davis, I had similar
tendencies early on. I would scoff
at those who went to the beach
every summer afternoon or dressed
identically in Nike or Patagonia,
the two apparel lines that basically
sponsor my hometown. I didn’t
even try Chick-Fil-A until a year
after a location opened twenty-five
minutes from my house — a mistake
I gravely regret.
Yet, at a certain point, I grew tired of
watching on the sidelines — I wanted
to try new things. When I think about
how my life would’ve been different if
I had never embraced the anticipatory
excitement of my experiences, I
probably wouldn’t have experienced
them in the first place. I wouldn’t have
immersed myself in homecoming
week, sports seasons or the limited
senior festivities I partook in. If I
wasn’t enthusiastic about spending
fall Saturdays in Ann Arbor growing
up, I probably would not have been as
motivated to come here. I wouldn’t be
writing this column.
GEO ‘s 2020-2021 Officers can be
reached at umgeo@geo3550.org.
Jessie Mitchell can be reached at
jessiemi@umich.edu.
The virtues of buying into the hype
Ron Weiser, Democracy and the University
Take notes: Columbia’s tuition strike offers a lesson for the future
Sam Woiteshek can be reach at
swoitesh@umich.edu.
MADELYN VERVAECKE | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT MIVERVAE@UMICH.EDU.
Design by Meghana Tummula
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com