The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
Wednesday, January 12, 2022 — 9
PAIGE HODDER
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.
JASMIN LEE
Editor in Chief
JULIAN BARNARD
AND SHUBHUM GIROTI
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
Julian Barnard
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Andrew Gerace
Shubhum Giroti
Min Soo Kim
Jessie Mitchell
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Nikhil Sharma
Jack Tumpowsky
Joel Weiner
Erin White
H
arvard
University
recently
announced
an extension of their
test-optional policy, which allows
applicants to forgo submitting
scores on the dreaded SAT or ACT.
The policy, first implemented last
year in response to the COVID-19
pandemic, will remain in effect
until 2026. Though the University
of Michigan has yet to decide
whether they will follow suit, it is
not unreasonable to suggest that
administrators are considering the
idea.
Constructing
an
argument
against
the
consideration
of
standardized
testing
in
U-M
applications is simple. Our student
body does not mirror the racial
makeup of the state of Michigan.
As a public university, one of our
institution’s fundamental goals is to
serve Michigan residents. Analysis
from the Brookings Institution
indicates that the large gap in
SAT test scores between different
racial groups can be explained by
family
income,
racially-related
test anxiety and lack of adequate
preparation.
They
also
cite
research that finds high school
GPA predicts college success more
accurately than an SAT score.
Because SAT scores influence
where students apply, are accepted
and how much financial aid they
receive, this gap perpetuates the
underrepresentation of some racial
groups within elite colleges and
universities.
Proponents
of
standardized
testing could counter by arguing
that even if this outcome is not
ideal, the SAT is an objective
assessment.
Unlike
personal
essays which can have wildly
different levels of quality assigned
to them based on who is reviewing
them, an SAT score is one
number, easily comparable across
candidates. Proponents of testing
argue that removing the SAT from
the admissions process could give
less qualified students an unfair
advantage over those who do
well on the test. Yes, the average
scores for Black and Latino test
takers both fall below the College
Board’s
“college
readiness”
benchmark, but many within
those groups score above average.
When admissions officers are
deciding between two competitive
applicants, it could theoretically
come down to a 4.0 GPA, 1200 SAT
and a 2.9 GPA, 1560 SAT. Relying
more heavily on SAT scores would
benefit the latter candidate, even
if it was the former who worked
harder in high school, as reflected
in their GPA, but lacked the proper
resources to succeed on the SAT.
Again, noting the evidence that
SATs are less predictive of college
success than GPA, the emphasis on
SATs appears unjustly important.
Given the previously mentioned
empirical
link
between
race, income and test scores,
underrepresented
students
applying to the University of
Michigan would hopefully benefit
from a shift away from tests.
However, Meghan McArdle of
the Washington Post argues that
Harvard’s decision to continue
being test-optional will benefit
wealthier
children
instead,
because they are more likely to
have exemplary extracurriculars,
grades
and
letters
of
recommendation. Without SAT
scores, admissions officers can (or
are forced to) justify their decisions
using less quantitative criteria,
making them less accountable and
their process more opaque.
And yet, in a larger sense, why
has the debate over test-optional
policies begun to dominate the
larger conversation around solving
educational inequality? Research
that identified possible reasons
for the racial gap in test scores
also point to income and parental
education as explanatory factors.
Even if attending an elite school
would
give
underrepresented
students
a
significant
boost
in upward mobility, there are
not many spots at Harvard,
Yale, Williams or other small
institutions able to commit an
inordinate amount of resources to
each student.
Even if we accept that changing
testing policies would increase
the number of disadvantaged
students attending those schools,
that does not change the fact that,
broadly, SAT scores show a lack of
adequate primary and secondary
education for a significant number
of Americans. For students seeking
other paths to higher education,
they are behind, and different
admissions
policies
will
not
change that.
Instead of focusing narrowly
on
testing,
policymakers
should consider other methods
of
lessening
inequality
in
college enrollment, starting by
reevaluating how we finance
public K-12 education. In 1994,
the state of Michigan passed a
proposal that increased the sales
tax by 2% and assumed control
over the allocation of school
funding, replacing the old system
based on property taxes. Studies on
the effects of this policy found that
it reduced disparities in per-pupil
spending between school districts
and increased the percentage
of students that enrolled in and
graduated from college. The latter
benefit was not concentrated
among the poorest students, but
this is perhaps partly explained by
the decisions made at the district
level to allocate funding towards
more affluent students. Despite
that, the reform demonstrated that
investing in primary education
can translate into better long-term
education outcomes.
Another policy, introduced by
researchers at the University of
Michigan, found that providing
targeted
information
about
financial aid to “high-achieving,
low income” students resulted in a
significant increase in applications
and
enrollment
among
that
demographic. Students already
qualified to attend the University
based on current standards were
not applying or enrolling simply
because they did not understand
the amount of financial aid they
would receive.
These kinds of policies, aimed
at reducing economic disparities
in college admissions, may or may
not also reduce racial disparities.
Given the correlation between
race,
education
and
income,
one would hope that racial and
economic justice can be achieved in
tandem. Removing standardized
testing might be the most efficient
option to quickly reduce racial
inequality in admissions. It is
easy to implement and does not
require additional spending by the
government or parents. However,
even setting aside concerns about
admissions transparency, is the
most efficient solution always the
best one?
We spend 12 years in primary and
secondary education but only four
as undergraduates. Preparation
for a successful college career
includes the skills and experience
one
gains
throughout
their
educational career. By focusing
almost exclusively on how to alter
the admissions requirements such
that different groups can get in, we
avoid discussing the possibilities
that bolder, broader changes to
public education can provide for
the average American student.
O
ne Democrat, from a deep-
red state smaller than
Idaho or Nebraska, has
attracted attention from across
the country for his bold moves in
an increasingly divisive political
landscape. He has been blasted
by members of his own party and
praised by his opposition. Joe
Manchin, D-W.Va., has suddenly
emerged as a key player in U.S.
politics. The senator, a moderate
from West Virginia, has proved
himself as a strong and capable
leader willing to put country
before party. With the next
presidential election approaching
rapidly, Manchin is the perfect
embodiment of the leader America
needs in the White House.
Manchin has had a lengthy
political career. He first served in
West Virginia’s House of Delegates
starting in 1982, before moving onto
the State Senate and eventually
securing the posts of secretary of
state and governor. He then ran for
U.S. Senate in 2010, where he has
represented West Virginians ever
since.
A centrist, Manchin has played
a key role in Senate negotiations
throughout
his
tenure,
often
voting with Republicans. That
oppositional posture has only
become more pronounced since
President Joe Biden took office at
the beginning of this year. Manchin
has
wielded
unprecedented
influence over Biden’s agenda in the
evenly split 50-50 Senate, where
one vote makes all of the difference
on many bills. His unique position
has earned him the title of “most
powerful man in Washington.”
After months of negotiations,
Manchin lived up to that title when
he unilaterally sank Biden’s $1.75
trillion Build Back Better social
spending bill in dramatic fashion, a
core piece of the president’s agenda.
Manchin’s
announcement
in
December that he would be voting
“no” on the Build Back Better bill
was quickly met with a storm of
criticism from fellow Democrats.
White House Press Secretary
Jen Psaki accused the senator of
reversing his position on the bill,
stating the politician’s comments
were “at odds with his discussions
this week with the President,
with White House staff, and with
his own public utterances.” Sen.
Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said Manchin
did not “have the courage to do the
right thing for the working families
of West Virginia and America,”
daring him to vote against the
package on the Senate floor. Rep.
Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., said
Manchin “has never negotiated in
good faith” and was “obstructing
the president’s agenda.”
Undoubtedly, Manchin’s sudden
announcement after months of
progress on the bill — the price tag
of which Democrats cut by half
to appease Manchin and fellow
moderates — was a shock to the
political world. On the other side of
the aisle, Republicans praised the
senator’s move, with speculation
mounting that Manchin was even
considering flipping his affiliation
to the Republican Party. Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,
R-Ky., said Republicans “would
love to have him on our team.”
Essentially, to many Democrats
and other staunch supporters of
the Build Back Better bill — which
promised over half a trillion
dollars to combat climate change,
$400 billion for universal pre-K
education along with hundreds of
billions for child tax credits, paid
leave and Medicaid expansion —
it appears Manchin is now seen
as the ultimate political enemy.
Meanwhile, Republicans see him
as a hero who stopped a pivotal
piece of Biden’s agenda in its
tracks, dealing a serious blow to the
president’s political fortunes.
It would be a mistake to assess
Manchin’s
behavior
in
these
superficial political terms. The
apparent death of Build Back
Better may be a short-term loss
for Democrats and a win for
Republicans, but let’s instead shift
our focus to how it would impact
the country. Millions of Americans
would have benefited from some
aspects of this unprecedented
spending package, but the Build
Back Better Act had obvious,
overwhelming
drawbacks.
The
Congressional
Budget
Office
(CBO) found the true cost of the
bill was far greater than Democrats
had advertised. If passed, this
legislation would have contributed
to our nation’s massive $29.6
trillion debt, which has swelled
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The
CBO
determined
the
national debt would have soared
by a staggering $3 trillion if the
programs in the bill continued for
10 years, a likely scenario in this age
of deficit spending.
This
package
would
have
presented an unacceptable risk as
our nation contends with historic
levels of inflation, new uncertainty
surrounding the omicron variant
and
tensions
with
American
adversaries like Russia and China.
Manchin wrote his “Democratic
colleagues in Washington are
determined
to
dramatically
reshape our society in a way that
leaves our country even more
vulnerable to the threats we face.”
While it’s critical we help workers,
parents, students and patients
through social spending, it needs
to be done in a far more responsible
fashion.
At the end of the day, if every
politician were like Manchin, the
Build Back Better bill never would
have received the level of support
it did. But most aren’t these days.
The vast majority of our elected
leaders would rather score political
points by passing this bill rather
than acknowledge the economic
and political risks that it entails.
For once, a politician transcended
politics and put the needs of
the
country
first,
something
Democrats and Republicans alike
often cannot muster the courage
to do. Every American — even
the
staunchest
supporters
of
Build Back Better — should praise
Manchin’s willingness to take a
true risk and do what he earnestly
believes is right for his constituents
and the country.
Sen. Manchin — someone who
puts Americans first and politics
second — is the leader we all need
in these turbulent times. We
should all hope Manchin seizes
the opportunity and mounts a
run for the White House in 2024.
Less than a year into the Biden
administration, it’s become clear
the current president — whose
approval rating stands at a historic
low — has failed to solve multiple
crises,
from
Afghanistan
to
COVID-19. On the Republican side,
things don’t look much better. If
former President Donald Trump
enters the race for a second term,
which appears increasingly likely,
qualified Republican candidates
may pass on a run for the Oval
Office.
Manchin
should
seriously
consider making a bid for the
White House. If he does, every
American should turn out and vote
for a leader who will put the nation
first at every turn.
The “test optional” debate hides the real
inequities in higher education
Why Joe Manchin is the leader America needs
EVAN STERN
Opinion Columnist
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
ALEX YEE
Opinion Columnist
This holiday season, between
December 24 and December
31, airlines cancelled 15,000
flights nationwide. In New
York City, Broadway shows
are being cancelled left and
right, dozens of restaurants
are closing their doors and the
recently elected mayor, Eric
Adams, even cancelled his
inauguration gala. Though not
as severe, this soft lockdown
feels reminiscent of the hard
lockdown in March 2020.
As a student, there is one
parallel course of action that
stands out the most. Schools
gave
students
a
two-week
“break” in early 2020 which
turned into months of virtual
instruction. I fear a similar
fate for my education now
that many universities are
delaying the date that students
will come back to campus,
and opting instead for two
weeks
of
online
learning.
Understandably, a two week
break may be terrifying to
the student — of any level —
who has had years of their
experience
ripped
away
from them. But we must be
rational, and try our best to
understand the damage that
an unmitigated Omicron wave
could do to our community.
I do not want school to go
back online. After losing a year
and a half of my high school
experience to virtual learning,
I
can’t
imagine
missing
anything more. The loss of my
last year of high school sports,
the experience of finally being
a senior and having time with
my friends before we all went
our separate ways has made
me grateful for the college
life I have experienced thus
far. As a result, I am less
willing to let it go. However,
as colleges across the country
— both private and public
— are starting their spring
semesters online, my feelings
have become more ambivalent.
While I have a strong desire to
go back, the decision to return
to in-person classes is not that
simple.
As a New Yorker, I have seen
how Omicron has ravaged the
city. On walks to the nearby
coffee cart for my daily fix of
iced coffee, I am surrounded
by COVID testing lines that
have taken over every other
block. Masks are back to
being glued on faces, as no one
dares to pull them down, even
outside. Even my hometown
friends, who I may not see
again for months, have taken
to self-isolating for fear of
contracting the virus. After
only two weeks of break, I am
already aware of the dangers
that lie in densely populated
areas and what is at stake if
the situation is not handled
properly. As such, I fear what
is to come of the University of
Michigan and its population
of over 48,000 students and
29,000 employees.
With
students
returning
from all corners of the country,
and some from across the
globe,
the
risks
of
rapid
spread are high. Though there
will be some who remain
cautious, there will be many
who won’t; whether it be
continuing nightly endeavors
at packed fraternities or simple
carelessness like forgetting to
wear a mask in public places,
chances are high that we will
be seeing a surge of Omicron
cases on campus. If it really
does come to that, we may be
looking at an entire semester of
virtual learning. Considering
this, I would gladly delay the
gratification of fully in person
classes if it means we will
minimize the amount of time
that we will be forced online.
So, if the spread of Omicron is
this serious and many colleges
have already shut down for a
week or two, why haven’t we?
Without the notifications that
used to inform us of positive
COVID cases in classrooms,
what are we left with? The
requirement
that
students
and faculty receive booster
shots,
the
easily
avoidable
ResponsiBlue screening checks
along with the University’s
arguably
lackluster
contact
tracing program and isolation
policies will likely be hard-
pressed to protect our campus
community from COVID-19.
As such, it is the University’s
responsibility to do more.
Possible solutions include
mandating
regular
COVID
testing
—
even
for
fully
vaccinated students on campus
— as is the norm at several peer
colleges and universities across
the country. The University
should also consider resuming
communication about positive
cases
across
campus,
or
even
temporarily
moving
lectures online while keeping
discussion sections in-person.
The best course of action
would have been to delay the
start of in-person classes. But
we should be cognizant of the
fact there are scores of other
actions outside of a full virtual
pivot that University officials
could take to make campus
a safer place. Unfortunately,
so far the University has
adopted
worryingly
few
of
these
common
sense
measures,
measures
which
could hopefully maximize the
amount of in person learning
available this term.
COVID-19: Episode 2 – Omicron Strikes Back
PALAK SRIVASTAVA
Opinion Columnist
Social media has a funny way
of clouding our perceptions of
ourselves. Being barraged with
everyone else’s perfected versions
of their lives, at least for me,
makes it incredibly difficult to
resist comparing and scrutinizing
myself against others. This is my
beef with Instagays. Instagays,
attractive gay men on Instagram
who have followings that surpass
the tens of thousands, are an
established facet of the culture
of gay men. Surpassing the
occasional thirst trap, these men
post pictures that are aspirational,
aesthetic, seductive and fine-
tuned to take full advantage of
social media algorithms.
Each time an Instagay comes
across
my
feed
during
my
social media scrolls, a cognitive
dissonance arises within me. On
the one hand, they elicit my desire.
On the other hand, they deflate my
self-esteem because I will never
measure up to their good looks and
immaculate lifestyle. Instagays
obscure the perceptions of how
gay men see themselves and what
they expect the appearances of
other gay men to be. There needs
to be a wider recognition that gay
men with rippling abs who party
every weekend are a minority,
rather than the majority, in the gay
community. This understanding
would help elevate the self-esteem
of many gay men and recalibrate
the expectations that we gay men
have for each other.
Instagram
is
a
notorious
enemy of self-worth. This app’s
image-based interface makes it
easy to see attractive influencers
flaunting excessively glamorous
lifestyles within a few taps.
Facebook is aware that Instagram
is taking a toll on the mental health
of its users. According to insider
research at Facebook, “Thirty-
two percent of teen girls said that
when they felt bad about their
bodies, Instagram made them feel
worse.” Instagram creates a self-
esteem addiction fueled by likes
and followers.
The app’s potent effect on
mental health is all the more
worrisome
when
looking
at
Instagays. And, the LGBTQ+
community
historically
has
higher rates of mental illness,
especially depression and anxiety.
These elevated rates of mental
illness, combined with an app
that is chock full of chiseled
gay men living it up in the party
capitals of the world, are a recipe
for the destruction of gay male
self-esteem. With a history of
anxiety and confidence issues,
I myself have fallen victim to
late night social media scrolls
that turn into self-loathing pity
parties. Sometimes seeing a fellow
gay man who is seemingly the
most attractive, successful man
who has ever existed triggers
depreciative thoughts that make
me feel lonely and defeated.
Social media is not an accurate
representation of reality. Read
that last sentence over again
until it truly sinks in. It’s a piece
of wisdom we’ve all heard many
times over, yet many of us still
fall prey to the lures of that one
Instagram page that reminds us of
what we’re not and what we don’t
have. Instagram is a doctored
version of reality. It is Photoshop
on steroids. Social media posts
highlight all of the high points of
one’s life and never the lows.
The danger of Instagays
BENJAMIN DAVIS
Opinion Columnist