Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
8 — Wednesday, October 26, 2022

I

n 
recent 
years, 
the 
University 
of 
Michigan 
has been facing a problem 
common to many universities: 
too many students are enrolling in 
computer science courses.
To alleviate this, the University 
began by trying to hire new 
computer science (CS) professors, 
with 
limited 
success. 
Though 
the 
Department 
of 
Computer 
Science and Engineering (CSE) 
does have some new professors 
slated to begin teaching next 
year, Electrical Engineering and 
Computer Science course waitlists 
remain complicated, and faculty-
to-student ratios remain low. 
It’s easy to understand why 
convincing established computer 
scientists to enter academia is 
so difficult, especially when the 
starting salary of programmers is so 
high. With such a high opportunity 
cost of entering academia, many 
would-be professors are choosing 
to stay in the professional world, 
leading to a national shortage of 
computer science professors.
Computer 
science 
is 
now 
the most popular major at the 
University, representing 11% of all 
undergrads. With more and more 
students enrolling in CS courses, 
CSE announced that new U-M 
students will need to apply to the 
major during their senior year of 
high school through the Common 
Application, making the entry 
process more similar to the Ross 
School of Business’s application 
method. This would help limit 
the class sizes in CSE courses, but 
it would also make the program 
far more competitive and less 
accessible to most U-M students. 
Though there would be an option to 
apply into the major as an “Enrolled 
Discoverer,” for those who find a 
love of CS once already at Michigan, 
the University has confirmed that 
these seats for Enrolled Discoverers 
would only account for a minority 
of CS spots. If a first-year student 
is admitted to the University but 
rejected from the CS program, they 
are disallowed from applying as an 
“Enrolled Discoverer,” an arbitrary 
limitation with seemingly limited 
utility for either thinning class sizes 
or choosing the best CS majors.
While there are reasons to 
critique this new University policy, 
the changes will have concrete 
benefits for the program. The 
University has long been praised 
for being one of the few top-ranked 
universities with an open CS major, 
but this hasn’t always worked to its 
advantage. Schools with closed CS 
majors, like the University of Illinois 
Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) , have 
been able to keep class sizes small 
and offer more concentrations and 
electives. U-M students, on the 
other hand, must fiercely compete 
for spots in upper-level CS courses, 
and no concentrations are offered.
Though 
James 
Earl 
Jones 
routinely proclaims that “we are 
the best university in the world” at 
every home U-M football game, the 
differences between the computer 
science programs at UIUC and 
the University of Michigan tell a 
different story. Because of the more 
robust CS curriculum at Illinois 
— made possible through smaller 
class sizes — UIUC routinely ranks 
in the top 5 computer science 
programs in the country, beating 
Michigan while having a notably 
higher acceptance rate. 
Restricting 
the 
Computer 
Science major would lower class 
sizes and allow more specialization 
within the major. However, though 
changes to the Computer Science 
program 
as 
proposed 
might 
increase the University’s prestige 
at a national level and facilitate the 
management of class sizes, there 
are potential downsides to this 
shift. 
While the application will be 
open to any student interested 
in 
completing 
a 
bachelor’s 
degree 
in 
Computer 
Science, 
there is an undeniable gap in the 
quality of high school education 
students across the country and 
at an international level receive, 
highlighting the socioeconomic gap 
between these groups of students 
and subsequently giving some 
students an advantage over others. 
Students who went to high schools 
that offered computer science 
courses will have the upper hand 
at the expense of those who never 

had access to the same resources. 
Even though the proportion of high 
schools that offer Computer Science 
courses has increased, disparities 
still persist. For example, Latino 
students are 1.4 times less likely to 
enroll in Computer Science classes 
than white and Asian students, thus 
reinforcing the status quo in an 
already fairly racially homogenous 
discipline. 
This, not even to mention 
the core question: how do we 
choose good computer scientists? 
High 
school 
applicants 
offer 
severely limited information to 
an 
undergraduate 
admissions 
committee. Getting an 800 on the 
reading portion of your SAT might 
impress an admissions officer, but 
what does it say about an applicant’s 
ability to build a neural net 10 years 
down the line? Specialization is 
good, and necessary in our modern 
economy, but we are sorely remiss 
if we intend to forbid students from 
studying whole disciplines at the 
age of 18. 
Moreover, limiting admission 
to students who are entirely 
sure they are going to major in 
computer science will limit the 
intellectual diversity of the major 
and, consequently, the types of 
computer scientists the University 
is sending out into the world. It is 
important to admit students who 
have interdisciplinary interests, 
which students who are still unsure 
that they want to study computer 
science are more likely to have. 
Knowledge in the humanities and 
the social sciences is necessary for 
jobs in the technology industry, as 
exemplified by demands for tech-
savvy 
humanities 
professionals 
in Silicon Valley. That is not to 
say that every computer scientist 
needs to recite Hamlet in their free 
time, but rather that different, and 
incredibly valuable, outlooks are 
possible when a student draws from 
more places than just their core 
discipline. 
The 
restrictive 
application 
process may also run the risk of 
scaring students out of applying due 
to the rigor and high expectations 
of admissions. Many students 
might not apply out of fear that, 
because they have not already had 
a measure of CS education, they 
will be disqualified from studying 
computer science at the University 
for the rest of their undergraduate 
career. 
Remember, 
students 
rejected from the CS major when 
applying may not reapply as 
Enrolled Discoverers. On top of 
courses that already discourage 
students from continuing to pursue 
a specific degree program (weeder 
classes), the intimidating threat 
of not getting into the program 
initially, and therefore precluded 
from applying as an Enrolled 
Discoverer, 
forces 
prospective 
CS majors with less-than-stellar 
programming backgrounds into a 
cruel gamble.
In 
order 
to 
combat 
the 
challenges facing the increasingly 
understaffed 
program 
while 
maintaining 
the 
University’s 
commitment to equity, it is vital 
that the CS department explores 
alternative solutions in both the 
short and long terms. Since many 
classes are currently capped by the 
number of seats available in person, 
CS majors often find registering 
for classes incredibly challenging. 
Over the course of the pandemic, 
however, 
the 
CS 
department 
successfully experimented with 
remote 
options 
for 
courses, 
which often streamlined the core 
operations of classes by freeing 
resources to help with office hours 
and grading. In offering remote 
sections of each core course in the 
major, the CS department could 
allow more students to enroll in 
classes with minimal learning loss 
due to the existence of in-person 
supporting resources.
Though a closed major remains 
necessary until hiring can catch 
up, the CS department would 
also be well-advised to model its 
admissions process after the Ford 
School of Public Policy instead of 
Ross. While Ross admits a majority 
of its class as direct-admits out of 
high school and opens a limited 
number of highly competitive seats 
to students already at Michigan, 
Ford only allows students to apply 
at the end of their sophomore year. 
Among students, there’s some 
debate over the efficacy of each 
model. John Sader, an Engineering 
freshman and prospective CS 
major, told us that because CS, like 

Ross, is selecting for certain skills 
upon admission, “CS is different 
enough (from) other engineering 
disciplines,” 
for 
a 
Ross-type 
model to be appropriate. Kevin 
Ji, an Engineering junior in the 
CS program, on the other hand, 
argued that a Ford-like model is 
better since it would give students 
“a year or two to explore the 
major and decide from there.” For 
Sader though, what’s ultimately 
important is that the University is 
“transparent with the admissions 
process.” 
By restricting application to 
the major until students have 
completed 
the 
prerequisites 
necessary for it, the University can 
successfully limit the effects of 
the resource gap in CS high school 
education.
While hiring in the long run will 
likely catch up and make a return 
to the current program format 
possible, by using this moment 
to initiate a paradigm shift in the 
major, the CS department can 
enact positive long-term change. 
Though CS-adjacent programs 
like the School of Information 
(SI) and Data Science exist, the 
lack of a governing body over such 
majors makes sharing resources 
challenging. 
With 
a 
highly 
theoretical CS major, Michigan 
rigorously 
builds 
students’ 
foundations in the subject, but 
often fails to provide significant 
industry experience. SI, on the 
other hand, offers a curriculum 
highly relevant to the industry but 
suffers from a presumed lack of 
prestige relative to a CS degree. 
By 
creating 
a 
College 
of 
Computer Science in the mold of 
SI, for example, the University 
could offer a richer experience 
by offering concentrations, more 
CS-related majors and greater 
opportunities to explore electives. 
By investing in CS-related majors 
like data science and UX design, 
the University can cater to a 
wider set of interests and free 
resources in many current core 
classes. Additionally, because of 
the inherent crossover between 
majors, CS students in each 
major would be able to explore 
concentrations that overlap across 
disciplines, allowing for a well-
rounded CS education.
Furthermore, 
this 
shift 
in 
program structure could also 
alleviate the hiring challenges 
the department faces. With more 
industry courses, a School of 
Computer Science could have 
PhD students and guest lecturers 
make up a greater component 
of its teaching staff. While most 
theoretical courses would still 
be taught by professors, many 
practical ones are better suited 
to the pedagogical style of those 
with industry experience. Overall, 
this long-term shift could prove 
tremendously beneficial to both 
the prestige and utility of a U-M 
CS 
degree, 
maintaining 
fair, 
competitive admissions standards 
while increasing the resources 
available to each student.
After struggling for years to 
maintain small class sizes and 
support the onslaught of new CS 
students entering the major, the 
University clearly needed to make 
a change in the program. While 
the closed major is a step in the 
right direction, it’s important 
that the University addresses the 
equity concerns stemming from 
this approach and works toward 
a more sustainable department 
structure in the long run.
By 
capitalizing 
on 
the 
breathing room a closed major 
allows the department, the CS 
administration should also work 
toward the long-term creation of 
a “School of Computer Science,” 
or other consolidated program, 
that would allow U-M students to 
obtain a CS degree while pursuing 
different 
concentration 
areas 
across the field. By doing this, the 
program could expand its national 
prestige and distribute resources 
more effectively to prevent future 
hiring shortages. 
Though 
there 
remains 
significant work to be done to 
improve the CS program, taking 
the bold step to close the major 
has the opportunity to accelerate 
meaningful change. In order 
to effectively accomplish this, 
however, the department should 
revamp its admissions process and 
restructure the current program 
format to alleviate pre-existing 
shortcomings.

From The Daily: Changes to 
Computer Science major are needed, 
but current execution is questionable

THE MICHIGAN DAILY 
EDITORIAL BOARD

Y

ou’ve probably already 
heard 
about 
his 
impressive 
résumé, 
his social media savvy, his talent 
with the cello and his penchant 
for bow ties. Many will likely be 
clamoring for a #SelfieWithSanta 
since his arrival at the University 
this month.
But at the University of British 
Columbia, where Ono served as 
president for six years, some of 
us have come to realize that the 
glowing profiles of him aren’t 
telling you everything.
Forget the hype from the 
Board of Regents: the students, 
faculty and staff of the University 
deserve a fuller picture of their 
new president. In that spirit, 
here are a few reasons to think 
twice about President Ono.
Ono hosted a fundraiser with 
an alleged abuser of Indigenous 
children. John Furlong was 
disinvited as keynote speaker 
of the fundraiser because of 
allegations 
of 
physical 
and 
psychological 
abuse, 
but 
as 
president of UBC, Ono reinstated 
him following pressure from 
wealthy donors. The allegations 
against Furlong stem from his 
time as a teacher in a remote 
Indigenous community. Some 
of his alleged victims attended 
protests against him led by 
UBC students, and the only 
Indigenous 
member 
of 
the 
university’s 
Sexual 
Assault 
Policy Committee stepped down 
from that committee because of 
the fundraiser.
Ono failed to take appropriate 
action against a climate of sexual 
violence. During Ono’s tenure at 
UBC, at least six students in one 
night received medical treatment 
for suspected druggings at a 
frat 
party. 
The 
university’s 
Sexual Assault Support Centre 
said it was “troubled by UBC’s 
response” 
and 
“urges 
the 
university 
to 
refrain 
from 
dismissing this incident as an 
anomaly” 
— 
echoing 
events 
at Ono’s previous university, 
the University of Cincinnati. 
Soon afterward, when a female 
professor criticized the frats 
involved about being invited to 
participate in a Remembrance 
Day ceremony, she was subjected 
to a torrent of misogynistic 
verbal abuse and threats online. 
The 
university, 
rather 
than 
condemn the abuse, responded 
by affirming its “commitment 
to freedom of expression and 
academic freedom” on both 
sides.

Ono supported UBC’s hosting 
of dangerous far-right figures. 
The 
university 
hosted, 
or 
attempted to host, a range of 
speakers during Ono’s tenure 
who 
were 
peddling 
white 
supremacist, 
Islamophobic 
and neo-Nazi propaganda. On 
most occasions, these speakers 
were invited by student groups 
known 
for 
their 
extreme 
views and looking to provoke 
controversy, and at least one 
anti-trans speaker with known 
ties to an alt-right street gang 
rented a room directly from 
the university. In the latter 
case, Ono provided inaccurate 
information to the university, 
incorrectly claiming that as 
many 
community 
members 
supported the event as opposed 
it, after which UBC was barred 
from 
the 
annual 
Vancouver 
Pride parade. At another event, 
attendees physically attacked 
protesters outside the venue in 
the presence of campus security, 
and 
Ono’s 
Vice 
President 
of 
Students, 
Ainsley 
Carry, 
subsequently had dinner with 
the organizers. 
Ono 
repeatedly 
failed 
to 
address concerns from students, 
faculty and staff. One month 
before 
another 
speaking 
engagement, Ono received a 
letter signed by 25 concerned 
faculty members and graduate 
students, and his administration 
only replied five months later 
— that is, four months after 
the event. In spite of further 
outcry from the community, the 
university continued to justify 
these events by issuing a release, 
again citing its 40-year-old 
Statement on Academic Freedom 
and 
callously 
referring 
the 
students who were negatively 
impacted to the university’s 
already overburdened mental 
health services.
Ono failed to act to keep 
tuition 
affordable. 
Students 
endured 
consistent 
annual 
increases in tuition fees under 
Ono’s tenure, including during 
the pandemic — driving students 
“further into poverty and debt.” 
For 
domestic 
undergraduate 
students, these increases were 
as high as was legally allowed. In 
2021, the university attributed 
the tuition hikes, in part, to 
“equity, diversity, and inclusion 
initiatives” 
and 
Indigenous 
reconciliation, before deleting 
the relevant web page. After 
the backlash to these increases, 
UBC became even less receptive 
to feedback on tuition fees. 
In 2022, the annual tuition 
“consultation” process, already 
widely perceived as a charade, 

was replaced by an even more 
restricted 
“engagement” 
process.
Ono demonstrated a lack 
of 
financial 
transparency. 
Amazon announced plans to 
open 
Canada’s 
first 
“Cloud 
Innovation Centre” at UBC 
while the company was under 
scrutiny for the obscene wealth 
of its founder Jeff Bezos, for the 
abysmal working conditions of 
its employees, and for providing 
the 
tech 
infrastructure 
for 
US Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement 
(ICE). 
There 
was no consultation with the 
university community on the 
matter, and the terms of the 
deal were not made public. The 
contract was finally obtained 
by a student group through a 
freedom of information request 
after a nine-month delay. Later, 
it was revealed that Ono was 
following orders from Amazon 
to keep $3 million in funding 
from the company a secret.
Ono allowed UBC to try 
to 
avoid 
responsibility 
for 
environmental harm. Despite 
its reputation for sustainability, 
in 2019 UBC was convicted 
of dumping ammonia into a 
creek that flows into the Fraser 
River, poisoning much wildlife. 
The incident occurred in 2014, 
before Ono’s arrival, but under 
his leadership, the university 
chose to appeal the conviction 
as well as the 1.2 million CAD 
(approximately $900,000) fine 
earmarked for local habitat 
restoration to repair damage 
caused by the dumping. A 
spokesperson 
declined 
to 
comment to reporters on the 
cost of the legal fees, or whether 
the appeal was being funded 
with public money. As part of 
the appeal, UBC argued that the 
ammonia solution dumped was 
not a “deleterious substance.” It 
lost the appeal.
A 
university 
president 
deserves 
credit 
for 
their 
successes. 
But 
as 
a 
public 
official who will be raking in 
over $1.3 million per year plus 
benefits, the community must 
also hold him accountable for 
the mistakes for which he is 
responsible.
We largely failed to do so at 
UBC: Ono, who was granted a 
second term as president here, 
leaves midway through this 
term having faced few if any 
repercussions, let alone formal 
sanctions, from the university 
for 
the 
incidents 
described 
above, and appears to be as 
popular as ever. Hopefully you’ll 
keep a closer eye on him at the 
University of Michigan.

Behind the bow tie: 
What the University of Michigan 
needs to know about Santa Ono

JONATHAN 
TURCOTTE-SUMMERS

Opinion Contributor

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.

PAIGE HODDER
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

Ammar Ahmad

Julian Barnard

Brandon Cowit

Jess D’Agostino

Ben Davis

Shubhum Giroti

Devon Hesano

Sophia Lehrbaum

Olivia Mouradian

Siddharth Parmar

Rushabh Shah

Nikhil Sharma

Lindsey Spencer

Evan Stern

Anna Trupiano

Jack Tumpowsky

Alex Yee

Quin Zapoli

VANESSA KIEFER 
AND KATE WEILAND 
Managing Editors

GRACE BEAL/Daily

