2022-10-19

Michigan eviscerates Penn

State in second half, claiming top-10 win

just as confusing as it sounds; nonetheless, the Nittany Lions put six more points on the board.

And just like that, Penn State was in the lead.

Nothing is guaranteed in big games. Opportunities come and go like the wind, and momentum can shift at the drop of a hat.

In a moment, a game that looks fully in control can unravel, testing the mettle of both teams involved. The side that responds best is the one that takes home the victory.

On Saturday, the No. 5 Michigan football team (7-0 overall, 4-0 Big Ten) responded to the adversity it faced in a big way in its most challenging game of the season thus far. Following a first half marred by selfinflicted wounds and failures to convert, the Wolverines pulled away after the break, defeating No. 10 Penn State (5-1, 2-1), 41-17, in their first ranked matchup of the year.

“Good game, (I) thought the team made a real positive statement today,” Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh said Saturday. “Call it a statement game? OK, call it a statement game.”

But the Wolverines’ statement started out on unsteady footing. On its first drive, Michigan drove deep into the red zone, moving like a well-oiled machine before sputtering out just short of the endzone, only coming away with a field goal. After forcing a three-and-out, the offense had another shot to punch it home. But once again, it failed to put six on the board, instead settling for three points.

Another three-and-out gave Michigan its third chance to put up six. After a well-orchestrated drive culminated with junior running back Blake Corum powering through the middle, the Wolverines finally gave the maize sea of fans at the Big House a reason to get on its feet. Michigan appeared to have seized control. But just as quickly as the Wolverines claimed it, the Nittany Lions knocked it out of their hands. On third and one — Penn State at risk of for its third straight three-and-out — Nittany Lions quarterback Sean Clifford broke free for a 62-yard run, landing at the Michigan four yard line. Four downs later, Penn State netted a touchdown to vault itself back into the game, trailing just 13-7 after capitalizing on Clifford’s big play.

“You just got to step up,” senior edge rusher Mike Morris said. “I feel like nothing really went through our head, (though), because we know we shot ourselves in the foot.”

While the Wolverines looked to recover from the misfire, the Nittany Lions dialed it up another notch. In a ricochet play like an old-school pinball machine, Penn State defensive end Chop Robinson blocked a pass from sophomore quarterback J.J. McCarthy, which bounced off defensive tackle PJ Mustifer’s helmet and into hands of linebacker Curtis Jacobs for a pick six. The play looked

“I mean, in the game, there’s gonna be ups and downs,” graduate center Olusegun Oluwatimi said. “There’s going to be tips that go their way, and there’s gonna be tips that go our way. So in that instance, they had one that went their way, so we weren’t too worried about it. There was a whole game left to play.”

Michigan managed a field goal to end the half up 16-14, but the momentum had swung the other way. The box score screamed blowout — the Wolverines led 18-1 on first downs, 274-83 in total yards and 4-1 in red zone trips —, but clung to a two point lead only by two points heading into the locker rooms.

After an uneasy and inefficient first half, and with the biggest game of its season thus far on the line, Michigan had to come out in the second half and deliver.

It exceeded that demand.

After a Nittany Lions field goal, the Wolverines retook the field. On the fourth play of their drive, sophomore running back Donovan Edwards bounced outside, bursting past defenders before cutting back inside for a 67-yard touchdown. A two-point conversion to fifth-year receiver Ronnie Bell put Michigan up seven. Despite their previous circumstances, it seemed like the Wolverines never panicked.

“Our spirits were up; we knew that we beat ourselves (in the first half),” Oluwatimi said. “So we just wanted to come out in the second half and execute, and we felt like we did that.”

After forcing a turnover on downs with Penn State in Michigan territory, the offense trotted back out and assumed its position, Michigan Stadium buzzing with energy.

The next play only gave it more.

Corum blasted up the middle, leaving Nittany Lions defenders in his wake en route to a 61-yard touchdown run. The game was back in the Wolverines’ hands. And an increasingly suffocating defensive attack paired with the rushing explosion was the perfect recipe for a Michigan victory.

As the third quarter bled into the fourth, Penn State couldn’t stop its own bleeding, and the Wolverines didn’t let up.

“We always have that 0-0 mentality,” McCarthy said. “… But we never lost confidence, we never stopped pushing, and it just showed in the second half.”

Ultimately, Michigan claimed the top-10 win, 41-17, battling through setbacks and uncertainties, and silencing any doubts that remained going into the game.

“I feel like (the win) shows a lot,” Morris said. “… People want to look at it as if we haven’t played anybody, but in reality we have, and we showed up and showed out. … And now Penn State; again, we showed up and we showed out. So that narrative can keep going, but we’re in the business of proving people wrong.”

And if the Wolverines plan to continue that business, now might be just the right time to buy stock.

NICHOLAS STOLL

JEREMY

Whitmer, Dixon face off in first gubernatorial debate in Grand Rapids

Candidates dispute over abortion, gun control in schools, public education and more

ANNA FIFELSKI & SAMANTHA RICH Daily News Editor & Daily Staff Reporter

Incumbent Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Republican gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon faced off in the first of two debates in Grand Rapids, Mich. Thursday evening. The debate was hosted in the WOOD-TV studio and moderated by political reporter Rick Albin.

Whitmer’s campaign announced on Aug. 24 that she had accepted invitations from WOOD-TV for their Oct. 13 debate and WXYZ, WXMI and WSYM for their Oct. 25 debate. Later that day, Dixon said she believed the candidates should have debated before absentee ballots were available to Michigan voters.

Whitmer opened by emphasizing the importance of bipartisan collaboration and placing democracy and civil discourse above political differences.

“I grew up in a household that was bipartisan, and we had very different perspectives, but we shared values,” Whitmer said. “I still believe there is more that unites us than divides us. I believe in our democracy. I believe in decency and that’s what I want to focus on tonight and every minute I’m governor of this great state. Let’s work together and build a better future for our kids.”

In Dixon’s opening remarks, she highlighted her experience as a

CAMPUS LIFE

mother of school-age children and her time working at a steel foundry, in addition to criticizing Whitmer’s policies over the past four years.

“I’m running for governor because, quite frankly, Gretchen Whitmer has let us down,” Dixon said. “I’m sure you remember the promises that this governor made four years ago right here on this stage. She’s going to try to attack me tonight to distract from her record of broken promises, but I’m going to focus on the future. I’m going to talk about how to make Michigan freer and more prosperous.”

The first question of the night, written by an Allendale, Mich. resident, asked the candidates to clarify their positions on abortion and describe what limitations or exceptions they would support. Whitmer said the fall of Roe v.

Wade undid years of progress for reproductive rights and highlighted her May lawsuit which is currently blocking the enforcement of a 1931 abortion ban.

“When the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, it took away rights that we had for 49 years,” Whitmer said. “Michigan could revert to a 1931 law that makes (abortion) a felony, no exceptions for rape or incest, criminalizing doctors and nurses. The only reason that law is not in effect right now is because of my lawsuit stopping that. When Roe fell, Mrs. Dixon celebrated that. She said it didn’t even go far enough.”

Whitmer said she supports Michigan’s abortion policy as is, in which abortion is a protected right up until the point of fetal viability. Dixon said she remains anti-

abortion, with exceptions only for when the life of the pregnant person is at risk, but recognizes that the upcoming ballot initiative and Michigan courts will determine the legality of abortion in the state, regardless of her personal beliefs.

“I am pro-life with exceptions for the life of the mother,” Dixon said. “But I understand that this is going to be decided by the people of the state of Michigan, or by a judge.”

The candidates also discussed Proposal 3, a constitutional amendment on the ballot this November that would enshrine the right to abortion, contraception and reproductive care in the state’s constitution.

Albin asked Whitmer and Dixon whether they would accept the results of the ballot initiative regardless of its alignment with their personal beliefs, to which both candidates pledged they would. Whitmer criticized Dixon for this promise, pointing to her support for false claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election and arguing that this speaks to her ability to serve as governor.

“Saying she will respect the will of the people when she has not even embraced the outcome of the last election or pledged to embrace the outcome of a future election tells me we cannot trust what she’s saying,” Whitmer said. “These are fundamental rights. We cannot make any assumption that

University Hospital to expand pneumatic tube system, construct new Pavilion hospital Michigan Medicine staff talk increasing transportation efficiency

JI HOON CHOI & ALEXANDRA VENA Daily News Contributors

Walking down North Ingalls Street, you may hear the sound of bells ringing from Burton Memorial Tower. Located steps from popular campus stops such as the Modern Languages Building, the Michigan League and Hill Auditorium, many passersby stop to admire the looming structure and to hear the bells ring. Many may wonder: What is it like to play those notes? What is it like to view Ann Arbor from the very top of the tower? Who are the people playing the bells?

The first mention of building a clock tower on campus is found in an editorial in the Michigan Alumnus published in 1919, just a few years after the clock tower attached to University Library was torn down.

Former University of Michigan President Marion LeRoy Burton suggested the tower be built in memory of the 231 men enrolled at the University of Michigan who lost

STUDENT GOVERNMENT

their lives in World War I during his Commencement address in 1921. Instead, after Burton’s death in 1925, the tower was built in his memory. In honor of the University’s bicentennial in 2017, the tower was given an updated floodlight system, which can be programmed to shine in a variety of colors, including maize and blue.

Students use the Charles Baird Carillon, the sonorous bells within the top of the tower, for performances and for classes. The tower usually plays the Westminster Quarters on the hour, but on special occasions, people can also hear different tunes, ranging from classical études to more modern tunes like “You’ve Got a Friend in Me” from Pixar’s “Toy Story.” The music is incredibly varied, as Rackham student Alexander Gedeon commented.

“You’ll find that there’s a lot of music that is written for the instrument that is either very old or very young,” Gedeon said. “So either from the 17th and 18th centuries or

The University of Michigan Hospital will be expanding its pneumatic tube system across its campus after being approved at the Sept. 22 Board of Regents meeting. The project has an estimated cost of $6.5 million and is expected to be finished in spring 2024.

The pneumatic tubes within Michigan Medicine are a network of highly-compressed air ducts that allow the hospital to transport specimens, such as blood and urine samples, through the pneumatic tube system to the laboratory.

Scott Marquette, associate chief operating officer of Michigan Medicine, said pneumatic tubes increase efficiency because healthcare workers are able to transmit information across the long distances between the buildings on the medical campus.

“(The pneumatic tube system) is kind of like a train system that’s built within our building,” Marquette said. “So you can send one train from one clinic to the central lab and from the central lab to the inpatient area … It allows us to more efficiently deliver care across an expansive campus very quickly.”

Kristina Martin, clinical pathology operations director for Michigan Medicine, explained that the pneumatic tube system connects multiple health centers, such as the main hospital, the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, the Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospital and other buildings on the medical campus.

“In the laboratory, we can also use the pneumatic tube system to send blood products,” Martin said. “So patients who need transfusions … we actually pack (the blood products) into the pneumatic tube and get those sent out.”

CSG engages in sexual misconduct training, votes down investigation into Speaker

JOEY LIN Daily News Reporter

The University of Michigan Central Student Government convened Tuesday evening in a hybrid format to hear from the Coordinated Community Response Team (CCRT) and Sexual Assault and Harassment Law Student Advocacy Services (SAHLAS). CSG also discussed a possible investigation into the Speaker of the CSG assembly.

Rebecca Veidlinger, intermittent law lecturer and one of three CCRT co-chairs, spoke at the Assembly about CCRT’s missions and actions. The CCRT was created as a result of a settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed against the University’s handling of the over 1,000 sexual misconduct allegations against former athletic doctor Robert Anderson.

Veidlinger explained that CCRT consists of members from all three University campuses and that the team is trying to bring in new voices from all walks of life instead of listening to people in positions of power.

“The goal is largely to examine, to learn and to experiment with new ways of prevention and response to the problem of campus sexual misconduct,” Veidlinger said. “It’s an attempt to bring some new voices to the table with more of a grassroots approach rather than top-down.”

Veidlinger urged all students to go to CCRT’s website and submit information on their suggestions page as part of the effort toward bringing in more voices from the University community.

Engineering junior Zaynab Elkolaly asked Veidlinger if there will be a focus on addressing inequities for people of Color and other marginalized groups when it comes to sexual harassment.

Veidlinger said CCRT is giving a voice to underrepresented groups better by hosting specific listening sessions for a wide range of groups, including students of Color, staff, faculty, the Graduate Employees’ Organization, survivors of sexual assault and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

“Our listening sessions have been targeted at different groups; we had

some for staff, some for faculty,” Veidlinger said. “(With) GEO, we have a listening session upcoming, we have a listening session with survivors of sexual assault. We have one for LGBTQ+ students and one for students of Color.”

Law students Hannah Mezzacappa and Madison Butler also spoke at the Assembly about the Sexual Assault and Harassment Law Student Advocacy Service (SAHLAS), a Law School student organization aiming to educate the University community about Title IX and advocate for changes in Title IX policy. The organization also supports complaints undergoing the Title IX process, and members were present at Tuesday’s CSG meeting to discuss how more students can get involved.

Title IX is a U.S. federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any educational program receiving federal government funding.

Mezzacappa said the University also has its own rules on what constitutes as sexual misconduct that are based on Title IX but cover more

situations.

“University of Michigan prohibits sexual assault, sex and gendervbased harassment, exploitation, stalking, intimate partner violence, sex and gendervbased discrimination and retaliation,” Mezzacappa said. “Title IX includes quid pro quo, hostile environments sexual harassment, intimate partner violence, sex and gender based stalking and sexual assault.”

Mezzacappa and Butler then discussed how victims of sexual harassment can report their case and receive assistance. The process consists of reporting, investigation, hearings, outcomes, sanctions, remedies, appeal and adaptive resolution. Reporting can be done confidentially, but Butler explained that the investigation process can be retraumatizing for survivors.

LSA sophomore Emma Sklar expressed her gratitude toward Mezzacappa and Butler for informing everyone about their right to be protected from sexual harassment.

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1327 www.michigandaily.com

PAIGE HODDER Editor-in-Chief eic@michigandaily.com

AARON SANTILLI Business Manager business@michigandaily.com

NEWS TIPS tipline@michigandaily.com

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR tothedaily@michigandaily.com

EDITORIAL PAGE opinion@michigandaily.com

PHOTOGRAPHY SECTION photo@michigandaily.com

NEWSROOM news@michigandaily.com

CORRECTIONS corrections@michigandaily.com

ARTS SECTION arts@michigandaily.com

SPORTS SECTION sports@michigandaily.com

Editorial Staff

Senior Sports Editors: Josh Taubman, Spencer Raines, Lily Israel, Paul Nasr, Connor Earegood, Abbie Telgenhof

and SABRIYA IMAMI Managing Arts Editors arts@michigandaily.com

GRACE TUCKER

Statement

Deputy Editors: Taylor Schott, Julia Maloney

Editor: Lilly Dickman

statement@michigandaily.com

CAROLINE ATKINSON and ETHAN PATRICK

copydesk@michigandaily.com

Copy

Senior Copy Editors: Abbie Gaies, Lizzie MacAdam, Dana Elobaid, Ali Chesnick,

Anchal Malh

Senior

Media Editors:

Veidlinger, Martina Zacker, Jillian Sacksner, Christian Juliano, Justin O’Beirne

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

LILA TURNER/Daily

B(ringing) people together: What it’s like to play the carillon in the Burton Memorial Tower Students provide insight into the campus landmark, experiences with creating music

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

NADIA TAECKENS Daily News Contributor

RESEARCH

from

formed CCRT to increase student input on policy

Tudor Dixon and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer answer reporters’ questions after the gubernatorial debate Thursday evening in Grand Rapids, Mich.

VANESSA

DOMINIC

LILLIAN

GRACE

and TESS CROWLEY

Ono’s first day: Here’s how the campus community feels about Santa coming to town

RILEY HODDER & IRENA LI Daily Staff Reporters

Today marks the beginning of Dr. Santa Ono’s presidency. After being announced as the 15th president of the University of Michigan in July, the campus community has been preparing for the start of a new era for the University.

Upon hearing of Ono’s selection as the next president, members of the student body quickly took note of Ono’s reputation as an administrator who interacts with students. Members of Central Student Government (CSG) were some of the first students to wonder if this reputation had any merit, and, according to LSA senior and CSG President Noah Zimmerman, it does.

“(Ono) is just so student-focused that we are really excited to work with him,” Zimmerman said. “He has a lot of enthusiasm for what we’ve brought him already, and I think he will be really keen on engaging with students.”

Zimmerman said CSG has established communication with Ono already, and that he hopes an open line of communication will continue because of its importance to campus and student life.

“He said from the get-go that we need to be transparent, we need to be honest with him, and if something’s not working, tell him, because he wants to know,” Zimmerman said.

“There’s a level of respect, and I think that’s always there, and I want to make sure that we maintain that.’”

Business junior Trevor Wallace, who serves as the finance and operations coordinator at Student Sustainability Coalition (SSC), said the SSC is “cautiously optimistic” about Ono’s presidency, primarily because of the sustainability efforts he oversaw as the president of the University of British Columbia.

“He has a good past record at the University of British Columbia with sustainability progress,” Wallace said. “We think that he represents a great change from the previous administration in allowing student

voices to (make sustainability progress), and being able to have sustainability be a top priority of the University.”

Wallace said the SSC’s main concern is ensuring that student voices are not neglected, and that he hopes Ono’s presidency will mark a change in that.

“I know that, in the past, we’ve had many student groups feel that we’ve been pushing things for a long time but that we haven’t been heard,” Wallace said. “It’s possible that that’s the way administration works, and it’s possible that students might continue to be neglected, and that is a concern of many students on campus.”

Wallace said the SSC hopes to build a positive relationship with Ono. He said collaboration between students and administration is the most effective way to create change on campus.

“Just having a relationship and being open about what their actions are and what their goals are, and how (SSC’s) goals can match up with that, would be a great stepping point to be able to have a long-term student and president connection,” Wallace said.

Jacob Lederman, associate

professor of sociology at the University of Michigan-Flint campus, is an active member of the One University campaign, a faculty and student-led group advocating for equitable funding on the University’s three campuses. Lederman said he hopes Ono will prioritize building relationships with not only their organization, but also with the satellite campuses as well.

“We would like a chance to build a relationship with him personally,” Lederman said. “Speaking only with the campus leadership, as in the leadership at Dearborn and Flint, there has often been a lot of miscommunication that seems to go on between our campus and leadership at the presidential and regental level. So, we’d like the opportunity to share directly with him some of the issues we’re working on.”

At the September Board of Regents meeting, then-Interim University President Mary Sue Coleman announced a transformative plan to improve U-M Flint’s enrollment rates in response to a 30% drop since 2014. Lederman said One University is cautious of this plan and hopes that Ono will lead it in the right direction.

“We are optimistic but concerned

Design by Sara Fang

about a planned ‘transformation’ at the Flint campus,” Lederman said. “One University wants to work with President Ono and others to make sure that that investment helps to promote equity and access to U-M Flint and specifically to make sure that our students on the U-M Flint campus can continue to attend a comprehensive university with all of the liberal arts, fine arts and sciences that we’ve traditionally had.”

Lederman said One University is primarily concerned that students on the Dearborn and Flint campuses will lose opportunities that students on the Ann Arbor campus will continue to enjoy.

“We are concerned that we may be heading towards a three-campus system, in which wealthier students on the Ann Arbor campus can major in topics such as politics, biology or philosophy and students on the Flint and Dearborn campus are encouraged to major only in the professional fields,” Lederman said.

As for how to achieve One University’s goals, Lederman said they hope that Ono will be more inclined to listen to their organization’s concerns.

“I think we would hope to have

ADMINISTRATION NEWS

Inspired by her family roots, the Public Health professor reflects on career, ‘weathering’ hypothesis

NADIA TAECKENS & EMMA SWANSON Daily News Contributors

Dr. Arline Geronimus, professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan, was presented with the James S. Jackson Distinguished Career Award for Diversity Scholarship Thursday during an event co-hosted by the University’s Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion and the LSA National Center for Institutional Diversity.

The biennial award was first given in 2017 and was named after its first recipient, James S. Jackson, a psychology professor who researched issues related to race and health. Since then, the award has been given to honor the work of U-M faculty who have made significant contributions through research, scholarship, service and mentorship to the fields of diversity, inequality and justice.

Tabbye Chavous, vice provost for equity and inclusion, said she believes Geronimus is incredibly deserving of the award due to her unique investigations into the intersections of health and societal marginalization.

“Dr. Geronimus originated an analytical framework, ‘weathering,’ well known to many of us now, that posits that the health of African-Americans is subject to early health deterioration as a consequence of social exclusion,” Chavous said.

“Much of her scholarly work is related to testing this structurally rooted biopsychosocial model.”

During her graduate studies, Geronimus proposed her Weathering Hypothesis, which states that members of marginalized groups are often diagnosed with adverse health effects earlier in life because of the effect that chronic stress from

sustained marginalization has on the body over time.

Geronimus then presented a lecture entitled “Deepening Diversity: A DEI of Public Health Consequence.” Throughout her talk, Geronimus reflected on her career and the importance of diversity, equity and inclusion at institutions of higher education. She said some of the inspiration for her work came from her Jewish roots. Her paternal grandparents escaped from Russian Pogroms in the early 1900s and eventually immigrated to the United States. Even after her grandparents immigrated, Geronimus said her father encountered anti-Semitism and classism growing up.

“He spent his white-collar work days among the Ivy-educated physicians in Boston,” Geronimus said. “Actively managing (his) social identity (by doing) what he referred to as ‘thinking Yiddish, acting British’ … my father could not be his authentic self. He was perpetually alert to the possibility of being stigmatized, discredited or humiliated if his ethnic immigrant working-class roots or city college education were exposed.”

Because of what her father went through, Geronimus said she became interested in researching the physical and mental health impacts of chronic stress caused by systems of oppression, including racism and religious intolerance.

“Over time, chronic exposure to everyday challenges and threats has detrimental effects on cellular systems,” Geronimus said. “Prolonged exposure to stressors weakens and dysregulates the cardiovascular, immune, endocrine and metabolic systems, damages vital tissues and organs, increases the risk of obesity, the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, (and) the early onset of diseases.”

Throughout her career, Geronimus said she has worked to

increase the diversity of doctoral students in the Health Behavior and Health Education (HBHE) department. In the 25 years that she has chaired the department’s doctoral admissions committee, she said she has watched more than 120 HBHE doctoral students graduate, with over a third of them having been historically underrepresented students.

From her research, Geronimus said she found many of the underrepresented students with whom she worked with may have suffered from the effects of “weathering,” with chronic stress leading to serious health conditions later on in their careers.

“(The) data (is) preliminary … but I have estimated that 30% of Black or Latinx doctoral alumni have died or developed lifethreatening diseases somewhere between the late 40s and early 50s,” Geronimus said. “That could reflect at least in part weathering processes … What percent of white doctoral alumni from the same cohorts have died or developed life-threatening, potentially weathering-related disease? The admittedly soft estimate I have calculated … is 1%.”

Geronimus said what she observed in her students was consistent with other academic studies, including one led by Cynthia Colen, associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University, in 2020. Colen’s study analyzed a nationally representative sample of adolescents and found that Black Americans who attended predominantly white institutions (PWIs) had a higher risk of developing metabolic disease by the age of 30 than Black Americans who attended historically Black colleges and universities. She urged those who work for DEI

someone who is more of a listener that we could come to directly,” Lederman said. “Of course there are going to be competing interests that President Ono and our campus leadership have to grapple with. We understand that. I think it was difficult to have those conversations because we didn’t really have a listener at the presidential level.”

Kirsten Herold, LEO president and lecturer for the School of Public Health, echoed similar hopes in that she would like to see Ono dedicate necessary attention to the U-M Flint and U-M Dearborn campuses. Herold said U-M Flint has already seen substantial lecturer layoffs and very few full-time staff members.

“We have maybe 250 or so lecturers in Flint,” Herold said. “There’s already been substantial layoffs in Flint … we have very few full-time (lecturers at U-M Flint), actually, most people are part-time now.”

Stevens Wandmacher, lecturer at U-M Flint and LEO member, reiterated these concerns regarding students and lecturers at the Dearborn and Flint campuses.

“Ann Arbor is a huge campus and a very complex organization, but there are two other campuses that deserve the attention of the president, and I hope we get what we need in that regard,” Wandmacher said.

Wandmacher spoke about U-M Flint’s campus transformation initiative and said he hopes that Ono will make efforts to help U-M Flint work toward this goal.

“On the Flint campus, we’re undergoing a transformation initiative: we’ve had declining enrollment for a number of years, and we’re trying to figure out how to deal with that,” Wandmacher said. “I’m hoping that the president will be a good partner to our chancellor as we move forward.”

In terms of labor union work, Jared Eno, Graduate Employees’ Organization (GEO) president, said he is anticipating a new approach from Ono’s administration for when GEO’s contract negotiations start up again later this year. GEO’s current contract was ratified in April 2020, just months before the union went on strike to protest then-president

Mark Schlissel’s decision to reopen the University amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The University filed a lawsuit against GEO and its members, ultimately leading the union to end their strike.

“The bargaining of our new contract offers a really great opportunity for the University to solve some of these problems that so many grad students are facing,” Eno said. “I am really excited about Ono bringing a new approach to those negotiations, given the hardline and oppositional stance that we encountered under Schlissel the last time we were trying to fight for ourselves and solve the problems that we’re facing.”

Eno said Ono’s presidency will be an opportunity to hold open conversations about the issues impacting graduate students at the University, particularly regarding affordability and the cost of living.

“Grad workers are really struggling with a crisis of affordability, and that comes not only from the pay that we have … but also many of the additional costs that the University places on grad students,” Eno said. “Given that (Ono) is so focused on the experience of folks in the community, I imagine he’ll be very concerned with addressing many of these hidden costs.”

Herold shared similar sentiments and said she was looking forward to having a president who doesn’t see campus labor unions as antithetical to the administration’s interests.

“Previous administrations have treated labor unions on campus as an irritant, as an outside force, which is wrong,” Herold said. “We’re hoping for more dialogue (and) a more open and receptive leadership style.”

While excited, Herold also expressed a degree of caution, and said she hopes Ono can live up to the expectations that have been laid out for him.

“I was on the search committee, so I’m excited,” Herold said. “I felt good about the choice. I’m also slightly nervous because we’re expecting a lot of him … I’m really hoping that he can address some of the damage that has been done to the University’s reputation.”

Trotter hosts first Kaleidoscope conversation on environmental racism

Event highlights disproportionate impact on minority racial, ethnic groups

FATIMAH ALHAWARY Daily News Contributor

Students gathered in the Trotter Multicultural Center Wednesday evening for the center’s first “Kaleidoscope conversation”, an event for students to engage in discussion about their thoughts and feelings related to environmental racism. The conversation addressed the ways in which environmental policies and regulations negatively impact minority racial and ethnic groups at disproportionate rates.

The event, titled “Unpacking Environmental Racism,” was facilitated by Brennan McBeth, program manager for Trotter, and Taubman graduate student Fareeha Khan, a program assistant at Trotter.

McBeth said the Kaleidoscope program series replaces the Meals of Meaning program from previous years and serves as a series of difficult conversations centering around race, ethnicity and how people’s identities influence their lives and experiences.

“(I hope Kaleidoscope helps attendees to) interrogate how a person’s social identities impact their experience of the world … and how we have to look at these issues and what we see in the media with a more critical lens,” McBeth said.

McBeth started the evening by sharing three videos with

the group. First, attendees viewed a clip from The Atlantic titled “Environmental Racism is the New Jim Crow,” which defined environmental racism and briefed the ways in which minority groups are disproportionately affected by environmental issues and natural disasters.

Next, attendees watched the trailer for HBO’s “Katrina Babies” — a documentary focused on following up with people who were children during Hurricane Katrina by asking them what their experiences were and how they are still affected by it.

Students were prompted to ask themselves: how may environmental racism affect you as you progress through your careers and education? How will it impact your success? What about people who have been impacted by disasters such as Hurricane Katrina?

Students responded by sharing their own memories of Hurricane Katrina and discussing short-term efforts that were made to send aid to displaced people from New Orleans.

McBeth then shared a news clip from Al Jazeera about the Jackson, Miss., water crisis earlier this year, in which the city of Jackson ran out of clean water after flooding damaged a key water sanitation facility.

After viewing these videos, attendees were invited to participate in an open

discussion on environmental racism. McBeth and Khan asked students to share their thoughts and feelings on how environmental racism manifests on the local and global scales and the impacts of media coverage, disaster aid and power dynamics. Attendees discussed the large amount of media dedicated to the death of Queen Elizabeth II as opposed to that dedicated to devastating flooding in Pakistan.

Finally, McBeth asked attendees how they defined environmental justice before inviting attendees to discuss some steps they could take to move away from environmental racism and toward environmental justice. Attendees shared the importance of raising awareness about environmental racism, as well as having difficult and uncomfortable conversations with one another.

Social Work graduate student Renee Price said the event taught her how to think more critically about how environmental issues are portrayed in the media.

“It’s about listening more than talking, giving students space to participate in the discussion, making space for other students to feel present in the conversation,” Khan said. “Heavy discussions are an opportunity to talk, but an even bigger opportunity to listen.”

Dr. Arline Geronimus receives James S. Jackson Award for research in race, health

Students, faculty say they are ‘cautiously optimistic’ about new UMich President

The B-Side: Hot Takes

We’ve all heard the phrase “art is subjective.” Our love (or hatred) of the art we consume is unique to each of us, shaped by our own experiences and interpretations. That means, of course, that sometimes we have differing opinions when it comes to the quality of a piece of media. Part of why I enjoy working for Daily Arts is getting to hear all

the discourse surrounding our favorite books, albums, movies and more. I challenged the Daily Arts staff to write about their Arts-related “hot takes” — their unpopular or controversial opinions — and convince the world why they are right. The responses ranged from hilarious to personal to downright chaotic. While the jury’s still out on whether their writing has changed my own opinions, I’m so grateful for their contributions and their bravery.

The wrongful villainization of Jar-Jar Binks

SABRIYA IMAMI Managing Arts Editor

Look, I’m not here to argue that Jar-Jar Binks (Ahmed Best, “Alabama Jackson”) is the best character in Star Wars. I’m not even going to argue he’s a great character in Star Wars. But come on — does he really deserve to sit on “most hated movie character” lists, among the ranks of Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton, “Downton Abbey: A New Era”) and Meredith Blake (Elaine Hendrix, “Dynasty”)?

As a whole, I think a lot of people were disappointed by the Star Wars prequels because they had such high expectations after seeing the original films — but even nostalgia for the original films couldn’t save the Star Wars prequels. There was too much CGI, a weird romance and, of course, Jar-Jar Binks. In so many ways, to diehard Star Wars fans, he encompassed all that is supposedly wrong with the Star Wars prequels. But he wasn’t the reason the movies were so poorly-received; he was just an easy target, someone to aim all the hate at.

I’m not arguing that he’s not annoying — he is. But does he really deserve all the hate he gets? Does he deserve to have conspiracy theories written about him, believing him to be Sith? No.

People spend way too much time hating on Jar-Jar Binks, so I think it’s time to come to his defense.

A recurrent character in the Star Wars prequels, Jar-Jar Binks has been notoriously hated by fans of the franchise since his first appearance in “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.” He was created as comic relief, but most viewers found him more annoying than

funny. Admittedly, he is one of the more annoying characters in the Star Wars universe — he’s clumsy and he’s got some gross habits. But, let’s be real — he’s been villainized and hated more than he deserves.

I know there’s an argument out there that Jar-Jar Binks’s character is a racist caricature, made up of disturbing stereotypes of Black people.

Lucasfilms issued a statement declaring that “nothing in Star Wars is racially motivated”; that being said, I certainly understand the notion that intent does not always make up for the consequences of one’s actions.

Let’s face the facts here: Star Wars as a franchise has absolutely had its problematic moments. Who can forget Jabba the Hutt enslaving Princess Leia in that ridiculous gold bikini? The franchise pushes the narrative of “the chosen one” on its audience with Anakin Skywalker, a literal product of the Force. It’s not a perfect series of films. But to me, the argument that JarJar deserves hate because he’s a racist caricature seems like people are looking for something that isn’t there. And after hearing Ahmed Best’s story, I was only more convinced that the hate JarJar Binks receives is misplaced.

Not many know the man behind Jar-Jar Binks, but Best voiced the character in all three prequel films. Sadly, after receiving so much hate towards Jar-Jar — including comments on the seemingly racist nature of the character — Best was so affected that he contemplated suicide. In a recent interview, he said “I felt tired of having to defend myself and defend my work. I felt tired of having to fight back against racism and the racial stereotypes. I just wanted to play a part. I was exhausted.”

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Why (Captain) America sucks

A few days ago, my father, patriotic as he is, got upset at me for saying that “America sucks.” He lectured me for a few minutes on my lack of patriotism, and I barely had time to explain I was clearly talking about Captain America (Chris Evans, “Knives Out”). My opinions on the good ol’ US of A aside, I think the First Avenger gets way more credit than he’s due (actually … that sounds quite a lot like America, come to think of it), and I’m here to make the case that Steve Rogers is actually an obstinate asshole.

Across his many Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) appearances, Rogers is given various monikers that allude to his ostensible virtuosity, such as “God’s Righteous Man,” “Living Legend,” and, of course, his comic book nickname, “Sentinel of Liberty.” His moral compass is applauded throughout the films, particularly in “Captain America: Civil War,” a film centered around how best to hold the Avengers superhero team accountable for any death and destruction they may inadvertently cause. In the

TATE LAFRENIER Daily Arts Writer Read more

film, Cap refuses to agree to the Sokovia Accords — a United Nations agreement stating that the Avengers should fall under the jurisdiction and direction of a UN panel, rather than being independently operated, signed by 117 countries — on the basis that the Accords would hamper the Avengers’ agenda of helping people due to the introduction of international bureaucracy.

Furthermore, Rogers insinuates that the Avengers shouldn’t be subject to the whims of a third party (that being the UN panel), because the third party will always be self-interested.

However, Cap’s moral rigidity blinds him to the reality of his own power and responsibility and effectively pits him against those who are unlucky enough to be born into a world with individuals with the power to destroy half the universe.

The catalyst for the Sokovia Accords was a terrorist attack at the beginning of “Civil War” that resulted in the deaths of over two dozen people. The violent escalation that led to the attack was pinned on the Avengers present at the incident and served as a turning point in the public perception of the

MichiganDaily.com

There is no better film genre than the movie musical

movie musicals such joyful, endearing energy.

destroyed the entire genre, like “Doctor Dolittle” and “Hello, Dolly!”

If you are one of those people who doesn’t care for movie musicals, it’s time to face the facts: You have bad taste. I don’t make the rules; this is an undeniable fact. You are depriving yourself of one of the largest sources of joy produced by any art form. Don’t let your cold, hard, cynical mindset keep you from being engrossed by the beauty, emotion and sincerity of musicals. Search your feelings; you know it to be true. The movie musical is the single greatest film genre.

Being the best film genre doesn’t keep the musical from criticism. In fact, there are a great number of high profile bombs — both at the box office and on artistic merit — that one can highlight to dismiss the entire genre. And who could blame you for not liking movie musicals if the only ones you’ve ever seen are “Cats” and “Dear Evan Hansen?” But the high variance in quality of the genre that allows films to be that abysmal also means there are a great number of masterpieces — some of which should rightfully be considered among the greatest films ever made.

Movie musicals are great because they capture the unique ability of film as a medium — to showcase movement across space and time. Theatre does this to an extent, of course. That’s where the musical first came to be. But on film, the traditional Broadway musical can be stretched to its limits. There is a dynamism that can be created with camera movement and editing that can’t be replicated on the stage, giving

The musical genre has been a staple of the medium since the origins of sound in films. In fact, the first feature film with synchronized dialogue was the 1927 Al Jolson-led musical “The Jazz Singer.” The success of that film kicked off both the sound era and a Golden Age of Hollywood Musicals that would last until the 1960s. Here, filmmakers used the movie musical to push the boundaries of what the medium could do at the time. From the wildly inventive choreography of Busby Berkeley to the beauty and grace of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers dance sequences, the scope afforded by the medium of film allowed the musical to move beyond the theater and come into its own on the silver screen.

As Technicolor took over, musicals remained some of the most popular films coming out of Hollywood. With their heartfelt sincerity perfectly suited to the vibrant colors of technicolor film, the opportunity for artistic expression was greatly expanded in this next era. Who cares if it isn’t realistic for people to burst out in song or that the numbers don’t add anything to the plot or characters; how can you not be moved by the overwhelming beauty from the colors, costumes and sets in something like the “Broadway Melody” sequence in “Singin’ in the Rain”? As the scale of Hollywood films increased, musicals became one of the go-to genres for big-budget releases in the ’50s and early ’60s. This led to a number of great critical and commercial successes — like Best Picture winners “West Side Story,” “My Fair Lady” and “The Sound of Music” — but it also led to a number of flops that nearly

Though the production of the traditional movie musical waned in the wake of a number of box office bombs and the emergence of the New Hollywood movement in the late ’60s and ’70s, filmmakers were still able to use the musical genre to create subversive works of art.

From the campy cult classic “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” to the critical self-reflection of Bob Fosse’s “All That Jazz,”

musicals were evolving in a completely necessary way that could only be brought on by a genre on the brink of extinction.

The structure of movie musicals was even seeping into films that would be traditionally considered straight dramas, as in Robert Altman’s “Nashville,” which uses its country music performances as a way for the characters in its massive ensemble cast to express what they are feeling.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Top five characters that should have stayed in the grave

MADDIE AGNE Daily Arts Writer

Listen, character death is essential. I know you didn’t want Sirius Black to die in “Order of the Phoenix.” Neither did I, but he had to, okay? If he hadn’t fallen through the veil, Harry wouldn’t have sacrificed himself in “The Deathly Hallows” and defeated Voldemort, now would he? As a creative writing major, I’ve killed my fair share of darlings. Killing off characters in narratives can be part of creating pathos, advancing the story or, sometimes, getting rid of unnecessary weight. However, with the rise of fantasy and scifi media, fiction writers are increasingly able to do whatever the hell they want, which includes raising characters from the dead. Is this a good idea? On occasion but, in my opinion, mostly not. Since I’ve been studying creative writing for four years now, I am no longer able to simply consume a story. I have to tear apart every narrative choice — including resurrection. Here are my top five characters that died and should have stayed that way, but didn’t.

David Nolan (Prince Charming), “Once Upon a Time” Not gonna lie, this guy’s just annoying as hell. I started watching “Once Upon a Time” when I was approximately 13 years old, and I will admit that I loved David (Josh Dallas, “Thor”) back then. Teenage me totally swooned for the dashing, virtuous Prince Charming, but now that I’m older and more into morally

grey kinda guys, I’m realizing that he was too dashing and virtuous. This made his character pretty bland and predictable, but he was always depicted as absolutely essential to the show. So imagine my surprise when Mary Margaret (Ginnifer Goodwin, “Big Love”), his own wife, had to crush his heart to reverse a curse — now that’s a way to shirk off dead weight in a TV show! Gone were the days of watching David swing his little sword around while preaching about morality and generally suffering no consequences for his actions. We were taking a turn! Mary Margaret was going to have to live with the survivor’s guilt of killing her husband for the greater good, the main women in the show (who were all related to David as a daughter, wife and stepmotherin-law) could take center stage without Prince Charming dragging them down, and finally, finally, “Once Upon a Time” could lose one of its moral compasses and get unhinged. But no, Regina (Lana Parilla, “Boomtown”) just had to go and split Mary Margaret’s heart in half so she and David could share it (gag), and he could stay alive. David’s death made a lot of room for some pretty intense and dramatic narrative progression, but I guess it’s hard to live in a world without men keeping their women in line.

Ethan Winters, “Resident Evil Village”

Yes, yes, Ethan Winters also died in “Resident Evil Village”’s predecessor, “Resident Evil 7: Biohazard,” but I’m not talking about that game. I’m concerned

with 2021’s “Village” because Ethan died twice in it, and he should have stayed dead the first time. To clarify, I’m not necessarily angry with the plot that occurs after Ethan is revived. Is Ethan a pretty bland character with bland motivations that could have been replaced by essentially any other middle-aged male character? Absolutely. However, I think the vision he receives post–first death which reveals the twist of “Resident Evil Village,” the ensuing final boss battle and his ultimate sacrifice at the end are all compelling and could not logically have been experienced by or through any other character. What I am angry about is that between Ethan’s first death and his revival, we get about 20 minutes of awesome gameplay as Chris Redfield, Ethan’s friend and leader of an elite task force sent to aid Ethan in defeating Miranda, the main threat of “Resident Evil Village.” Playing as Chris is so much fun, in fact, that returning to play as Ethan is a let down. I like what we get out of Ethan after he comes back to life, but it drags after having randomly played as another, more exciting character for 20 minutes. And while fun, Chris’ segment also adds a lot of narrative fat right at the end of the game that makes the finale lag. My deal is this: Either Ethan should have stayed dead and we finished the game as Chris, or cut the Chris gameplay and I will let resurrection slide just this one time.

Clara Oswald, “Doctor Who” Okay, this one hurts. I’ve been a Clara Oswald (Jenna Coleman,

“Victoria”) devotee ever since she debuted alongside Matt Smith’s (“The Crown”) Doctor in 2012, and I continue to be one, which is why I’m gatekeeping her death. Here’s the rundown: Clara was killed by the Raven in an alien refugee camp after she sacrifices herself to save the life of Rigsy, a young man falsely accused of murder. In his grief, though, the Doctor (portrayed at the time by Peter Capaldi, “The Thick of It”) removed Clara from the moment of her death in order to resurrect her, but she was stuck in a state of living without breathing, aging or her heart beating. She was eventually revived, but without a heartbeat Clara would always have to return to the moment of her death to let it play out. Realizing their relationship was too turbulent, Clara erased the Doctor’s memories of her, stole her own TARDIS and left to go on her own adventures before returning to her death.

Because I love Clara so much, you’re probably wondering why I’m so averse to her resurrection — what I can’t stand about this scenario is the disturbance of her heroic death. The Doctor acted selfishly in reviving Clara after she chose to sacrifice herself, and pulling her from that moment to leave her in a comatose state for 4.5 billion years before her resurrection is akin to a violation of both her body and grave. Clara lost a lot leading up to her death, and despite my own despair, all I wanted was for her to rest peacefully knowing that her final act had been a sacrificial one.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

HANNAH CARAPELLOTTI

Arts Editor

Design by Tamara Turner

MITCHEL GREEN Film Beat Editor

Design by Serena Shen

Matthew McConaughey’s memoir is more than just ‘alright, alright, alright’

LILLIAN PEARCE

Matthew McConaughey’s (“Sing 2”) memoir has no business being as good as it is. As I perused Audible for a nonfiction book, “Greenlights” caught my eye — not because I’m a diehard McConaughey fan, but because I had seen it circulating Bookstagram and BookTok and decided to give it a go. This was two years ago. I’ve read McConaughey’s memoir six times since.

The following statement is probably going to haunt me forever, but here goes nothing: Matthew McConaughey’s “Greenlights” is one of, if not the, best celebrity memoirs ever written.

I’ve listened to “Greenlights” in each season, on nearly every mode of transportation, alone and with others. I listened to the memoir lying in the grass in my front yard. I listened to it biking the 24-mile trail behind my house. I forced my best friend to listen to it on our road trip up north to Petoskey. I read it while wrapping presents, under the glow of my Christmas tree.

The charm of “Greenlights” can be fully attributed to McConaughey’s musical southern drawl. It is crucial — essential — that first-time readers listen to the memoir for the best experience. McConaughey’s book is meant to be heard; the style of “Greenlights” leans more informal than formal, more personal than professional. On paper, the sentences might seem unfinished and lengthy, but it’s because they’re supposed to be spoken:

“We all step in shit from time to time. We hit roadblocks, we fuck up, we get fucked, we get

sick, we don’t get what we want, we cross thousands of ‘could have done better’s and ‘wish that wouldn’t have happened’s in life. Stepping in shit is inevitable, so let’s either see it as good luck or figure out how to do it less often.”

No, McConaughey is not the next great American novelist. His writing is unrefined and relaxed, but that’s the point — McConaughey is sharing an intimate look into his life, and he’s doing it faithfully. There is no ghost writer, there are no unnecessary frills or false philosophical fillers. It is just McConaughey telling his story and telling it absurdly well at that.

I’ve read numerous celebrity memoirs in my day — they’re my “guilty pleasures,” if you will. From Emily Ratajkowski’s “My Body” to Betty White’s “If You Ask Me,” I have crossed out title after title from an extensive spectrum — and nobody does it better than McConaughey. I’ve wept through emotional memoirs like Michelle Zauner’s “Crying in H Mart” and Carmen Maria Machado’s “In the Dream House,” and I’ve laughed with celebrities like Issa Rae and Stanley Tucci as they’ve recounted entertaining tales in their respective works, “The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl” and “Taste: My Life Through Food.” Yet, though I’ve collected celebrity memoirs like infinity stones, the only one I’ve returned to is McConaughey’s.

“Greenlights” is sentimental and serious, amusing and clever. McConaughey does justice to his book with his gripping recital; his talent for storytelling — his gift of gab — is what sets his memoir apart from others and keeps me crawling back.

“Greenlights” is divided into eight parts, chronologically retelling McConaughey’s life

experiences starting from childhood. In each part, McConaughey interrupts himself with what he calls “bumperstickers” — “lyrics, oneliners, quick hitters, unobtrusive personal preferences that people publicly express” — in addition to snippets from past journal entries and extended soliloquies. They make the listening experience fun and exciting because they bring the authenticity of storytelling to the page. They resemble the familiar tangents of friends going off-track when recounting last night’s events, the sudden realizations people uncover when they relay past incidents. By extension, the memoir feels more realistic, more true, like you’re eavesdropping on the stranger across the bar rather than reading a polished autobiography.

On top of the personal, lyrical style of writing, what makes McConaughey’s memoir great is the memories he shares. The stories are hilarious — from the bizarre rites of passages McConaughey and his brothers underwent, like winning a 3 a.m. pissing contest, to the time McConaughey showed up on set without looking at his script, only to find he had a four page monologue in Spanish — and are brought to life by McConaughey’s captivating narrations. There’s nothing funnier than when the person telling the story can barely get through it themselves; hearing McConaughey’s laughter magnifies the hilarity of it all.

“Greenlights” is freckled with sentimental moments too, including the story of how McConaughey met his wife Camila Alves, whom he first encountered in a dream. In fact, McConaughey relays several dreams in his memoir, many of which guided him figuratively, and all of which guided him

Design by Abby Schreck

literally to places like the Amazon and Africa.

Of course, McConaughey talks about his career in show business; he began college as a straight-A pre-law student and ended as a barely passing film major intent on making his way in Hollywood. He recalls walking into the casting room for “Angels in the Outfield” and being hired immediately for his allAmerican look, when he got the call that he’d be acting alongside Sandra Bullock (“The Lost City”) in “A Time to Kill,” the dreadful amount of romantic-comedy scripts he’s read and the moment when he decided to only take on projects he believed would challenge him as an actor. He is honest about his struggles to be seen as a legitimate actor and his frustration with numerous box-office failures. I imagine that anyone interested in show business could learn a thing or two from these remembrances, which are full of advice and nonchalant wisdom.

‘Dune’ isn’t worthy of your praise

SERENA IRANI Daily Arts Writer

Dune, dune, dune! For a time last fall, it seemed as if all anyone could talk about was “Dune.” Met with approval from both critics and fans alike, it made over $400 million at the global box office. Beyond commercial success, it went on to win six of its 10 Academy Award nominations, sweeping in nearly every technical category. Within four days of its official release, “Dune: Part Two” was greenlit. To get ahead of the madness that will inevitably occur once people figure out that Florence Pugh (“Don’t Worry Darling,”) and Austin Butler (“Elvis”) are in the sequel, I beseech you to think critically next time you see Timotheé Chalamet (“Bones and All”) crusading across the desert. Because although we may praise “Dune” as being a critique of the white savior narrative, its adaptation is nothing more than a white story in culturally ambiguous clothing.

The first and only time I watched “Dune,” I went in with a clean slate. I’d taken peripheral notice of the trailers, Timotheé Chalamet’s

tweets and the fact that Zendaya (“Euphoria”) was in it, but that was about it. I dragged an equally uninterested friend with me for a 10:30 opening night showing, looking for entertainment and little else. Two and a half hours later, it was past one in the morning, we were struggling to stay awake in our seats and I was in for one hell of a rude awakening.

Once the credits rolled, my friend and I exchanged a glance of mutual contempt for what we had just witnessed and sat in bewilderment as the rest of the theater erupted into applause and unanimous exclamations of praise.

On the sleepy walk back home and during brunch the next day, we discussed the film’s superficial merits (easy on the eyes, or “good cinematography” if you’re a film snob), as well as its faults (too much sand, not enough Zendaya). But in all seriousness, I found myself returning to a persistent state of uneasiness as I reflected on the film, a disquietude that crept into my mind, a consternation that seemed to rapidly pool within the pit of my stomach at the mere thought of it.

Kat Stratford isn’t the feminist icon we all make her out to be

We’ve all wanted to be Kat Stratford (Julia Stiles, “Save the Last Dance”) from the 1999 blockbuster film “10 Things I Hate About You” at some point in our lives. Admit it. From her style, to her confidence, to the books she reads, to her “I don’t care” attitude, she is THAT girl.

Her theme song is Joan Jett & the Blackhearts’ “Bad Reputation.”

Can she get any cooler than that? She seems to achieve the façade she effortlessly puts on, but while this “aesthetic” is appealing to modern audiences, myself included, we should walk on eggshells when idolizing characters like Kat. Thinking Kat is an icon is fine (and accurate), but I don’t think I’d call her a feminist. In her patronizing version of feminism, Kat is the epitome of a white feminist, and her idolization serves as a vehicle to silence minority experiences while giving white experiences most, if not all, of the attention.

Basking in her minimalistic style, angsty-girl music and feminist prose, she is perceived by many as a “heinous bitch,” as explained by her guidance counselor. She places herself on a pedestal of confidence. We may call her the queen of “fake it ’til you make it” since, as she

shows near the end of the film, she does have feelings similar to those that her traditionally feminine sister Bianca (Larisa Oleynik, “The Secret World of Alex Mack”) experiences. Nonetheless, her personal portrayal of her superiority over everyone around her is problematic, ultimately contributing to her performative feminism and privilege.

She constantly judges her sister — and every girl around her, for that matter — for expressing their femininity.

Although Bianca is wrong in criticizing Kat for choosing to opt out of doing what’s considered “cool” and “popular,” Kat is similarly wrong in making fun of her sister for enjoying being feminine. She emphasizes her sister’s shallowness, claiming she comes from “Planet Look At Me, Look At Me” in an attempt to ridicule her sister and her interests. Kat thinks that Bianca is defenseless as a result of her hyperfemininity. Kat also goes so far as to criticize her best friend for wanting to go to the prom, not understanding why anyone would go to such an “antiquated mating ritual.”

In the end, Bianca proves, albeit in a stereotypical way, that her femininity does not impede her from standing up for herself and those she cares about.

‘When Harry Met Sally’: I WON’T have what she’s having

Whenever I tell people I don’t like “When Harry Met Sally” I am always met with the exact same reaction: incredulity. People have a hard time understanding how I don’t like a film that is regarded as one of the best comedies of all time — perfect material for the Hot Takes B-Side.

It’s not that I particularly dislike romantic comedies, either. I grew up watching every classic rom-com that a person could name. Whenever I go home for winter break, my dad and I rewatch more ’90s rom-com classics than most think possible. But the one film we never watch anymore is “When Harry Met Sally.”

The film follows Harry (Billy Crystal, “The Princess Bride”) and Sally (Meg Ryan, “Sleepless in Seattle”) as they run into each other over multiple chance encounters in New York City after initially meeting during a cross-country drive from Chicago. They initially become good friends, discussing their personal lives intimately with each other.

Over time, they find themselves attracted to each other and attempt to set up each other with their friends Marie (Carrie Fisher, “Star Wars: A New Hope”) and Jess (Bruno Kirby, “Donnie Brasco”), which backfires and leaves both of them alone. Eventually, they pronounce their love for each other at a New Year’s Eve party, and the movie ends with an interview of Harry and Sally, now married.

Rewatching the film after not having seen it for many years did make me realize that my initial dislike of the movie was a bit strong. I found myself laughing at more of the jokes, appreciating the idealized aesthetic of New York City in the fall and winter and obsessing over Ryan’s outstanding acting skills. I started to see what made everyone else fall in love with this movie. After watching the scene in which Ryan hilariously fakes an orgasm, I thought I might not be able to write this piece anymore. I thought that maybe I did like the film now. However, I kept watching and remembered why I dislike the movie.

GRACIELA BATLLE CESTERO Daily Arts Contributor

By

Los

Daily Crossword Puzzle

by Patti Varol and Joyce Nichols Lewis

ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:

Los

Daily Crossword Puzzle

by Patti Varol and Joyce Nichols Lewis

ANSWER

ZACH LOVEALL Daily Arts Writer

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Read more

MichiganDaily.com

MichiganDaily.com

STATEMENT

In conversation with Groundcover: Ann Arbor’s street paper

NATE SHEEHAN Statement Columnist

“Something is being made in this room.”

I hadn’t heard many other people speak as passionately about a space as Groundcover News editor-in-chief Lindsay Calka spoke of their office. I descended late Monday morning into the basement of Bethlehem United Church of Christ: It was a space in motion, a breathing entity. Over text to The Statement’s photographer, I described it as “an office, kitchen, lounge, storage all in one. And people seem to always be there.” All these functions mix the character of the space into its own distinct spirit.

Groundcover News is a ‘street paper’ — meaning that the vendors of the paper are unhoused or housing insecure persons — and in the case of Groundcover, the paper sales serve directly as income for the vendors. Outside of the vendors, the paper is almost completely run by volunteers.

The prevalence of street newspapers may be growing, but still constitute not even a fraction of the news industry.

Although the first modern street paper is widely regarded as New York City’s Street News founded in 1989, the unhoused and those afflicted by poverty have used the news as a means to reflect issues not covered by the mainstream at least as far back as the early 20th century (The start date varies based on one’s definition of what qualifies a newspaper as a street paper). Today there are more than 100 street papers published globally in at least 34 countries.

This week I read Groundcover News’s October 1st edition from front to back: it cost two dollars. Stories ranged from a touching obituary for community member Brian Coliton, the conflicting social legacy of the Fleming

Administration Building as it’s being torn down, a contemplative historical piece on the meaning behind Indigenous People’s Day and an anonymous contribution on the disturbing conditions inside Michigan prisons that advocates for guard bodycams.

Vendors wrote about half of the pieces in the edition.

Lindsay described the paper as representing “hyperlocal community voices.” Groundcover doesn’t attempt to tackle all areas of news reporting, though topics “are always timely,” Lindsay said. “If it’s a big story connected to the social service landscape or conditions of poverty or homelessness, we’re covering that. Social justice news, community opinion and creative pieces are our niche.”

Groundcover vendor Laurzell Washington calls Groundcover a “beautiful process of journalism” and his work “fulfilling in terms of dealing with people. You’ll be surprised who you meet… All sorts of people have a story to tell.”

Laurzell is a great conversationalist; I met him while he was making a sandwich, grabbing lunch in the newsroom.

He possesses a thoughtful demeanor, and an empathy that won’t take shit, but will forgive.

We took residency in two chairs that sat just right, sinking to comfort. I asked him what made Groundover work.

“The average person tries to work with each other,” he started. “And a lot of employees come from the homeless sector, so I think a lot of people are motivated with Groundcover.

If you been somewhere and understand where somewhere is, you ain’t so quick to put someone else down.”

The importance of understanding a place was a common thread throughout a lot of my conversations with the Groundcover team.

As we got to know one another,

Laurzell and I realized we both had lived in Massachusetts and Michigan. We reflected on our experiences in both places, similarities and differences. Our conversation also covered politics, from the RussianUkraine war, the FBI seizure in Mar-A-Lago to why people are drawn to Trump. Laurzell recently wrote an article for Groundcover on the war in Ukraine.

In Lindsay’s own words, the biggest piece of Groundcover is that “it invites people into conversation and relationship.”

Groundcover has a “dualprong mission of low barrier employment (and uplifting) community voices, voices that are marginalized,” she asserted. How these two parts of Groundcovers’ mission “meet in the middle is you have to buy the paper from someone, and that to people can be revolutionary.”

When I first bought my paper, I was walking back from the pitch meeting for this piece at the Daily. I don’t remember my vendor’s name, but I remember that we laughed about technology. He told me to put his vendor number into the caption for my venmo payment for the paper. QR codes for cashless payment can be found on the bottom right corner of Groundcover papers — a feature Lindsay worked hard for. That night I was just beginning to come down sick, so I preferred to rush home. Still, in an increasingly digital world, unforeseen interactions tinge it a little rosier.

English 126 – “CommunityEngaged Writing” and 221 - “Literature and Writing Outside The Classroom” have both developed relationships with Groundcover over the past few years. I spoke with Prof. John Buckley, instructor of both of these courses, who spoke to the profundity of the interactions street papers like

Groundcover initiate.

“To make change in society, everyone has to work together,” he said. “In order to get everyone to work together, you need thousands of one-on-one conversations. In order to buy the paper, you are a human talking to another human. Trading compassion fatigue for a moment of empathy.”

Jay, the other vendor I spoke with, who refrained from providing his last name, also identified the ways in which Groundcover fosters social good. He emphasized the economic opportunities Groundcover provides vendors, and how the relative stability of that income generates other opportunities. Cleaning services and boober businesses have both grown from the Groundcover community, Jay said.

“You’re learning things about business and managing

money by working here that’s not understood by the average person… What I love about Groundcover (is) if you want to learn, it teaches you how to fish.” Or, it’s better to be taught a skill than just be given the benefits.

Jay emphasized in much of our conversation how transformative it is for one’s mindset to transition from having to constantly think about the next meal and where to sleep, to being able to consider one’s livelihood and the world around them. Employment centers like Groundcover “bridge the gap,” so people can create for themselves thanks to a community of people that genuinely care.

Yet, not all services for the unhoused and housing insecure promote the same opportunities for all. Sometimes the altruistic people running these organizations center themselves

America’s obsession with staying young

REESE MARTIN Statement Columnist

Prior to this semester, I only used the term marathon to describe 26-mile-long runs and a 24-hour viewing of Harry Potter movies. Now, as a sophomore in college, I can add three consecutive days of exams, several all-nighters and the wish that caffeine came in an IV to the list of marathon-level activities in my vocabulary.

Last Friday night, after I lost my self esteem in a lecture hall temporarily titled “exam room three,” I came home to my housemates and neighbors sitting on our living room floor, yelling at each other over an intense game of Cards Against Humanity. While I could have chosen to sleep, or at least nap, I ultimately dropped my backpack for the first time in 72 hours and

joined them on a carpet in need of vacuuming.

It was euphoric. The knowledge that I was done choosing between answers A or C amid a harshly-lit auditorium transported me to an elevated plane of pure happiness.

But, before I could stop my consciousness from wandering, I felt a uniquely disturbing pressure to make the most of this moment. After so much wasted time on insanityfueling multiple choice questions and solitary study nights, a heightened need to make up for the youthful, college fun I missed out on the weeks before loomed over my head.

Although I was physically and mentally exhausted, I chose to stay up with my friends — feeling as though my time as a young person was slipping away. Supposedly, I will one day remember these four years as “the best days of my life” — a phenomenon closely correlated with

the heavily-documented, distinctlyAmerican obsession with youth.

But why are we so obsessed with staying young anyway? Who does this infatuation really benefit? ***

The promotion of youthfulness in the media goes back decades.

In conversation with Professor Susan Douglas — communications & media professor at the University of Michigan, and author of “In Our Prime: How Older Women are Reinventing the Road Ahead” — I learned about the extensive marketing history supporting the American culture’s infatuation with youth.

According to Professor Douglas, there has always been negative media messaging surrounding aging. However, when the young-adult baby boomers of the post-war era entered the market around the 1960s, media and marketing tools that promoted

the value of youthfulness and ageist messages became prolific. Industries targeted this new, large consumer base by endorsing pop-culture and flattering the younger generation — suggesting they were “cooler” or superior to their parents and grandparents.

Companies found this marketing strategy lucrative, as baby boomer consumers had a large market capture. Professor Douglas explained that as a result, music such as rock ‘n’ roll, young-adult-style films and a host of material products geared toward young people became increasingly prevalent in society. Due to the success of these advertising tools with the decade’s teens, this cultural emphasis on youth persisted through the ’70s, ’80s, ’90s and 2000s.

As a lover of arts and pop-culture content, I’m familiar with a variety of musical sensations, top-rated TV shows and treasured coming-of-age narratives. Songs like “Jack & Diane,” “Summer of ‘69” and “We Are Young,” trained me to idolize my teen and college-aged years as the most valuable time life has to offer.

“Oh yeah / Life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone…Holdin’ on to sixteen as long as you can / Change is coming ‘round real soon / Make us women and men.”

While “Jack & Diane” earned its spot in the American-anthem repertoire for its catchy tune and clever rhymes, I wonder if John Mellencamp’s lyrics contributed to the song’s allure. According to this beloved ’80s artist, becoming women and men — or more specifically, exiting your teen years — eliminates the possibility of a “thrilling” or enjoyable existence within the latter decades of your life.

However, imagining my 16-yearold self as the peak cumulation of my life is both a horrifying and entirely false concept. Not only am I happier as a 19-year-old in college, but I am also a better person in terms of identity growth and autonomous development.

Therefore, it should be easy to disregard the notion that my late teens and twenties are “the best days of my life,” and I should ignore Pitbull lyrics like, “We might not

get tomorrow, so let’s do it tonight.” Yet, nonetheless, I continue to catch myself feeling the need to mimic the wild and spontaneous characters in the latest teen Netflix dramas, in order to ‘have fun while I can.’ But why?

In speaking with Professor Sonya Dal Cin — communications & media professor and adjunct professor of psychology at the University — I learned how compounded marketing messages and societal influence may promote this contradictory selfimage.

“We know from extensive research in psychology and communications that messages prevalent in society often reflect societal values, but they also have an impact on how we see ourselves,” said Dal Cin. “What people are exposed to does impact the way they make sense of their own lives.”

Dal Cin goes on to describe the implications these environmental factors may have on a person’s self esteem.

“There are a range of different ways in which people think about what’s important in life, and, therefore, how they may or may not be meeting what they view as the ideal self,” said Dal Cin.

She delineated how the inconsistencies between what people think they should be versus what they actually are can cause tension.

“In psychology, there is this concept of ideal self versus the actual self. When there is a discrepancy between the ideal self and the actual self, it can cause some difficulties in how people feel about their identity,” Dal Cin said.

Therefore, messages about youth and age can certainly affect personhood and self-image depending on how an individual places value on the media, the culture of their environment and their understanding of actual and ideal selves.

Professor Douglas describes how this concept, deriving from self esteem issues, allows for markets to capitalize on a culturally-produced, collectively-felt fear of aging.

According to Professor Douglas, a binary was created in the 1960s that

JEREMY WEINE/Daily

via “criteria of helping” that doesn’t always effectively meet the challenges of poverty. One example Jay points to is the prominence of organizations for those struggling with drug or alcohol addiction whose tactics don’t always effectively battle addiction.

Simultaneously, those who are food and housing insecure for less altruistically popular reasons struggle for similar aid. Jay concludes his thoughts, “Forget free college. The idea that everyone can eat, that alone, and basic shelter, those things can change the world.”

I sought from my interviewees how the Daily, a paper so intrinsically tied with a mammoth institution, relates to the city of Ann Arbor. Lindsay gave her praises for the rigorousness and investigative work of our journalism.

pinned ‘old’ and ‘young’ against one another. Negative messages about older generations, specifically the women in those generations, were cemented into American culture through television and other public platforms.

Professor Douglas mentioned how Disney often portrayed elderly female characters as crazy grandmothers, hideous witches and evil mothers.

I’m reminded of Snow White’s stepmother, the Evil Queen, who disguised herself as an old woman in order to trick the fair princess into eating a poison apple, all because she was jealous of the princess’s beauty.

Characters like Disney’s Evil Queen were juxtaposed with young female characters, often princesses, who represented beauty, kindness, happiness and desirability.

By reinforcing this binary in popular culture, the media capitalizes on the association that old women are ‘bad’ and young women are ‘good.’

“They tell us we can’t be happy with wrinkles and eyebags. And they engrain those beauty standards in the minds of young people early on,” said Douglas. “The job of the entire anti-aging industrial complex is to make everybody phobic about getting older. It’s a great strategy, because everybody is always getting older, and nobody can escape it — creating a constantly renewing and endless market.”

After speaking with both Professor Douglas and Professor Dal Cin, I have a newfound motivation to resist the youth-oriented pressure that the American consumer industry has created.

While I’m sure the 2012 version of One Direction believed we needed to “go crazy, crazy, crazy” and “live while we’re young,” I think we can all agree that the band’s former lead singer, Harry Styles, is “living it up” more as he approaches thirty than when he first performed that song at eighteen. His overwhelming popularity and sold-out stadiums certainly serve as evidence to that fact.

And surely John Mellencamp enjoyed life after he made it big with “Jack and Diane.” He did become a musical legacy, after all.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

STATEMENT

CONNOR O’LEARY HERRERAS Statement Columnist

Around every online corner, someone is trying to sell you something. Advertisements for Grammarly play before, during and after YouTube videos.

Online shopping ads show up on social media, streaming platforms and message boards. These ads intrude our casual web browsing and interrupt our scrolls through news articles. Just now, I couldn’t look up a synonym for ‘intrude’ without seeing an ad for children’s Zyrtec — and I don’t have allergies nor do I have a kid.

Online ads are everywhere, but the fact that they subtract a couple seconds of my time has always been a minor inconvenience. For most of my life, I dismissed these ads as a normal part of existing half of any given day in front of a screen. But recently I’ve grown a little more skeptical. When I see a Zyrtec ad, I’m left wondering why I was shown their product.

If I’m browsing the web, and I click the little ‘x’ to close out a pop-up ad, Google replaces the image with two links: ‘Stop seeing this ad’ and ‘Why this ad?’ This second link opens a new tab in which Google explains that the ad was selected based off of “(My) activity on Google on this device.”

This sounds innocuous — at

least Google would like you to think so.

I think of ads on television as veering into manipulative, but that’s different. Online ads are just there in the background. So what’s the issue?

Well, Google is keeping tabs on our online presences. Many of us take this notion in stride, swallowing our discomfort in exchange for the regular use of our technology, but I want to know exactly how the so-called “Tracking Industry ‘’ came to be — especially because it might be on its way out.

In April of 2021, Apple introduced a pop-up window to their products in which users can “Ask App not to Track” their personal data. At first, I barely bat an eye at the release of this new feature. But now I realize it has massive implications for the future of the internet.

But before I looked to the internet’s future, I had to understand the past. I’m old enough to have grown up alongside the internet, but young enough to have never questioned why and how it’s always been there. To understand how the free online services I use, such as Google, are paid for, I dug into the story of the internet’s origins.

There is no singular answer as to who invented the internet as we know it today. Many individuals contributed to the technology that we are presently familiar with as ‘the web.’ Starting in 1966, The

United States Department of Defense funded the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, or ARPANET, which was one of the technological building blocks for the modern internet. Using this technology, information could be securely transferred between computers at Pentagon-funded research labs.

Access to the ARPANET grew in 1981 when the National Science Foundation funded network access for University computer scientists. At this point in time, what the NSF coined the ‘Computer Science Network’ was still intended primarily for communication among remote computers. By 1990, partnerships with corporations such as IBM and AT&T began the transition of ARPANET technology into the private sector.

Eventually, what was initially a technology intended for secure communication between computers at different locations ballooned into one of the most ubiquitous tools in human history: the internet.

In 1994, Lou Montulli created a way for websites to place a small file on every computer that visited the site, tracking their activity. He named this file the ‘cookie’. The ‘cookie’ turned the average internet user’s personal information into a resource. Companies could now take advantage of internet users’ online activity to market relevant products to them. These digital ads were

the rocket fuel that shot the tech giants we’re familiar with today — Facebook, Google and Twitter — to the top of the digital food chain.

But now, the $350 billion digital ad industry is on thinner ice than ever. According to Sheri Bachstein, global head of IBM Watson Advertising and The Weather Company, “With all the changes happening in advertising with privacy, and identifiers and cookies being eliminated by the big tech companies, if all your revenue depends on advertising, that’s going to be challenging in the near future.”

It’s remarkable to think that the internet could undergo such a dramatic shift. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, makes more than 80% of its revenue from advertising.

Then again, it’s not uncommon for companies who provide an online service to make their money independently of digital advertising.

As a University of Michigan Student, my access to Canvas plays a significant role in my success. Fortunately, my data appears to be in good hands. A brief inquiry into the Canvas Privacy Policy reveals that Instructure, the developer of Canvas, does not “sell or rent your personal information to third parties.” As a Learning Management Software, Canvas makes money by charging ‘a one-time implementation fee and an annual subscription fee

based on an institution’s total number of users.’

With personal data becoming more difficult to justify as a means to generate revenue for tech companies, subscription fees and other charges may become more commonplace on the internet. Services such as YouTube Premium may become the norm, wherein users pay a subscription fee in order to access an ad-free platform, or otherwise continue to use YouTube for free in exchange for constant advertising.

And there’s power in marketing. Ads become a part of our collective consciousness. If I asked someone how much fifteen minutes could save me on car insurance, they’d know. Nevertheless, digital ads might not be as effective as their creators think — like that Zyrtec ad I keep coming back to. I could speculate that Zyrtec picked up on some slight indication from one of my Google searches that I was looking for allergy medicine.

But the kicker is that I don’t know whether Zyrtec had my data or not, and that is concerning enough.

In theory, the targeting of ads based on a user’s expressed interests seems like an efficient way to get more people to buy more things. So it would seem counterintuitive that in 2018 when the New York Times ended its behavioral targeting in Europe, its advertising revenue did not decrease. Anecdotally, I rarely ever

Digital ads: The struggle between gratuity and privacy The rise and fall of genuine hobbies

buy the products that are advertised digitally to me, even when they do fit my interests.

But the truth is, this isn’t about me. It’s about how much my data will sell for.

In 2014, when Cambridge Analytica obtained the Facebook data of tens of millions of users to ‘sell psychological profiles of American voters to political campaigns,’ the hashtag #DeleteFacebook started trending on Twitter. Herein lies the problem; When one online platform violated the privacy of its users, the public took to another online platform to criticize the first one. When we live our lives ‘chronically online,’ our data is always at stake.

Deleting Facebook doesn’t sound so bad, but deleting the internet is not an option. The vast reservoir of information available to me is like having a second brain. I’m constantly one firing of a motor neuron away from all the information I need.

So, as wary as I am of corporations preying on my data, I’m equally aware that using the internet requires individual action on my part to protect that data. Knowing which companies I can trust with my information and which I cannot make all the difference for a secure interaction with the world wide web.

At the end of the day, data privacy will win me over faster than any online ad ever could.

ELLA KOPELMAN Statement Columnist

Last month, I applied to a study abroad program in Paris and had to fill out an application with an “activities” section.

My heart sank. I got the same feeling as when a professor, attempting an icebreaker, asks: “What do you like to do for fun?”

To be truthful, what I like to do for fun is send TikToks to my roommates as they sit right next to me doing the same, but that didn’t seem like an acceptable answer to present to my upper level psychology course on the first day.

The application question forced me to ask myself a question that I sadly had no immediate answer to: What do I choose to actively do for fun, with no social, economic or otherwise measurable reward involved?

I used to have hobbies. I used to play softball and volleyball, write poems and creative stories and play guitar and bass. So what changed?

Answering this question made me sad. I hadn’t realized how this noticeable lack of hobbies in my life has made me feel less fulfilled until I had to confront it, and now I haven’t stopped thinking about it.

As it turns out, American hobbies are a byproduct of the historical context in which they were created. During the Industrial Revolution, as long, dreadful hours in factory lines became more normalized, labor unions began forming, advocating for shorter working hours and five-day work weeks.

The result was an increase in free time. People began picking up hobbies as a way to fill the hours in between work with something pleasurable, while still not wasting the day away.

Additionally, the Great Depression and World War II in the mid 20th century created a national landscape of tension and apprehensiveness. As the author of an article about “How Hobbies Infiltrated American Life” describes, anxiety and low employment are the perfect cocktail to ensure a rise in hobbies.

Not only were hobbies used to kill time, they also acted as an escape from whatever reality plagued the country or one’s individual anxieties.

COVID-19 is a prime example of how national and personal distress led people to find refuge in kitchen hacks like whipped coffee and making sourdough bread. Hobbies give people a sense of purpose and enrichment. Research even shows that engagement in hobbies for personal pleasure is associated with higher levels of psychological and physical health.

As illustrated by the book “Hobbies: Leisure and the Culture of Work in America,” it is clear that in times of distress, the American public turns to hobbies as a means of “productive leisure.” There is a clear oxymoron here, and it seems that 21st century capitalism has put an emphasis on the “productive” part of hobby creation and maintenance.

Maybe this is the reason I don’t have hobbies the way I used to. I am too busy being “productive,” keeping myself busy with other things society has deemed more beneficial and important than unnecessary activities of pleasure. I have a full school schedule, a job and engage in extracurricular activities that would look impressive on a resume. Hobbies, without any monetary or professional benefit to myself, have been put on the backburner.

It’s not that the activities I do engage in don’t bring me joy – they do. But, adding extrinsic rewards (i.e. money, good grades, a job interview) to something that one already finds pleasurable changes the nature of the activity and decreases the intrinsic value from engaging in the activity.

This isn’t to say that my experience of losing interest in hobbies as life has gotten busier is the norm. If someone spent approximately ten minutes scrolling on TikTok, they would be bombarded with extremely talented painters, dancers and bakers, all showing off their skills in an entertaining,

accessible format. It’s not that hobbies don’t exist anymore, but they have become something to gawk at and commercialize, rather than something to find intrinsic, personal pleasure from.

As content creators showcase their talents and hobbies online, consumers gobble up this media with delight. Sometimes just watching another person engage in a hobby satisfies the creative itch that instigates a desire for hobbies in the first place.

Watching someone crochet a hat and shirt entertains me to no end, but doesn’t necessarily encourage me to engage in a similar act myself.

The fact is, leisure time is spent very differently today than it was even just two decades ago. In a study conducted by Swedish researchers that analyzed three cohorts of young adults from 1990-2011, they found that there has been a decrease in time spent on in-person social interactions, reading and other

offline activities. All the while, time spent online increased considerably, including activities like watching TV.

Findings from the Pew Research Center corroborate this idea, showing that teens experience less leisure time than they did a decade or two ago. Current teens spend more time on homework and sleeping than their peers did in the 90s. But, besides those two activities, the majority of the former group’s time is spent on screens.

In addition to this, time spent by teens in other activities such as socializing and enjoying extracurriculars has declined, reaching barely over an hour a day. With screens readily available to entertain, captivate and distract, the drive to spend this limited leisure time creating and actively doing instead of consuming has become less appealing.

Even though we know that hobbies provide immeasurable color to our lives and actually

contain health benefits, they are harder to maintain in a society that values productivity and money-making.

In an article advocating for the importance of hobbies in the 21st century, a section is dedicated to how easy it is to turn a hobby into a career. But, doesn’t that defeat the purpose of hobbies in the first place?

Hobbies, at their essence and origin, were an escape from work. Using the incentive of a career as a reason to adopt a hobby shows just how much the meaning and purpose of hobbies has changed.

At the same time, if social clout or monetary rewards are incentivizing people to maintain and showcase their hobbies, I can’t claim that this is necessarily a bad thing. If anything, I applaud and admire people who create careers based on activities they truly enjoy.

Work should be enjoyable, but I wonder if once a hobby becomes “work,” can it still be classified as a hobby?

It can’t be deliberately concluded that in an age of technology and productivity, hobbies have completely fallen to the wayside. But, they have shifted from their original purpose as personallymotivated, anxiety-quenchers and free-time-fillers.

Obviously, we live in a completely different society than the 19th century Industrial Revolution, and the way we spend our leisure time has changed and adapted with it. As long as we keep creating and continue to find pleasure in these activities (whether we get paid for them or not), hobbies will remain an essential lifeline for those bogged down with work and the sad realities of our modern world.

So, to answer the question on my study abroad application, I guess writing about the collapse of genuine, intrinsically motivated hobbies is what I “do for fun”...in addition to watching TikToks with my friends.

Design by Abby Schreck

Bajo El Sol: Las historias que nos conectan

JUAN PABLO ANGEL MARCOS MiC Columnist

In the final week of August, I once again was able to step under the historic street lights of Mexico City and wake up in my Abuela’s house. During that week, my skin generously soaked in the sun that spilled over the sky and onto the mountains and homes of Jiute pec and Mexico City. That final week, those seven days, those 168 hours, was the time that I was looking forward to the most from the moment I learned I was going to be able to visit family in Mexico again. I would say to myself, “When will I come back?”

“There’s so much more to learn.”

I don’t think I’ll get tired of tell ing myself these things in between trips to and from Mexico.

I would be able to return after completing my summer intern ship, and this second trip to Mexico was full of family time and exploration — way more than the first time I visited. When my primo picked me up from the airport, he immediately took me through the slippery streets of Mexico City on a drizzling night to have some of his favorite street tacos. And let me tell you, those tacos did not disappoint.

Stretched out on the tight sidewalk with an awning and an umbrella, the taco vendors had their music bumping from the speaker, muffling the conversa tions taking place from behind the greased grill. On the tight side walk stood a group of friends talk ing while they ate their tacos al pastor, and a couple shared a hug while they paid for their meal.

Once I got my first plate of Suadero tacos and added cilantro,

cebolla y limon, I eyed the two sal sas sitting gently next to each other on the grill. Before reaching over and grabbing them, Pikin warned me that the salsa verde was very spicy, thinking that that would stop me from trying. It didn’t, and man do I tell you: these were the most delicious tacos I’ve ever had.

The soft crispy handmade torti lla was the perfect home for the meat, cilantro and cebolla to rest. And the mix of the limon and salsa verde created a sour kick that left my tongue calling for a drink.

This memory of the tacos I ate with my primo on my first night in Mexico City is something that I have brought with me back to the states. Pikin was kind enough to drive at one in the morning to show us his favorite taco spot, and he even bought some cer vezas to drink at his apartment. Now that I’m back in Ann Arbor, I think about this night a lot, and how there are still no restaurants here that bring me that immense amount of joy.

I found myself holding on tight ly to memories like these once I returned to the states from Mexi co and was thrown right back into the adult responsibilities of being a college senior. I wish that my trip could have lasted a little longer, but the pending semester ate away at this thing we call time. Despite being hungry for more Mexican adventures, I needed to return home. And once I got back to my hometown of Wyoming, Mich. on an early, early Saturday morning, I only had three hours to sleep and another three hours to pack my things before my inevitable move back to Ann Arbor. After a quick rest, my mom, sister and I packed the truck with suitcases and boxes and off we went.

During the two hour drive from

Wyoming to Ann Arbor, I shared the stories of my time in Mexico with my Mom, and she also shared some of her own stories about what it was like growing up there.

Some stories I will keep for myself, and some stories will be told another day.

Not all stories need to be shared; they are personal pieces of our selves and we have full autonomy to share as much as we like with the world. But listening to them does bring me joy and, in a sense, revives me.

Whenever I feel stuck in a rut, I think back to the wonderful memories that lurk in my brain and fill me with life. I’m reminded of Mexico and all the people that I know who are connected to it, like my friends and family.

As I have said before: Mexico is the reason that I am breathing. I truly believe that.

There’s so much history that I have yet to unearth from within myself; through writing, I’m weav ing loosened threads together and tightening my soul. I am proud to call myself a Mexican artist and a Mexican writer.

Hispanic Heritage Month is soon coming to a close and I want to celebrate the beautiful voices of my friends who are Mexican. It’s a chance for them to be involved in the writing process because as a writer, I can offer a collabora tive experience where I can give a voice to someone who wants it. I’m not the only Mexican voice on campus; while there are a few of us on this campus, there are mil lions of us worldwide outside this predominantly white institution bubble we call Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan.

Thank you Aliyah, Angel and Lesley for your time and energy. This is what they had to say…

I met with Angel late in the morning on the Diag. I had sent him a Google Calendar invite for our meeting at 11:30 a.m. and as I was finishing up some homework in the Fishbowl, Angel texted me at 11:14 a.m. telling me that he was already at our meeting place. I shut off my computer and ran out of Haven Hall to meet Angel, but I would soon retreat back to Haven Hall to avoid the incoming drizzle — I didn’t want Angel to get wet! I turned on my voice memo app as students began to fill the hallways and had my full attention to Angel.

To people who don’t know him well, Angel is a senior at Michigan and is in the Ross School of Busi ness and hails from a very special place in Southwest Detroit, also known as Mexicantown. Some of the earliest Mexican families settled down in downtown Detroit in the 1920s. When I asked Angel what it was like growing up in Southwest Detroit, he quickly broke into a smile.

“It was a lot of fun growing up in Southwest Detroit! It’s a very immigrant-based community in which chances are your nextdoor neighbor is first-gen or also Latino. … There’s so much color on the walls, on the street and there’s such a vibrant history. It has an energy to it. It was a lot of fun strolling up and down the streets with your friends, maybe with five bucks in your pocket trying to see how it’ll work. And being a Latino there, it’s kind of home, I don’t know if I can say this but – we’re like the white people there! It’s nice being around fellow Latinos and to know that your neighbors would offer to feed you, every thing … and I haven’t had coffee yet so excuse me if my words are slurring!”

Even if Angel was slurring his

Coloring outside the lines

HUDA SHULAIBA MiC Columnist

In 1983, poet and civil rights activist Audre Lorde wrote, “Within the lesbian community I am Black, and within the Black community I am a lesbian … There is no hierarchy of oppres sion. I cannot afford the luxury of fighting one form of oppression only. I cannot afford to believe that freedom from intolerance is the right of only one particular group.”

Lorde’s commentary reveals an oft-ignored truth in the LGBTQ+ community: being a Queer person of Color comes with the inability to be just Queer or just a person of Color and with the responsibility to always be a person of Color within Queer spaces and vice versa. Neither aspect of personhood is allowed the ample space to develop on its own, within its own terms.

Queer people of Color, particu larly those who have additional marginalized identities (whether that be socioeconomic status, ability, etc.), experience inferior treatment from multiple angles as well as face unique forms of marginalization at the intersec tion of their identities. These overlapping societal pressures and expectations undermine autonomy and the path to selfdiscovery. Though nothing is in a vacuum and everything is subjected to outside influenc es, it seems as though the self-

development of Queer people of Color is particularly impacted by the intersecting aspects of their identity leading to a stunted or — at the very least — inorganic path to personhood.

Queerness comes with a set of extremely established traditions, at least in the eyes of western society. Arguably the most uni versally well-known tradition is the practice of “coming out.”

Put plainly, coming out is when someone makes the decision to explicitly share their Queer identity. Framed as an inevi table rite of passage, coming out is depicted as the pinnacle of Queer self-acceptance. To “stay in the closet” signals some kind of oppression, due to a lack of safety, community or just gen eral discomfort. Coming out is not framed as something you can do, but something you will do the second you feel safe and comfort able enough. There are two states of Queer being: “out” and “in the closet.” This dichotomy is flawed in its own right. There are many degrees of being “out,” wheth er that’s being ‘out’ to certain people in specific environments or simply living a discreet life, particularly for those who natu rally prefer privacy over vocality.

There are nuances when it comes to living “outside the closet,” but for the sake of this piece the focus will be on this oversimpli fied (and sensationalized) blackand-white dichotomy.

The public importance placed

upon coming out is rooted in the fact that, historically, visibility was crucial in the struggle for equal rights and recognition.

Refinery29’s Sadhbh O’Sullivan writes, “In order to fight for liberation, gay people would own their identity with pride by publicly owning their gay iden tity. The more gay people came out, so the thinking went, the more normalized gayness would become.”

As societal attitudes towards non-heteronormativity have progressed, the concept of coming out has unfortunately not kept pace. Within current sociocultural contexts, the perceived necessity of coming out remains rooted in western heteronor mativity. For one, it rests on the assumption that everyone is cis gender and heterosexual unless they say otherwise. No one is ever expected to come out as straight. As a practice, the pres sured anticipation of an inevita ble “coming out” announcement removes agency from the actual person committing the act of coming out and places all the power in the expectant hands of society. It isn’t a question of if someone will decide to come out but when they will, even in cases in which coming out holds no benefits for them. Addition ally, coming out creates a set of implications that further limit a formerly “closeted” person’s abil ity to influence how they’re per ceived by others:

1. That the person coming out was previously lying about their identity.

2. That outside approval and/ or acknowledgment is needed to validate their identity.

3. That, before choosing to disclose their identity to others, they were deliberately hiding their “true selves.”

Musa Shadeedi sums up how the phenomenon of the presumed “coming out” is rooted in western society succinctly when he won ders “if the LGBTQI community in Iraq knows the meaning of the term ‘closet’ in the first place.” In

societies with different values, perhaps where privacy is held over visibility or other devia tions from the West, the “closet” does not exist because coming out is not an inevitable event. This isn’t to say that the general idea behind “coming out,” i.e., divulging information regarding one’s sexuality and/or gender, is a western concept, but rather the culture and context surround ing it is. “Coming out” versus being “in the closet” is a false dichotomy pushed as reality for everyone, especially those who participate in cultures that don’t align with the thought behind the action.

When speaking to a Queer immigrant, I found that they regarded the entire idea of “com ing out” and being in “the clos et” as ridiculous. For one, they thought coming out was point less because it isn’t a one-anddone thing. “You don’t just make one big announcement and sud denly have the whole world be aware you’re a homosexual,” they said. The pressure surrounding something that is, in reality, a constant process is almost coun terproductive when considering the fact that there will always be new friends, coworkers and acquaintances to come out to.

In the words of Asiel Adan San chez, “Mainstream narratives of coming out imply a white sub jectivity, one that forgets the influence of culture, family and heritage. For many Queer people of colour, coming out is a much more nuanced process than a sin gle moment of verbal disclosure.”

The current notion of coming out is simply too flat, lacking the nuance required to encompass the wide array of people it applies to. An extremely black-and-white attitude is attached to it, one that doesn’t allow for the grays (or beiges, browns, tans) in between.

To put it plainly, coming-out cul ture is a very white American thing.

more at MichiganDaily.com

words due to the lack of coffee, I didn’t notice because I understood him. Growing up, he was always comfortable growing up in South west Detroit due to the strong ties with the Latino community. This was something I noticed when I lived in Detroit two summers ago. When I explored Southwest Detroit, the sugary panaderías filled the streets along with murals, Latin imagery and colors.

I also asked Angel if he could share one of his favorite memories growing up in Southwest Detroit.

“Bro, Quinceañeras! When we were all at that age of 13 to whatev er, man it was so much fun. Me and my friends would sneak into ran dom Quinceañeras in the neigh borhood. There are these two venues in Detroit that everyone went to. Every week there would be a Quinceañera there and my friends and I would always sneak in. We would go to just dance and have fun and just to be surrounded by friends. There’s great music, great food and there was always amazing company overall and maybe this is irresponsible for me to say but I would always tell my mom that I would have a ride back but I never did! Always know ing that the fun is going to end and [that] you got to turn on that responsibility switch was a rush.”

As Angel told me this memory, I was laughing and smiling the whole time. I could just picture the

venue and imagine the kids run ning around while family mem bers drank and danced through the night.

I spoke with Aliyah in the base ment of East Quad after I attended my second ever ACLU meeting on a chilly Monday evening. I tried to find the quietest spot in the freshmen-infested building and as soon as I did, I opened up my lap top and began recording our Zoom meeting. Aliyah is from Grand Rapids, Mich., and she’s studying graphic design at Grand Valley State University. Aliyah has been a friend of mine since high school and I wanted to talk to her for this piece because she is so far away, and I find myself thinking about my friends back home constantly throughout the school year.

Aliyah calls Grand Rapids her home because it’s where she grew up, but she made sure to say that home is wherever she feels most comfortable, and that’s usually with her family.

“I guess home could be any where. Because the way I look at it, you wanna feel safe. You wanna feel secure. And you wanna feel loved, so if I feel all those things around people who aren’t my fam ily, then that’s like a second home. I feel those things around my immediate family, and that’s like that’s my main home.”

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

A letter to my future self

ELIYA IMTIAZ MiC Managing Editor

Sitting in a Detroit cafe, I’m cur rently typing away as I listen to a trio of middle-aged men jokingly bicker about their orders getting switched. “I ordered the cheese!” “No, I swear it was me!” A pause as they continue chewing.

The silence breaks: “We’re good though.” And laughter commences. I may be wrong, but something tells me that they’ve been friends for a while, a thought that puts a smile on my face as I sip my coffee, contin ue to type away and wait for my dad to pick me up from the A2D2 bus.

This year is the final one of my undergraduate career, and it seems like every passing day brings me closer and closer to a reality that simultaneously excites me but also frightens me: change. As a senior still recruiting for a full-time career (pity me!!!!), there’s a lot of ambiguity about what next year will look like. I have my goals: purposeful work, the Big Apple and frequent trips back home. Translating those goals into specificity is what’s proven to be difficult, and there’s an undeniable sense of anxiety in thinking about what will last after this hurricane of change takes place — what will remain in the eye of the storm? This train of thought isn’t necessarily comforting, which brings me to you. Or me, I should say. How are we? Let’s say it’s us 10 years from now. We’re at 31, letting everyone who’ll listen know that “actually, your thir ties are the new twenties!”

Did we get that J.D.? Have we started the family? Do we see Sara, Rubab, Mama and Papa almost every other day? I wonder if we’ve grown tired of New York at some point, the city that we swore up and down since age 11 was made for us; the city that we knowingly nod about when someone says, “You just give New York vibes.”

InshAllah, there are some things that I know are true, simply because we’ll work to make them so. I’ll have my space and still see the Imtiaz clan frequently. I’ll get my J.D., because we told ourselves we would. Pot

lucks with Inaya and Mits may look different, but I know we’ll somehow find a way to bring an item from the classic menu every time. My friend Kat wrote about perceiving time in a non-linear sense, and, as always, her words have left an impact on me long after I initially read them.

Apprehension of being on the preci pice of capital A adulthood is under standable, but I’m trying to think that, barring unforeseen circum stances, we can always find a sense of stasis in any future universe. In a weird way, because I can see the future in this way, I’m determined to make it happen. So in writing to us, I know that maybe things aren’t picture perfect, rose-colored glass es, but I do know that things are. I think therefore I am, a really novel thought, right? Regardless, given that reality, we can keep on keeping on.

Suddenly, the record scratches.

I know we’ll have these cycles though. I wonder if we’ll still use every word beyond the it-word. Sad, melancholic, dejected (a personal fav), despondent, going on and on until the thesaurus.com sugges tions expire. The reality remains that life will probably still be diffi cult as it will still be beautiful. We’ll call Marie in the wee hours of the night, and trade theories as to why it is that we think so much. Hopefully by then we won’t be so embarrassed of that fact.

Still, you and I will probably scoff at “Everything happens for the best,” and immediately correct it with “Everything happens.” The only control is yourself and your faith. Currently, I’ve come to learn that life hits us with various circum stances, good and bad. We aren’t guaranteed the Good Life, but we’re guaranteed life, the basis of which we can forge our reality from. Does that mentality change throughout the years for us? I’m sure the pen dulum still swings back and forth, teetering between chasing what we want and accepting our reality. Shit, you’re just 31 — we’re still fig uring it out.

Newaygo, MI – Tubing on the Muskegon River

Paramount, CA – La Familia

Grand Rapids, MI – Hispanic Festival

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Biden’s right, Trump is a semi-fascist. Here’s why we shouldn’t prosecute him

JACK BRADY Opinion Columnist

Kicking and screaming, former President Donald Trump slowly faded out of view for the better part of the summer. Outside his core supporters, most Americans readily put memories of his tumultuous four years behind them.

Potential 2024 Republican Party contenders began peaking up their heads. One might have reasonably believed that the era of Trump was finally coming to an end.

Then the FBI searched Mara-Lago, and all heads whipped back to the former president.

College no longer serves to teach: The degree inflation problem

MOHAMMED HASAN Opinion Columnist

Growing up, I used to think that college was always a place of growth, where you could learn anything you wanted with like-minded people and broaden your horizons. Now, as one of many students at the University of Michigan, I can say confidently that although these things do ring true, they are not without their caveats. The wealth of knowledge and opportunities available in higher education is more than one person could ever take advantage of, but as time has gone on, the rose-tinted lenses have come off and I’ve come to realize that reality doesn’t always live up to our expectations.

American college students today are burdened with a collective total of $1.75 trillion in debt, a figure only made worse when comparing the 169% increase in college costs since 1980 to the 19% increase in wages for workers aged 22 to 27.

Despite these disproportional results, however, the demand for a college degree has only continued to rise. Whereas 16% of the Silent Generation earned college degrees, 51% of individuals from Generation Z surveyed stated that they would be likely to pursue a college degree.

On the surface level, a highlyeducated populace seems to serve as an overall positive: With higher education, more individuals are equipped to fulfill the demands of an ever-advancing world.

Ideally, everyone seeking a college education is doing so because of their passions for a subject, making them ideal candidates to fulfill a role that requires their area of expertise. The issue here is that in our current economic climate, despite the aggressive uptick of college enrollment over the last few decades, the pool of these ideal candidates has become diluted by individuals that have come for the

degrees, but not for the education. Sure, this increase in enrollment could be reasonably attributed to more people seeking knowledge and opportunities best found in higher education, but the reality is likely far less favorable. The job market has made a degree necessary to reach a higher standard of living, even when a degree does next to nothing to improve the employee’s productivity.

The issue is one of a surplus of overqualification, and has grown into a cycle. To start, we can take a peek at past trends. While wages have remained largely stagnant for college graduates, the cost of living was once relatively far lower. Ultimately, there was once a time when a college degree led to a higher income-tocost ratio than today. This is how our cycle begins, with the majority of Americans believing that college is the best option we have to succeed. This leads to higher enrollment, but also to the previously mentioned caveat: many of these prospective students choose to attend college for the degrees, not for the education. It doesn’t help that an overwhelming proportion of our success in a class is determined by test scores. Aside from basic anti-cheating measures, which resourceful students will find ways around, what’s to stop someone from engaging in academic misconduct for the sake of a passing grade? What exactly is there to incentivize a student to go above and beyond in their learning when they can settle on being prepared enough to avoid failing?

I’ll bite: absolutely nothing, because many students aren’t attending college to do anything more than pass. It is this mentality that, when held by so many people that feel as if they have no other options, begins to take away from the learning aspect that defines what higher education is supposed to be.

However, this isn’t where our cycle ends. What happens when these workers enter the workforce? This is where degree inflation amplifies into an even greater

concern. With so much new, “highly educated” manpower, what’s to set apart someone without a degree to take on a role when there’s someone with a degree available to fill the position? This in turn has led to a disproportionate increase in the number of job listings requiring college degrees, even when they were not required previously. One such instance exists for supervisory positions. Only 16% of people in jobs described as “supervisory positions” have college degrees, but 67% of all new listings for similar roles require that applying candidates have one. Suddenly, all of these jobs are requiring college degrees, even when they are unnecessary, thereby pushing the narrative that a college degree really is the best way to live comfortably. In turn, the cycle begins anew, albeit now with college looking less and less like the best option we have to succeed and more like the only option given wage stagnation and inflation over time.

Today, higher education faces a grim reality: Colleges are filled with students that attend not to learn, but to bolster their resume. To that end, these students are not attending because they truly want to, but because they have to thanks to the absurd increase in hiring qualifications for jobs that never needed a degree in the first place. The worst part of this is not what has been done, but what’s to come. Breaking the cycle without some sort of intervention remains impractical. Employers have no incentive to decrease their standards as long as the pool of qualified applicants continues to grow. It seems even more unlikely that the workforce would attempt to protest in any significant way, as it would only incentivize employers to choose another candidate from the evergrowing pool of qualified individuals for a job. Truthfully, the future looks bleak, and until something changes, it looks as if the degree inflation cycle will only continue.

The Department of Justice blundered by letting Trump break the news and control the story. They remained silent for too long and at the country’s expense. Still, no one has spoken publicly regarding the nuclear secrets recovered from Trump’s residence.

The blowback from the search has been both predictable and disturbing. Talk of civil war among the farright has become widespread on social media. Trump’s allies in Congress have threatened political violence should the former president be charged. In Cincinnati, a Trump supporter went so far as to try attacking an FBI office. This threat has been dire for some time.

Trump’s role in inciting the insurrection following his loss in the 2020 election is clear. As U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., put it, “Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of [the] attack.”

The former president bears primary responsibility for the carnage at the Capitol. More recently, eyeing another presidential run, Trump put himself in lockstep with the most authoritarian corners of his electorate by suggesting the Jan. 6 rioters deserved full pardons and government apologies.

Enter President Joe Biden to make things worse. During a speech in Maryland last August, Biden compared Trumpism to “semifascism.” A few days later at Independence Hall, shrouded in sinister red lighting and flanked by two shadowy Marines, Biden declared MAGA Republicans a clear and present danger to American democracy. He sputtered through a 20-minute tirade effectively castigating Trump and his voters as enemies of the state.

Trump escalated by literally calling Biden “an enemy of the state.”

Biden is right, Trump is a semi-fascist, but he failed to make an important distinction in his speech. Trump and his

supporters are not one and the same, and must not be regarded as such.

Trump threatens the very foundation of our Republic. He must never wield the power of office again.Trump’s supporters, on the other hand, do not deserve such condemnation. Like most Americans, they disagree with the direction the country is moving. They want to see change. Left behind and angry, they placed their faith into the wrong hands and had their loyalty exploited for political gain. Trump has convinced his base of terrible lies. Paranoid, distrustful and well-armed, MAGA Republicans have pledged themselves to the wrong leader. But they are still Americans. Biden must take care not to forget it.

No amount of wishful thinking will make them disappear or make them suddenly switch sides. If Biden continues to paint them as enemies, that is what they will be. People do not take kindly to insults. Further antagonism and belligerence towards Trump’s base will only drive them further into the grip of the former president. The current administration must proceed with caution. Rather than berate his fellow citizens from the steps of a sacred American landmark, misguided though they may be, Biden should court them away from extremism with words of welcome and warmth.

To follow Abraham Lincoln’s example would be wise. At his first inaugural address, the 16th president addressed a fractured nation: “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” With the Civil War looming and the future of the Union uncertain, Lincoln did not villainize the South, no matter how deserving of villainization they were. He opened his arms in the interest of preserving the Republic.

Biden and the Department

N.A.T.O. must liberate itself from U.S. domination

Since its establishment during the Cold War, N.A.T.O. has served as a transatlantic allegiance for peace; serving post-World War II to unite European countries and the U.S. as well as deter Soviet expansion. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, N.A.T.O. has focused on promoting its values — of democracy and mutual defense — while providing a resolution of disputes in international affairs.

However, to the Middle East, Africa, South America, India and several other regions, N.A.T.O.’s mission represents a completely different dogma than the one it prides itself on. From the invasion of Afghanistan to the bombing of Yugoslavia, N.A.T.O. was not an alliance for peace as much as it was an effort to establish a unipolar global union erected on imperialist pillars. And while these decisions are agreed on unanimously by all member nations, the U.S. plays a much more integral role in N.A.T.O.’s political strategy than the bulk of the European countries in N.A.T.O.

Just last year, N.A.T.O. spent over $1 trillion on defense, with the American funds making up around 70% of that figure. Such high spending gives the United States a natural leading role in the alliance and some influence over the actions of fellow N.A.T.O. members.

For instance, President Donald Trump ordered the withdrawal of roughly 12,000 troops from Germany in 2020, due to Germany’s failure to meet the terms of the 2014 Wales Pledge, a declaration that N.A.T.O. members spend a minimum 2% of their GDP on defense. Trump employed this tactic to pressure allies into providing more monetary support to the alliance or face a decline in America’s military commitments to Europe, something that European countries strongly fear.

The power that the U.S. maintains over N.A.T.O. is especially problematic because the U.S. is not bound by many basic international human rights treaties. For instance, the U.S. did not ratify the Conventions on the Rights of a Child, which focuses on basic human rights for children, due

to Republican pushback in the Senate. Moreover, though the U.S. played a pivotal role in writing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which focuses on prosecuting individuals that commit serious war crimes, it refuses to sign it. This means that U.S. personnel cannot be prosecuted on the international level for instances of genocide, mass rape, enforced sterilization or crimes against humanity, depriving said personnel of any moral authority to lead global efforts to resolve humanitarian crimes.

So, why did the U.S. refuse to sign such a cornerstone treaty?

Christopher Fariss, assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan who focuses on an empirical investigation of human rights, pointed out that membership in N.A.T.O. does not entail ratification of these treaties since they are proposed by the United Nations. The refusal to sign these treaties essentially exempts U.S. military and government personnel from the international court’s jurisdiction. Remember: other European nations have had no trouble signing these human rights treaties.

It does not just stop there.

The American ServiceMembers’ Protection Act or so called “Hague Invasion Act,” for instance, has since 2002 provided that the U.S. government may use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.”

This is not the behavior of a country that is fully investing in the rules based order.

To draw on a current-day example, we can assess the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine.

According to the University of Chicago’s John Mearshimer, one of the most prominent modern international relations scholars of the realist school, has been a notable proponent of the view that The U.S. played an integral role in the provocation of Russia, ultimately perpetuating the Ukrainian struggle we see today.

For instance, prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. placed significant pressure on countries from the European Union to place sanctions on Russia.

As a result, European countries such as Germany, which has long

relied on Russian gas, must endure the economic struggle borne by the EU’s decision to place sanctions on Russia and the U.S.’ failure to send adequate aid. Though not the same organization, the EU and N.A.T.O. share many members.

French

President Emmanuel Macron stated in a recent conference, “in a spirit of great friendship, we will say to our American and Norwegian friends … ‘you supply us with energy and gas, but one thing that can’t go on for too long is us paying four times more than the price you sell to your industry.’”

Energy is only one example of the intricate webs that bind Europe to the U.S.. Not only does the U.S. maintain this power dynamic quite subtly, but it has also prepared for any challenge to this dominance from the European Union by encouraging Brexit, an agenda for the United Kingdom to leave the EU. The U.K. was a major player in the economic structure of the EU. Its departure from the EU compromises the overall geo-political stability of the EU itself. As the far-right gains more momentum in Europe, we are seeing more Euroscepticism and risk that the EU might be further weakened — and weaker

Design by Samantha Sweig

of Justice must internalize this lesson. Trump deserves to be prosecuted, but to prosecute him would be folly. He tainted the office with criminal behavior the likes of which the presidency has never seen and must never see again. He is absolutely a would-be dictator. But he is an old would-be dictator.

Trump’s years as a political force are limited. His support dwindles smaller. Most Americans have no illusions about his credibility. The FBI has recovered the classified documents from Mar-a-Lago; Trump can no longer use them for devious ends. No further steps need to be taken. He does not have the widespread popularity required to win back the presidency. Nothing productive would come from charges.

A criminal case would become a rallying cry. Opportunists would use it to inspire violence and divide the country further. We must ease tensions before the chance disappears for good.

The right step, albeit the uncomfortable one, is to turn attention away from Trump. Let him disappear on his own. He is already a cultural hero to the far right; to lock him away would elevate him to martyrdom, as well as further isolate his already extremist supporters. Let him protest and shout. Let the old man make every attempt to remain relevant as the country moves on. But his best efforts will be to no avail.

His personality cult will wail for a time, but without the pretext of criminal charges to launch their revolution, average Trump supporters will slowly return to rankand-file Republicanism or retake their place as inactive independents. His opponents will decry the terrible failure of justice that allowed such a man to walk free, but they too will move on. No one will be satisfied, but Trump’s threat to democracy will wither away, and the Republic will endure.

European unity could translate to increased American domination.

For too long the U.S. has exploited its influence over N.A.T.O. to push its imperial agenda overseas. The U.S. cannot continue to leverage its militaristic influence when it comes to these European countries. Again, considering the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a diplomatic relationship between western European countries and Russian President Vladimir Putin is impossible to implement when we consider the American desire to undermine Russian power. As shocking as this may sound, Trump had exactly the right thing to say about this earlier this month: “We must demand the immediate negotiation of a peaceful end to the war in Ukraine or we will end up in World War Three.”

Decisions that have direct humanitarian impacts should not be guided by a country that has consistently failed to sign and ratify international cornerstone treaties for peace. Before adopting the global police role, the U.S. should first meet the minimal ethical standard that it holds its allies to. Without greater, independent European pressure, that may never be the case.

AMMAR

Ann Arbor, MI

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 of f icial position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

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

Finding a middle ground on affirmative action

Life 360: Friend or foe?

REBECCA SMITH Opinion Contributor

that helicopter parenting does not — the benefit of the doubt.

Design by Sara Fang

NIKHIL SHARMA Opinion Columnist

Few issues are as polarizing in American political discourse as affirmative action. Lying at the center of the national conversation on diversity and inclusion, many ardently defend it as a pillar of the U.S. collegiate system, while others strongly oppose its unmeritocratic principles and argue that other methods exist to better promote diversity on campuses. Since its inception in the 1960s, affirmative action has been entrenched in controversy, yet has managed to survive in some form at many major universities. With the Supreme Court set to hear arguments on affirmative action this month and likely to finally strike it down this term, however, it’s worth evaluating both the positive and negative aspects of affirmative action to see if there’s room for compromise on future policies to better promote diversity in higher education.

Of all the educational institutions in America, few have been as directly involved in the history of affirmative action as the University of Michigan.

After years of incorporating race into its admissions criteria, the University’s affirmative action policies were first thrust into the national spotlight in the 2003 Supreme Court case Gratz v. Bollinger. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that while the University of Michigan’s Office of Undergraduate Admissions could use race as a factor in their decisions, it must individually assess applicants rather than automatically boosting the candidacy of any underrepresented minority.

Shortly after the decision, support began to build for an outright ban on affirmative action, culminating in a 2006 statewide vote that struck down any preferential treatment by race in public education. After a lower court set aside this referendum, the University again lost a Supreme Court case in 2014 when the justices voted 6-2 to reinstate the law, banning the use of racial criteria in University admissions.

Since then, University administration has worked to find alternative ways to diversify the campus without utilizing affirmative action. Despite their

efforts, however, the percentage of Black students on campus has decreased from 7% to 4% since the 2006 vote, leading some to argue that, while imperfect, affirmative action is the most effective way for the University to maintain diversity. While there are many arguments in favor of affirmative action, perhaps the most common one stresses the importance of creating equitable admissions standards that account for racial inequality and differences in opportunity. Secondarily, supporters emphasize the importance of exposing students to diverse perspectives on campus and creating a culture of diverse leadership that can draw from their experiences to make better decisions.

Though these are all strong arguments that capture the positive aspects of affirmative action, there are also many valid critiques that uncover some unsavory components. While opinion has shifted over time, a majority of Americans in each racial group still believe that race and ethnicity should not be factored into college acceptance decisions. Most arguments against affirmative are rooted in ideas of fairness and meritocracy.

In recent years, the most common criticism of affirmative action has been its negative effects on Asians. On average, when taking the SAT, Asian Americans must score 270 points higher than Latino students and 450 points higher than African American students “to be considered equal in the application process.”

This, in addition to disparities in the way the personality and achievements of Asian students are evaluated compared to other minorities, has led many to contend that affirmative action helps some minorities at the expense of others.

In some instances, the existence of affirmative action has led to minority students — that are just as deserving of their admission as others on campus — finding themselves labeled as ‘diversity admits.’ Even when explicit discrimination does not take place, imposter syndrome stemming from this perception negatively impacts many individuals.

When asked about his views on affirmative action, Michigan College Republicans Chairman Matthew Zhou summarized a viewpoint espoused by many on the right. “Although affirmative action was instituted with well

intent, the program serves as pure theater today.” Zhou continued to say that “most people who benefit from affirmative action are wealthy, coming from relatively privileged backgrounds. As such, affirmative action doesn’t actually even the playing field, while holding back people who don’t come from ‘minority’ races.” This complex web of affirmative action based on legacy status, purported athletic performance and race has caused an originally well intentioned system to lose its way.

This argument is premised on the existence of a class divide that some posit is deeper than the race divide in this country, leading many to argue for the expansion of programs that bridge the economic gap in the admissions process.

Overall, while affirmative action has tremendously benefited society since the 1960s by integrating universities and providing opportunities for millions of underrepresented individuals. That being said, we are a much different nation than we were in the 1960s, both demographically and socioeconomically. As we prepare for the nation to make an abrupt transition away from race-conscious admissions, it’s important to consider the flaws of affirmative action and how we can constructively address them.

The University of Michigan is in a unique position during this pivotal moment, as the school has operated without affirmative action since 2006. While programs like the Go Blue Guarantee have been a success, in order to improve minority representation, the University must do a better job with outreach in disadvantaged communities. Many qualified potential admits are not accepted to the University because of the simple fact that they never consider applying, thinking that it would be too expensive or that they would not get in.

By shifting its strategy from increasing diversity through changing admissions standards to expanding the socioeconomic demographics of its applicant pool, the University can make strides toward achieving diversity while maintaining a high caliber of students.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

“The helicopter parent” is a term that has gained significant popularity over the past several years. It was coined for the parent who deems it their personal responsibility to be involved in every aspect of their child’s life. The duties of the helicopter parent include endlessly prying about their child’s friends, relationships and, often, their whereabouts. For years, technology did not offer a means for the child surveillance that helicopter parents desire, but today — in the age of advanced smartphones — a variety of tracking apps exist, and they act as the perfect way for anxious parents to have constant eyes on their children.

One app in particular, Life360, has garnered significant attention — good and bad — since its launch in 2008. Before examining its ethics, it’s important to understand how exactly an app like Life360 works. It is essentially a GPS tracker, putting your child in your pocket at all times. Since young adults today spend so much time with their phone on their person, digital tracking is an easy way to have constant access to their location. The app even allows users to pinpoint specific locations, so that they are notified when their child arrives at school, or when they return home.

There are clearly safety benefits to an app like this. When teenagers are out and about with their friends, it can give parents intense peace of mind to always have their location. The app’s paid version even offers impressive safety features that monitor a user’s driving, and can detect if a crash has occurred while simultaneously dispatching emergency services. Life360 has even managed to locate some missing kids, so it is by no means the devil. However, questions have been raised regarding its invasiveness.

Pre-digital era, parents didn’t have access to child surveillance apps. Many would tell their kids to be home at a certain time — perhaps before dark — and if they chose to disrespect that rule, they would be barred from hanging out with their friends in the future. Obviously, in a world without fancy tracking devices, parents didn’t have much of a choice but to put their trust in their child. Still, this parenting model allows for something

Apps like Life360 undermine this very principle, assuming the worst of their kids before they have any reason to.

Young adulthood is supposed to be a time for self-exploration. Many are yearning for things that are key to their future happiness — a sense of independence, an established identity. However, it is impossible for a child to gain any form of self-reliance if their time away from their parents is constantly punctuated by anxious texts and calls facilitated by always knowing where they are.

Tracking apps rob kids of the very thing they need most: space to grow up.

This can have irrevocable negative effects. As kids, we are like sponges, absorbing the world around us and, oftentimes, hanging on our parent’s every word. We carry the rules and boundaries that are set in the childhood home into adulthood.

Intense monitoring by parents communicates to a child in a not-so-subtle way that the world is a dangerous and unforgiving place, and that they will only be safe if Mom and Dad are standing over their shoulder, watching their every move. This can have starkly negative effects on a child’s mental health.

Developmental psychologist Kathleen Jodl — a lecturer in the Department of Psychology — is wary of the effects that tracking apps can have on adolescents. She emphasized that this generation in particular may be more susceptible to the app’s effects.

“The data suggests that this is a generation with high levels of anxiety,” she said. “And these kinds of things can feed into that, and cause false perceptions of dangers that might not actually be there.”

Countless studies have shown this to be true.

According to the American Psychological Association, just 45% of Gen Z reports their mental health as being good. Older generations fared much better, with 56% of Millennials and 70% of Boomers claiming good mental health. Of course, this anxiety did not appear out of thin air. Gen Z has been given plenty to worry about — school shootings, a global pandemic, climate change — and these problems don’t appear to be going anywhere. Instead, we have been forced to grow up with them as a fact of life.

Invasive use of apps like Life360 means that instead of parents easing their children’s anxiety about the world around them, many add to it. With the use of tracking apps at an all time high, parents are implicitly

telling their kids that they should feel anxious about the world around them, because they are anxious about it too.

It is even more concerning that, for many, the tracking does not end with childhood.

Families who are dedicated users of Life360 will often continue to track their kids into their college years. The app allows them to see whether their child is in class or partying in a frat house. While this will give parents grappling with empty nest syndrome some piece of mind, it comes at a price. College students are supposed to be learning to live independently — a task that comes with its own unique set of challenges — but if parents are monitoring every move they make, they are robbed of this rite of passage.

So, how do we loosen this digital leash? While many would say that ceasing to track your child altogether is the answer, many are entirely uncomfortable with this. The solution may then arise from the way parents use the app. An LSA sophomore who wishes to keep their thoughts on Life360 anonymous said that they do not feel their privacy is being violated by their family’s use of the app. Their family decided together to download Life360 in order to provide some peace of mind as they moved away to college. “My family personally, we have an understanding,” they said, “it’s okay if I go offline for a while. They trust me enough to know that if my location is off, it’s not because I’m doing something unsafe.” They aren’t alone. Many have reported their family’s use of the app as something they are totally comfortable with. However, in order for this to be the case, the app needs to be used as a safety precaution, not as a means for control or punishment. Realistically, if a child feels as though their parents don’t trust them, downloading Life360 will only feed that belief, not solve it. To use the app noninvasively means setting boundaries — likely to look different for each family — through an open conversation between the parents and the child. Most importantly, the child’s independence and freedom need to be preserved, particularly in young adulthood. This means refraining from checking the app 24/7, or immediately calling when your child’s location has moved all but an inch. Instead, choose to trust your child until they give you a reason not to — and it is more than likely they will trust you in return.

Ambika

Design by Phoebe Unwin

Sports

Josh Taubman: With statement win, Michigan reinforces its own narrative

it had in conference play all season.

At halftime, No. 10 Penn State was taking the fight to the No. 5 Michigan football team. Lit erally.

Things got chippy in the tun nel, with both teams shoving and engaging in the skirmish. What had transpired on the field in the previous 30 minutes didn’t fit that narrative. The Wol verines handled the Nittany Lions for the most part, outgaining them heavily in yardage and, astonish ingly, holding them to just one first down despite only leading 16-14.

JOSH TAUBMAN

The narratives surrounding the Wolverines entering their Top-10 matchup were pertinent: Could they move the ball against Penn State’s top-five ranked run defense? What would the defense that had strug gled against lesser Big Ten competi tion look like? And, of course, how would Michigan handle its first “real” test?

The Wolverines passed with fly ing colors.

They throttled Penn State from the opening kickoff to the final whistle. They marched right over the Nittany Lions’ run defense to the tune of 418 rushing yards, they stymied Penn State’s pair of talent ed running backs to 35 yards com bined and they never punted.

locker room at halftime. Our spirits were up, we were ready to go back out … We felt like we were dominat ing on both sides of the ball and even in special teams, so we just (had) to keep doing us.”

Even with a 6-0 start, college football pundits criticized Michigan at every turn. Its weak non-confer ence schedule meant nothing could be gleaned from its blowout wins.

Next, Maryland was able to move the ball against the Wolverines, raising further red flags. Then, they didn’t play four dominant quarters against Iowa or Indiana. More and more, questions swirled about their defense and whether a better oppo nent could exploit them.

Penn State was supposed to be the better opponent. And Michigan, instead, looked the most dominant

“Take away three plays and the score is 41 to 3,” Morris said. “So we were not really worried about it.”

The Wolverines entered this game looking for respect. Despite all they accomplished last year, they’re still viewed as a team that’s begging for a seat at the big kids’ table.

But a resounding win in a top-10 matchup proves Michigan should

have its spot firmly anchored in the college football’s hierarchy. Michi gan coach Jim Harbaugh went as far to call it a “statement game.”

There’s a laser focus to this year’s iteration of the Wolverines. The breaks in the game were going Penn State’s way — and it didn’t matter. They possess a confidence, built from the fact that they’ve seen what they can accomplish and have the belief that they can do it again.

But standing in the tunnel, Penn State — whether warranted or not — was confident.

The Wolverines, meanwhile, were simply unbothered.

“They didn’t talk on the field,” senior defensive end Mike Morris said. “So they wanted to talk at half time because they got lucky.”

That attitude, the nonchalance with which Michigan treated the Nittany Lions at halftime, was exemplified by its dominance on the field.

FOOTBALL

The game was close in the first half because Michigan found itself settling for field goals instead of touchdowns. It was in a battle not with its opponent, but its own inept itude. The Wolverines looked at the first half and didn’t see themselves in a dogfight.

In their eyes, they just weren’t playing to their standard.

“We knew that we beat our selves,” graduate center Olusegun Oluwatimi said. “… So going into the

Corum, Edwards show full capabilities in dominant performance against Penn State

JARED GREENSPAN Managing Sports Editor

After Penn State allowed a stunning 418 rushing yards in a 41-17 loss to the Michigan foot ball team, a number of defensive standouts admitted that the Nit tany Lions needed to be better. That much was evident to anyone who watched Penn State’s fifthranked rushing defense — one of its core strengths — morph into a fatal flaw.

Yet, amid the somber scene, linebacker Curtis Jacobs still found a reason to smile.

Jacobs had just been asked about someone he considers one of his “dearest friends” — junior run ning back Blake Corum.

“I’ve seen the same thing from him since sixth grade,” Jacobs said.

Jacobs and Corum played together on Team Maryland in the FBU eighth grade circuit. They went on to play at competing high schools: Corum at St. Fran ces Academy and Jacobs for the McDonogh School.

“In our FBU Tournament, I saw some flashes,” Jacobs remem bered. “But when I saw him at St. Frances, that’s when I knew he was gonna be one of the best backs in the country. He’s lightning in a bottle.”

Saturday, Corum and sopho more running back Donovan Edwards combined to decimate Jacobs and Penn State’s defense.

Corum once again affirmed his presence as one of the nation’s top running backs, tallying 166 rush ing yards and two touchdowns on 28 carries. Edwards, meanwhile, ran for a career-best 173 yards and found the endzone twice, too.

There is no more speculation surrounding Corum’s ability to evolve into a power, short-yardage back who can fill the void left by Hassan Haskins. Gone, too, are con cerns over Corum’s ability to handle a taxing, demanding workload. These days, it seems like the only question pertaining to Corum

is if the opposing defense will ever be able to stop him.

“Everything that y’all see in games, we see in practice,” senior edge rusher Mike Mor ris said. “There are some plays where I have to cover (Corum and Edwards) on downs and it’s like, I just look to the coaches like, ‘Why are we calling this play?’ ”

Penn State, on paper, seemed poised to test Michigan’s rushing attack. Entering the day, it had allowed just 79.6 rushing yards per game and a mere 398 rushing yards on the season.

The Wolverines eclipsed that figure with time to spare in the fourth quarter.

Penn State players attributed the performance to a number of reasons. Most of them blamed a lack of execution in their individ ual assignments. Some stressed a need to be more physical. Others cited schematic issues.

One constant emerged: Heading into the game, each player felt pre pared for what was coming.

“We knew what we were get ting into,” linebacker Jonathan Sutherland said. “We knew what kind of game it was gonna be.”

Nothing could prepare them for the dominance that would ensue.

In the first half, Michigan racked up 168 rushing yards, marching the ball methodically down the field.

“Of course you’re not gonna feel good about it,” linebacker Kody King said. “But it’s just a next play mentality: next play, next play, next play.”

And yet, so often, each play yielded the same result. In the sec ond half, the Wolverines’ rushing game evolved from dominant to lethal. A sequence of back-to-back runs eventually swung the game in their favor for good.

On a first and 10 from the Michigan 33-yard line, Edwards bounced around the edge, elicit ing an initial thunder of cheers.

Then, he cut back inside and juked cornerback Ji’Ayir Brown to the turf, taking it 67 yards to the house while the crowd crescendoed.

“Knowing what he can do with the ball in his hands, with his speed, I knew it was gonna be a big gain,” sophomore quarter back J.J. McCarthy said. “That’s just the special player he is.”

On the next offensive play, the Wolverines lined up on their own 39-yard line. This time, Corum earned the carry. He burst through the middle and left everyone else behind, sprint ing 61 yards for his second score of the day.

Morris remembered being on the sideline, having just taken his helmet off. Before he could even ask for water, Corum was in the clear.

“I’m happy for him but I was like, ‘Gotta let us get a break a little bit’,” Morris laughed.

Corum and Edwards didn’t give either defense a break. Mor ris may have had to retake the field, but Jacobs had to worry about bringing Corum to the ground. And yes, it’s as difficult as it seems.

“He has a really strong lower base,” Jacobs noted. “He works on that. He really works on balance and being able to run downhill and that’s big. Being a running back in the Big Ten, you have to be able to run downhill.”

Saturday’s game, in a way, highlighted everything that Corum and Edwards have worked on. Corum put on 12 pounds in the offseason with the idea of adding a little more power to his game while also retaining his trademark speed.

Edwards, meanwhile, has bided his time since arriving as a fivestar recruit, confident a breakout of this sort would happen.

“I feel like I’ve been prone for a game like this for a while now,” Edwards said. “I just had to sit back and wait my turn and show the world what I’m capable of being able to do.”

The duo did just that Satur day. And if the fifth-ranked run defense can’t even slow them down, well, who else stands a chance?

Up until kickoff, it was unclear how Michigan would look against the Nittany Lions. But, as it moved the ball at will and seized control of the game in the second half, those narratives quickly shifted — shifted to a point where going 11-0 enter ing the matchup in Columbus looks realistic.

That’s a narrative that wasn’t floated with much confidence out side of Ann Arbor before Saturday. But inside the Wolverines’ locker room, a new narrative about what they can accomplish this season has already been written.

Last year, the narrative was about resetting expectations.

This year, the expectation is to win, and Penn State was simply the first measuring stick.

LILA TURNER/Daily

Against Penn State, Michigan dominated the line of scrimmage

SPENCER RAINES Daily Sports Editor

Football games are won in the trenches — and that’s the way Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh and his fifth-ranked Wolverines like it.

Not only did Michigan’s offensive line maul No. 10 Penn State’s defensive front on its way to a 41-17 victory, but its defensive line tamed the Nit tany Lions’ offense. It was as thorough a performance on both lines of scrimmage as a team can have, and the Wolverines did it all against a top-10 team.

That much was evident to everyone in the Big House on Saturday, fans, players and coaches alike. After the game, sophomore quarterback J.J. McCarthy noted that.

Asked at what point in the game he knew his team would control the line of scrimmage, McCarthy answered like some one who has the utmost confi dence in his offensive line.

“(We knew) from the jump, from the first drive,” McCar thy said. “I mean, just the way they were moving them off the ball. … And just the way these guys were running the ball right away and the way the offensive line was blocking. I just knew it was going to be a dogfight until the end in the trenches

and yeah, our guys pulled out in front.”

It really was clear from the very beginning that Michi gan’s lines were better. On the first drive, the Wolverines ran it down Penn State’s throat, always on schedule, and mov ing the sticks with ease. To add to that, on Michigan’s very first defensive possession, it forced a three-and-out, doing so emphatically with a tackle for loss on third and one.

That’s how things went for both the offensive and defen sive lines for most of the game. The offense pounded the ball to great success time and time again. And the defensive line stymied the Nittany Lions’ tal ented freshman running back duo of Nicholas Singleton and Kaytron Allen to the point where their offense was com pletely one-dimensional.

Outside of a 62-yard run on a read option from Penn State quarterback Sean Clifford, the Nittany Lions’ rushing attack repeatedly ran into a wall at the line of scrimmage. Single ton and Allen combined for just 35 yards on 12 attempts — their worst mark of the season.

It was apparent that the Wol verines were the more physical team on both sides of the ball early on, and that only grew more obvious as the game pro gressed.

“I felt like we played domi nant on both sides of the ball with our fronts,” graduate center Olusegun Oluwatimi said. “We stopped their run game and obviously we had a big game on the ground. So it was just a dominant perfor mance.”

As Oluwatimi spoke, he donned a pair of shades and a smirk fitting of the accom plishment. He exuded the type of confidence you’d expect to see from a quarterback, a wide receiver, a running back, or realistically, any player other than a lineman.

But that’s what the Wol verines are: A program that prides itself on physical, smash-mouth football. A pro gram that elevates linemen — offensive and defensive — to the status of a skill position, one of the utmost importance.

Even McCarthy shares that belief.

“With any successful offense — you could go to any program in the country — you have to have a dominant run game, you have to,” McCarthy said. “You don’t see any air raid offense winning national championships. It’s where it’s done, in the trenches, and that’s where the battle is won.” Saturday, that was certainly the case. And that’s just how Michigan likes it.

FOOTBALL

JEREMY WEINE/Daily

JEREMY WEINE/Daily