OPINION

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

PAIGE HODDER

Editor in Chief

JULIAN BARNARD AND SHUBHUM GIROTI

Editorial Page Editors

VANESSA KIEFER AND KATE WEILAND

Managing Editors

Ammar Ahmad Julian Barnard Brandon Cowit Jess D’Agostino Ben Davis Shubhum Giroti Devon Hesano

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Sophia Lehrbaum Olivia Mouradian Siddharth Parmar Rushabh Shah

Nikhil Sharma Lindsey Spencer Evan Stern Anna Trupiano Jack Tumpowsky Alex Yee Quin Zapoli

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

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.

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.

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 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.

Design by Samantha Sweig

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

AMMAR AHMAD Opinion Columnist

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 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.

Finding a middle ground on affirmative action

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

REBECCA SMITH Opinion Contributor

“T he 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 that helicopter parenting does not — the benefit of the doubt. 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.

Design by Phoebe Unwin