I spent the first five years of my life in Damascus, Syria. I can still remember the late nights in restaurants, which often held a game room for children and hookahs for anyone who was interested. If you are going to go out to eat in Syria, expect to stay out for at least four to five hours. You are going to get appetizers, fun drinks like a good mint lemonade, dessert, fruit between courses and end the night with multiple cups of tea and coffee. Often, my cousins (or anyone who was around my age in the room) and I would ask the waiters for a deck of cards, or we would bring our own — we’d make our side of the table an ultimate card tournament. 

Even though my family moved to the United States when I was young, I still remember those nights and felt the ultimate culture shock when we would go to restaurants here. Everything felt rushed, and it was as if everyone was expected to get up and leave as soon as their food was done. The “Are you ready for the bill?” and “Is there anything else I can get you” all felt passive aggressive and like a signal for us to leave. It’s something I got used to, but whenever my family traveled outside of the United States to Europe or back to the Middle East, I found that initial comfort in restaurants again. 

It’s no secret that servers in the food industry are largely underpaid in the United States. In Michigan, the tipped minimum wage is $3.85. In comparison, the minimum hourly wage in Michigan is $10.10. As a result, servers heavily depend on tips in lieu of the hourly wage they are given by their employers. More customers mean more opportunities for tips, and thus these restaurants are more inclined to seat as many people as possible. I fully understand the rush, as these workers are fighting to earn a livable wage. But, there is something inherently wrong in the method in which restaurant workers are forced to fight for their living. 

A server in the United States makes an average of $100 in tips everyday; however, the amount each server makes is heavily reliant on the location of the restaurant, its tip distribution system and the generosity of its customers each day. For nearly someone’s entire wage to rely on how nice or “fair” people are is frightening and flawed. Maybe I’m a bit of a cynical person who tends to fear the worst of people, but I’ve seen enough horror stories where servers are tipped cents and way less than 10% to fully believe that customers are a reliable source of income. I also don’t enjoy choking over the first few bites of my food to assure my server, “Yes the food is good, and no I don’t need anything else right now.” 

Some of the most effective ways for servers to make higher tips is proven to be through flirting with customers. Fliptable suggests servers to “smile more,” “wear something in your hair,” “go the extra mile” and “compliment your customers” as proven ways to get more money. Servers are more inclined to appeal to customers personally so that they empathize with the server and want to give them more money. You’re getting played every time you go out to eat because it is within their job description and is necessary for them to make a living.  

The United States is relatively unique with its tip expectations, as many countries in the world do not expect customers to tip. Countries like Australia, Belgium and Denmark have a service charge embedded within the price of the restaurant that will be a certain percentage of your bill. If this service charge was embedded in the United States restaurant industries, it would ensure equity among servers and place less pressure on them to go to extreme lengths to get a good tip.

Of course, the U.S. has its superior food-related qualities. If there is one thing that makes me bleed red, white and blue, it’s the taste of a greasy American burger from a fast food restaurant that reeks of fryers going. The United States is the origin of fast food chains, where McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Burger King and KFC started their journey. Drive-thrus were invented here. Fast food was created as a concept to serve more customers more frequently, with a standardized menu and assembly lines to streamline the process. Eating fast seems to be the American way, and I can’t complain at all when a good burger is the solution to all my problems on any given day.   

Fast food culture is essential to the American identity, and I agree that not all food should be expected to be some sit down affair. Fast food workers are not considered tipped workers, though they are entitled to receive tips. They must receive at least the standard minimum wage, and tips are not allowed to be counted as part of that wage. These places are designed for the rush and constant stream of customers, while in comparison, restaurants create an illusion of leisure and environment for customers to indulge in. However, when these customers are expected to leave within 10 minutes of finishing their food, the rush is a social norm imposed on them.

All food service in the U.S. is inherently fast food; however, countries across the globe are displaying the flaws in this speedy service when they treat their staff better and provide them with a living wage. These standards, in comparison to the uniquely American way, create stability among servers and allow customers to spend more time in restaurants, prolonging the enjoyable experience of dining out. 

I grew up in suburban Michigan, where stores and restaurants close at 10 p.m., and any nightlife only existed at bars, clubs and late-night sports games. I loved when we would travel back to the Middle East and the day wouldn’t begin until late afternoon, and we would stay out until 1 or 2 a.m. with our whole family. Restaurants were where we met up with others and enjoyed hours together. Sometimes, my cousins and I would leave the restaurant to walk around for a while before returning for the next course, a normal act in our dining culture. I’m nostalgic for those nights, and I will never feel the same joy in restaurants here that I do overseas.

Slowing down dining may not completely change American culture, but it could lessen the pressure on servers and provide families with an opportunity to elongate a night out together. Servers deserve a guaranteed living wage, and children should get the opportunity to experience the thrill of a card game tournament in a restaurant. By standardizing service charges in bills and opening restaurants for longer, servers can make more money with less stress, and families can have places to go together past 8 p.m. There’s no need to rush. 

Lara Tinawi is an Opinion Columnist writing about campus culture and her everyday musings. She can be reached at ltinawi@umich.edu.

The post What’s the rush? Slow down American dining appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

As I was leaving a study room the other day, I walked past a Campus Day tour where a tour guide was raving about how “amazing” the dining hall food is at the University of Michigan. I couldn’t help but loudly scoff as a “girl, no it is not” slipped out of my mouth. Some parents looked at me with horror and I quickly scurried off, knowing that their children would soon see for themselves just how “great” our dining halls are. 

I have always been very conscious of how my money is spent. When I spend $5,000 on something, I am going to use it for every buck it is worth and more. As a freshman this year, the MDining Residential Meal Plan was just something else I had to pay for when I moved to Ann Arbor. As I began to explore my options for housing next year, I was frustrated to find that if I continued to live on campus, I would have to keep paying for the unlimited meal plan. Over the past few months, I have realized that I would be perfectly fine without this option. 

I am the type of person who will go to the dining hall around four to six times a day, sometimes just to grab a muffin on the go or for my daily soft serve. MDining said it was unlimited, and I surely have proven it. But I don’t need all of those swipes because most of the time I don’t want to eat whatever they are serving. I am not a picky eater, and my only dietary restriction is that I do not eat pork. I enjoy eating seafood, but after two very unfortunate incidents that resulted in me keeled over and regretting my life choices with dining hall seafood, I’ve sworn off the University’s version of fish. 

The eggs have a suspicious texture so I usually end up grabbing a baked good or cereal for breakfast, things I could get at the grocery store for cheap and in bulk. Lunch and dinner are the true challenges. When I first moved in I enjoyed the food, but I have noticed a significant decline in the quality of food that has made finding a meal every day difficult, especially as I have been fasting for Ramadan. 

MDining has attempted to make accommodations for its Muslim students in the month of Ramadan, and I recognize that. Three dining halls have been left open until 9 p.m. every day, ensuring students get an opportunity to have Iftar at the dining hall instead of out of a to-go box. As a student that lives at Oxford Residence Hall, I have to go to South Quad Residence Halls or Mosher-Jordan Residence Halls for Iftar every day, as Twigs is only open until 8 p.m. Also, the dining halls are not open during Suhoor, which is around 6 a.m. lately, so I have been spending every morning eating breakfast at 5:30 a.m. in my dorm. My money is being wasted this month because I barely get to eat one meal a day at the dining hall, which is typically of low quality. 

In an interview with The Michigan Daily, LSA freshman Matt Sept shared this frustration with the dining hall’s options.

“I think it’s interesting that they care more about making good food when prospective students are touring instead of making consistently good food for the actual students,” Sept said.

There is definitely an increase in the quality of food when the Campus Day visitors are in town. Unfortunately, they only stick around for lunch, so residents are not graced with the benefits of their visits for dinner. 

Students have also noticed a difference in quality between individual dining halls. While it is great to have variety between the halls in order to provide students with more options, there is a noticeable difference between certain dining halls’ performances. I have made the trek to Bursley Residence Hall a few times just for dinner because their food options were better, and it was worth the trip. Bursley pizza sometimes just hits. 

The disparity among dining halls is apparent to students.

“Why is South or Mojo so much better than some others?” Sept said. “That’s not super fair. The food quality could definitely be better for what we are paying.”

For how much we are paying for meal plans, there should be no significantly better or worse dining hall, especially because they are all relatively spread out. Students should not have to take a bus to North Campus because South Quad is serving fish for the seventh day in a row or another unsavory item. 

The meal plan is reasonably priced for the unlimited access that it provides students. The Unlimited Basic Plan ends up being around $575 for each of the nine months during the fall and winter semesters, averaging about $19 for every day in a month. Nineteen dollars for unlimited access to food is definitely reasonable, but for those who go home over weekends, travel or just do not eat at the dining hall everyday, that money is lost. As someone who does go home on the weekends and is fasting now, I know that I am losing money with my plan and do not need the unlimited access. As I considered living on campus after my freshman year as a reasonable expenditure, I was forced to reconsider. With the 125-Block meal plan, students receive about 28 entrances into the dining halls and $55.56 in Blue Bucks each month. That’s at least five Panda Express meals a month, an option I’d gladly take to save $2,450. 

In an interview with The Daily, Susan Cramer, senior associate director of Residential Dining, explained the reason why on-campus students are required to get the unlimited meal plan.

“There’s a piece of it that has to do with food access and equity and wanting to make sure that people have the ability to eat the food they need,” Cramer said. “And the other piece to that has to do with planning for service for the students. Coming up with a cost decision looks different when you have a set expectation that you can base it off of the residents coming in.”

Cramer explained that the planning for the upcoming fall semester’s menu is almost complete so they can contact vendors and prepare for the next year. Ensuring equity and opportunity for students to obtain food is a cause I can support, but with that in mind, quality is as important as quantity. 

If students want to provide feedback on the dining halls, Cramer suggests using the text-to-tell form in place at each dining hall. This feedback goes directly to a manager on duty and allows them to filter through the responses and react immediately. The best way to ensure the dining hall reflects the preferences of the students is to make those preferences heard. The dining halls also need to respond to that feedback and place the interests of the current students at a higher priority than those of incoming students. The dining halls can place as much suspiciously pink chicken as they want out for students to eat, but by doing so they are failing the students who were required to pay $5,000 in the first place. 

Beginning college, especially when it involves moving on campus and living independently for the first time for many, is a drastic transition. Requiring freshmen students to get the unlimited meal plan is a way to ensure equity and opportunity for food access as they develop this independence. But the sophomores, juniors and seniors have experienced the dining halls, and know what is best for them. Providing them the opportunity to live on campus and avoid the complications of leases, utility fees and rent needs to be met with equal opportunity for students to eat based on their personal preferences. Allow returning students to choose their meal plan and their housing. And please, less fish at South Quad. 

Lara Tinawi is an Opinion Columnist writing about campus culture and her everyday musings. She can be reached at ltinawi@umich.edu.

The post My beef with MDining appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

There were two types of people in 2012: Those who started their “Hunger Games” phase, and those who lived a nice, peaceful life. I started my “Hunger Games” obsession, and had my life changed for years to come. I’d show you the Katniss Everdeen costumes, but the Internet just isn’t ready for that. 

On the first day of March this year, Netflix announced that the four “The Hunger Games” movies would be streaming for the entirety of the month. The movies immediately shot to the Top 10 movies list in the U.S. and have remained there since, with TikTok trends and re-found interest in the series emerging. While many say this is a publicity stunt in order to gain interest for the “Hunger Games” prequel movie, “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes,” which is set to be released in November this year, I fell for it anyways. Over Spring Break, I binge-watched all the movies in a day. Soon, I remembered why I was so obsessed.

“The Hunger Games” is one of the most successful examples of the dystopian genre, which typically follows characters in an imagined, futuristic society as they attempt to deal with its flaws. If you were in middle school or high school sometime in the early 2000s or 2010s in the United States, chances are you read at least one dystopian novel for your school curriculum. Books like “1984,” “Brave New World” and “The Giver” were often analyzed in English classes for the cautionary tale they created for modern society. I would need both hands to count the dystopian novels my middle and high school required me to read, and I always loved this genre for its captivating world-building and relatable characters. But something has changed recently; for some reason, there is not much new content being produced in the dystopian genre, especially in film. It needs to be brought back. 

There was a point in time when dystopian books and movies were being churned out like they were being made on assembly lines. This is not so any longer. It seems as though these books and films stopped being produced because they weren’t as successful in terms of revenue. Many argue that this decline was a result of many dystopian plots being too similar. They focused on the world ending and some teenagers somehow stopping it — and always with a love story somewhere in the mix. While I get where these arguments are coming from, I, for one, am a complete sucker for these plot lines. These genres become popular because readers enjoy particular tropes or plot types, and are thus more inclined to read books that include them. These dystopian films were adaptations of novels the young adult demographic consumed and loved, but the genre has all but disappeared. 

The dystopian genre has existed for centuries, originating as a byproduct of the utopian genre. Often incorrectly credited for being the first dystopian novel, “1984” by George Orwell emerged following the Second World War. Although it was written 75 years ago, its central themes are still prevalent today. Dystopias are used as vessels to make the general public understand the things wrong with society by showing us what could happen if certain institutions are given too much power. “1984” hyperbolizes censorship and government control, two concepts that people still use today to draw attention to violations of free speech.

Following the emergence of the “Me Too.” movement and laws banning abortion, many activists made direct comparisons between modern-day America and the 1985 dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale” to caution the public of what could come from government regulation over female anatomy. These novels have made social justice issues more apparent and digestible to their readers. So why aren’t there more dystopias now, especially in a time of political unrest and when a strong “us” versus “them” attitude serves as a foundation for policy and political campaigns?

The general decline in dystopian novels is likely a direct response to restrictive legislation in public schools that resulted in many of these dystopian novels ending up on “banned book lists.” “1984” is the most banned book of all time in America because its themes are considered too controversial and its sexual content is too inappropriate. Despite being based on Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia as a warning against totalitarianism, it is still considered “controversial” and even challenged in court as “pro-Communist.” These themes were deemed controversial enough that the book was censored — ironic, considering the whole point of the novel was to show that a government’s ability to censor and control citizens will result in loss of identity and individuality — suggesting that those in power did not want it consumed by students, a demographic known for its influential role in revolutions and activism.

“The Hunger Games” did not escape this banned book fate: It was found on the American Library Association’s most challenged books list due to “insensitivity, offensive language, violence, anti-family, anti-ethic and occult/satanic” content. While the book does have graphic scenes of violence, it is clear that this is not the true reason people banned it. “The Hunger Games” has an anti-government control narrative and draws attention to important cultural issues, such as using suffering for entertainment. “The Hunger Games” shows the power people have when they come together on common issues and the ability for the subjugated to start a revolution. This is a potentially threatening message to the people in power, so it’s no surprise the story is being censored. 

We cannot allow censorship to result in the downfall of a genre meant to draw attention to social issues. The dystopian genre is an important one for students to consume and study, not only for its social commentaries, but also as a piece of literature that is essential to our history. Authors and creators should not be discouraged by the decline in the genre because there is still plenty of popular interest for dystopias. These stories are especially relevant now and deserve to be brought back. 

I’ll be rooting for them, and I hope the odds are ever in their favor.

Lara Tinawi is an Opinion Columnist writing about campus culture and her everyday musings. She can be reached at ltinawi@umich.edu.

The post Bring back the dystopian genre appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

Maybe it’s the idea of an entirely undiscovered universe or the idea of being stuck in a metal tube for who knows how long, but I have never been a fan of space. If the world was ending and I had to choose between going into space or staying on Earth, I’d choose Earth. Growing up watching movies and shows like “Armageddon,” “Interstellar,” “Gravity” and “The 100,” each filled with tragic death and horrible living conditions, I never really thought space was the salvation of mankind. Why would I want the fate of these fictional characters? 

The human race sent the first person into space in 1961, but the fascination and study of space have existed for thousands of years. From Babylonian astronomers to ancient Greek philosophers, we have been trying to understand the universe we inhabit since the first and second millennia B.C. This curiosity is natural and I’ll even admit I went through an astrology phase myself, trying to read the stars and understand what they meant. It made sense to me that the time and place you were born could heavily impact personality, and I connect to the idea of everyone having a fate, whether or not they choose to follow it. While I can guess your rising sign like no one’s business, I can’t see why we are investing so much time, money and resources into space exploration when we are quickly approaching irreversible climate change here on Earth. In 2023, $32.33 billion were distributed to NASA by the federal government, accounting for 0.3% of the total U.S. federal budget. And yet, the agency plans to spend only $6.48 Billion.

Rene Castro Salazar, assistant director at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, said in 2019 that an investment of about $300 billion “will stabilize the atmospheric changes, the fight against climate change, for 15-20 years.” NASA has $25.85 billion dollars they don’t plan to use, a sum that would cover 8% of a life-changing sum that could contribute to saving the Earth, and it is going to waste. 

While there are currently many climate change initiatives attempting to repair the damage to the ozone layer and reduce the global temperature, if the global initiatives continue on their current track, the average global temperature will increase 2.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2030. This disastrous leap would cause catastrophic damage to the earth in the form of heat waves, flooding and more. Not enough is being done to repair the damage to the Earth, and not enough resources are being allocated to the issue. Meanwhile, space exploration is receiving billions of dollars they do not plan to use, and it has yet to find a suitable alternative to Earth should the apocalypse occur.

Billionaires like Jeff Bezos say they spend more money on climate change than space travel, but there’s still a public desire by him and others such as Elon Musk to commercialize space travel, build space hotels and colonize Mars. It’s their money and they can do with it what they like, but why are billionaires so invested in getting to space? Maybe it’s because they grew up watching “Star Trek,” which Bezos himself admits to being a fan of. Maybe they all heard the phrase “reach for the stars” and took it a little too literally. Some have even called this modern Space Race among billionaires a “wasteful ego contest.” With money there is power, and when the people in power dedicate massive amounts of funding to things such as space exploration, they have the potential to influence a great number of people.

Space exploration itself has its flaws. In the first stage of a rocket launch, 116 tons of CO2 are emitted in 165 seconds. Because the rocket pollutants are released closer to the mesosphere and in the upper parts of the atmosphere, this pollution lasts for a longer time than that emitted by low-flying aircraft. Pollutants emitted by rockets are also almost 500 times more efficient at holding heat in the atmosphere than all sources of soot combined. Though space exploration is not the largest contributor to pollution, the rise in space tourism could change this. Our attempts at finding a second chance should the Earth fail are hastening our impending doom as our planet is becoming uninhabitable.  

Why are we trying to find another planet for the human race to inhabit when we have evolved and developed here on Earth? The idea that Earth is the only planet in the entire universe with inhabitants is entirely unrealistic. I have always believed that there are aliens out there, but not funny green blobs or scary parasites that come out of your chest. If we continue to increase the funding for space exploration, we could colonize and find another planet to hold humans, but I don’t see why we should. We have proven we cannot take care of our home planet because this climate crisis is a direct result of the actions of humans. Who is to say that we won’t bring the same troubles we have experienced on Earth somewhere else? This might be a pessimistic view of the human race, but we need to face the problems we have created instead of trying to run away from them. 

Let’s say that we miraculously create spaceships that can support human life for decades-long travel and find another planet: Who gets to go? Logically, we would need people with professions such as farmers, doctors and engineers to create a sustainable living environment. It can be argued that once we’re up there, we won’t really need the billionaires that are obsessed with space. Their money will have no use on Mars or in the process of dealing with aliens, and I think they know that. Of course, you can’t really tell the people funding this backup plan they are not needed, so on the ship they will likely go. When it comes to everyone else, though, we can’t decide who is worth saving, or who should do the saving. It is a situation bound to end in disaster because it will be a decision made by what one person believes is best. Don’t worry, I’m taking myself out of the picture. I’ll wave goodbye to the ship and enjoy the apocalypse. 

Just because I believe that deciding who gets on the ship will be a disaster doesn’t mean I think no one should be able to. If such a situation were to happen, I can only hope that everyone who wants to go is able to, but that’s unrealistic. The people in power will decide. Consider getting in touch with some billionaires if you want to throw your name into the mix. 

For those who are not completely terrified as I am of the endlessness of space, and dream to travel beyond this atmosphere, I hope one day you will get there. But more than anything, the Earth is in crisis, and the clock is ticking on how much time we have left to save it. The solutions to this problem cannot be found in the stars.

Lara Tinawi is an Opinion Columnist writing about campus culture, society and her everyday musings. She can be reached at ltinawi@umich.edu. 

The post Rejecting the final frontier  appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

When I received my housing contract in July of 2022, I was immediately excited because all I could think was, “I’m not on North Campus!” I did not realize that the “Hill” housing I was assigned to was actually half a mile away, which felt like false advertising. I tried to stay optimistic my first few days on campus, but the mile walks I took in the heat before I figured out the bus system made it difficult. Thus began my doomed, toxic relationship with Oxford Houses.

When I tell people I live at Oxford, they tend to reply with, “Oh, where’s that?” Oxford Houses is the second smallest mixed gender Residence Hall, after Fletcher Hall, at the University of Michigan. It is advertised as a “quiet residential neighborhood” that’s only a “six-block walk” to Central Campus. The walk to Mason Hall, a building that most freshmen will have a class in at some point, is a mile long and half a mile from the nearest bus stop. During the weekend, the bus only runs from 5:00 p.m. until 9:45 p.m., resulting in residents frequently making the walk to Central Campus in all weather conditions.

This might seem like a completely livable environment for students who receive their housing assignments over the summer, all of whom are anxious, excited and ready to move in. What they do not tell you about Oxford is that it’s right by the fraternities, and you will get no sleep before 3:00 a.m. during Welcome Week. Plus, walking a mile during a snowstorm to the library for your group assignment on a Sunday morning is an easy way to guarantee a cold. Moreover, having to walk back from a Saturday night football game in the rain for 45 minutes will result in you crashing on a friend’s floor anywhere closer to campus than Oxford. 

The University has failed the 353 residents of Oxford by advertising this façade of a small, tight-knit and quiet community. Oxford was built in 1963 and has yet to receive any renovations. It lacks features like air conditioning, more than one water bottle station per building or doors to the showers instead of curtains. Oxford is home to the Sustainable Living Experience, which describes Oxford as a “unique wooded residential neighborhood near the Nichols Arboretum.”

An opportunity for the SLE members is to gain the opportunity to make their living space more sustainable, but it is difficult to see the difference the SLE is making. The only requirements for the experience are to live at Oxford, take SLE seminars and contribute to an inclusive community. It seems as though the University is using a lack of amenities like air conditioning as an environmentally-friendly position to justify the existence of Oxford. Was not having power for two days at the beginning of winter semester all in the name of sustainability? 

With its lack of amenities and student experiences, Oxford is the worst residence hall on campus. It needs upgrades and attention from the University in order for it to keep functioning, especially after the construction of the new residence hall on Elbel Field. Unlike Bursley and Baits, Oxford lacks spaces nearby like the James and Anne Duderstadt Center, Pierpont Commons and the North Campus Recreation Building to study in or meet up with other students. There are small common areas in each house, but they are impractical for those who are meeting up with a resident at Oxford for things such as a group project. The dorm room designs are flawed as well: The two-person suites lack the space for both a desk and a bed if the bed is not fully lofted. This forces many residents to leave their desks in the common area, where suitemates are piled on top of each other when trying to study. The design of the room is simply impractical for the needs of many students.  

Oxford is near an elementary school, fraternity and sorority houses and off-campus housing. It is not “on-campus” in any way. It is surrounded by sidewalks that are not regularly shoveled because they are not owned by the University. This results in patches of ice throughout the entire walk to Central Campus on the weekend when the buses aren’t running in the winter. It is ridiculous to assume this is a doable trek for all students, or that the spaces in Oxford are a suitable replacement for nearby academic buildings when they simply are not. 

To alleviate the trouble for students in the winter time, providing buses that run throughout the day on the weekend, and even running the Oxford Shuttle bus route alongside the Diag-to-Diag or Northwood Express routes would provide students with more opportunities to get to Central Campus. It is unreasonable to expect Oxford residents to walk to campus on the weekend any time that isn’t 5 p.m. to 10 p.m., especially during Michigan winters. 

Maybe I’m just holding a grudge, but I will say my opinions on Oxford have remained unchanged since move-in. It feels like because Oxford is such a small residence hall in comparison to the others on campus, it does not receive the same care, attention or resources from personnel or janitorial staff. While reasonable to assume Oxford would have fewer staff due to its size, the general lack of personnel can lead to a feeling of neglect by residents. Living in Oxford should be a choice because of its lack of amenities and staff, given to people who find the seclusion and distance an appeal. Simply putting a question on the housing application for students asking if they are interested in living at Oxford would provide those with the opportunity to choose this location for themselves.  

There are plenty of happy people at Oxford who don’t mind living there because they either enjoy being close to the fraternities or prefer the overall seclusion from the bustle of Central Campus. But there are also many people at Oxford who would prefer living basically anywhere else on campus. I am one of them. I will not risk getting frostbite because the University cannot see the issues with making students walk in zero degree weather. This is my formal breakup with Oxford Houses. It’s time for Oxford and the University to do some reflecting on this relationship. 

Lara Tinawi is an Opinion Columnist and can be reached at ltinawi@umich.edu.

The post Sorry Oxford Houses. It’s not me, it’s you. appeared first on The Michigan Daily.