CSG elections will take place March 29-30, vote at vote.umich.edu.

The University of Michigan community faces an important decision this week. All students in the University’s 19 schools and colleges are eligible to vote in the presidential election for Central Student Government, and though these elections have had a low turnout in the past, the CSG executive is still an influential position on campus, acting as the primary interlocutor between students and the U-M administration. The University’s student government has defined the campus conversation on a number of important issues, from successfully centralizing the vibrant Vietnam War protest movement on campus to eliminating general admission tickets for football games. These examples highlight two distinct roles that CSG has embodied in the past: a megaphone for nation-wide activism and a persistent voice for issues that affect students — particularly ones for which no other organization is as effective an advocate. 

It is with this dual mandate in mind that The Michigan Daily Editorial Board voted to endorse Zaynab Elkolaly and Salma Hamamy, running under the MPower ticket, for CSG president and vice president in the election on March 29 and 30. Though all four tickets interviewed by the editorial board would bring a wealth of experience and substantive proposals to the CSG executive, Elkolaly and Hamamy’s focus on accessibility, accountability and outreach set them apart. Multiple tickets expressed concerns about the culture and approachability of CSG; in the end, Elkolaly and Hamamy brought the best combination of concrete solutions and passion to address these issues and best improve the wellbeing of U-M students.

Elkolaly, the presidential candidate, is a senior in the College of Engineering Honors program, majoring in nuclear engineering with a minor in political science. Elkolaly has a well-documented background in student advocacy and University affairs. She served on the Coordinated Community Response Team, a University-organized initiative that assesses and works toward combatting the persistence of sexual assault on campus, and as the DEI coordinator within CSG itself. Through these efforts, and through a history of advocacy on issues ranging from criminal justice to climate change, Elkolaly has supported a diverse set of student voices. Outside of these spaces, she is energetically involved in different student organizations, such as the Arab Student Association and Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, giving her a unique perspective as an organizer, in tandem with her work in student government. 

Hamamy, the vice presidential candidate, is a senior majoring in Biology, Health and Society and Middle Eastern and North African Studies in the College of LSA. Aside from being a research and medical assistant, Hamamy has experience with various positions in LSA student government and in leading multiple projects. She was the Sisterhood Director for the Muslim Students’ Association, where she created a mentorship program and a sisterhood discussion series, and co-founded the organization One Mind At a Time, which seeks to improve literacy rates around the world. Like Elkolaly, Hamamy has a wide range of experiences in student government and student organizations, with a focus on building communities and working toward positive, material change.

Crucial to the MPower platform is inclusion: Elkolaly and Hamamy provide a set of innovative, actionable steps that not only promote true inclusion by uplifting voices on campus that are often left unheard, but also center the grassroots advocacy already embedded in this campus. Elkolaly and Hamamy’s commitment to uplifting student voices is best characterized by their support for the Ethical Investment Project, where they plan to “establish compensation to organizations engaging in activism and civic action” through a simple application process. Their platform also calls for solidarity with the Graduate Employees’ Organization, who just announced their plan to go on strike, and for reallocating Division of Public Safety and Security funding to organizations that are more focused on helping students, such as Counseling and Psychological Services and the Sexual Assault and Prevention Awareness Center.

Beyond that, Elkolaly and Hamamy are committed to increasing the accessibility and transparency of CSG’s Student Organization Funding Committee. The ticket told the editorial board they hope to provide public, periodic and detailed information on where CSG allocates student funds. This would go further than the financial transparency CSG currently offers, and would include graphics and presentations that are more accessible to students, such as a newsletter. Multiple tickets, including candidates serving on the CSG Assembly, expressed concern and confusion around CSG’s current financial transparency measures to the editorial board.

Elkolaly and Hamamy also emphasized simplifying the SOFC reimbursement application process, which they described as byzantine in nature. More than just streamlining the application form, the MPower ticket told the editorial board that they would like to prioritize SOFC funding for smaller or newly-formed student organizations, which often lack the financial resources to pay for events out-of-pocket and hope that SOFC is able to reimburse them later. Though we have concerns around SOFC giving student organizations funding up front — as those organizations might overestimate their expenses and ask for more money from SOFC than they need — Elkolaly and Hamamy’s commitment to helping clubs with fewer resources is clear.

Underlying the MPower platform and its initiatives is something undeniably unique about Elkolaly and Hamamy. Their ticket registered only two days before the deadline and — unlike the other three tickets we interviewed — without an associated party. The candidates told the editorial board they felt their campaign was more a result of necessity than desire. As representatives of student voices they consider often unacknowledged, Elkolaly and Hamamy decided to run to change the culture of CSG. They are not concerned about running without a slate of Assembly candidates, either. Elkolaly and Hamamy told the editorial board that they have strong relationships with Assembly members and would prioritize building a new coalition by making student government more hospitable to its own members and to communities outside of CSG.

After careful consideration of four persuasive CSG tickets, Elkolaly and Hamamy’s overwhelming commitment and authenticity convinced the editorial board to endorse MPower. By prioritizing an inclusive environment and delivering actionable proposals, we believe they will do an overwhelming amount of good for the University and its students should they be elected into office. Vote Zaynab Elkolaly and Salma Hamamy on March 29-30 for CSG President and Vice President.

The post From The Daily: Vote Zaynab Elkolaly, Salma Hamamy, MPower on March 29-30 appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

On March 7, 2023, University President Santa Ono was inaugurated as the 15th President of the University of Michigan, and was immediately greeted with a crisis inherited from presidents past. Promptly after his inauguration ceremony, freshly minted President Ono was met by hundreds of students in front of Hill Auditorium. Among those present were members of the Graduate Employees’ Organization carrying signs with their demands for the University, ranging from increased compensation to better healthcare coverage and childcare benefits. This picket comes on the heels of another unfruitful month of bargaining between the labor union and the University. On many occasions, GEO and the University have been able to come to a compromise — but at this moment in time, a strike is imminent. 

GEO last went on strike in Fall 2020; for nearly two weeks, thousands of graduate student instructors didn’t show up to work. Discussion sections went unattended, some professors canceled class in solidarity and, for some students, education ground to a halt. Despite allegations by the University that the strike violated the bargaining agreement the union signed — a claim the University is making again — GEO was successful: They were able to achieve better childcare options, greater support for international graduate students and a safer working environment at the height of the pandemic. This strike, although generally disruptive to the learning environment of the University and its students, increased the visibility of graduate student conditions and inspired the action of other student employees. 

Strikes are rarely a positive thing for the reputation of the aggrieving employer. Several times in its history, GEO has protested against the University, and each time these protests have negatively harmed the University’s reputation. Canceled classes, increased media attention and many dissatisfied members of the U-M community could prove unpredictably damaging to the foundation of the institution, and could even dissuade parents of high school seniors from sending their children to the University of Michigan. In an ideal world, the University would be able to take GEO’s concerns into consideration without taking damage to its public image. However, the University’s lackluster reactions to GEO’s demands and proposals have all but necessitated this drastic turn.

These consequences are revealing. If GSIs can turn the campus upside down it is proof of the critical role that graduate students play in the University’s operations. GEO is well within their right to strike and, in using that power to attempt to change the framework of campus, they are making their platform and purpose at the University known. Whether they are in classrooms or lecture halls, labs or offices, graduate students play pivotal roles in the functioning of the University and undergraduate students’ lives.

Undergraduate students will be one of the primary groups affected by the strike. Many undergrads interact with a Graduate Student Instructor almost every day, whether that be in a lecture hall, office hours or in a GSI-taught class. Although many undergraduate students support GEO’s cause, they are nervous about what a strike will mean for their academic experience, especially as the end of the term nears. The campus is looking down the barrel of a full fledged disaster, a dissolution of trust built between students and the University — between students who picket and students who will eventually cross the picket line. In addition to upset undergrads, the domino effect of disaffected parents and donors could cause the University an even greater headache in the long term.

It is important to recognize, however, that this point could have been avoided by action on both sides. There have been moments where GEO’s demands have seemed superfluous in comparison to their core grievances, and there is a chance that if they had been left out, an agreement would have been reached by now. But it is the University that has, more often than not, prevented progress: the U-M administration has failed to handle these negotiations artfully, downplaying the necessity of their solution and conclusion. GEO’s most important demand, a $14,500 raise (about 60%), was initially met with a paltry $481.10 (a 2% raise) in the first year. After months of negotiations, the University increased their counterproposal to $721.65 (a 3% raise) in the first year. Most recently, the University offered a 5% raise in the first year, followed by 3.5% and then 3% raises in the second and third years of the contract.

This is not to say that all of GEO’s requests are reasonable. For example, GEO’s request to limit discussion sections to 18 students is likely unattainable without a major increase in the number of GSIs employed, and even then would not be suitable for every course. Regardless, GSIs deserve competitive wages and should feel that the academic institution they are a member of is there to support them — not to diminish the importance of the GSIs’ other needs. It is of utmost importance that, in the midst of a strike, the University thinks critically about the impact such a protest will have on student life and campus culture. While also acknowledging the difficulty of meeting certain GEO demands, the University should come to a measured and considerate decision that not only reflects the importance of GEO’s requests, but also of the well being of both graduate and undergraduate students.

The post From The Daily: A strike would be bad on your record appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

The combined effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, academic pressure and socio-political stresses have created an environment wherein college students are often left feeling anxious, sad and hopeless. There is a greater need than ever for well-equipped therapy services for students, but, unfortunately, services at the University of Michigan are behind the curve. Counseling and Psychological Services, the campus agency that provides a range of mental health services and information to students, faces substantial barriers in terms of funding and capabilities. 

On Feb. 15, in an open letter to Martino Harmon, the University’s vice president for student life, CAPS staff provided a glimpse at the problems they face in their line of work, from uncompetitive salaries to rising turnover rates. These problems limit their capacity to work, which is to provide an essential service to U-M students who depend on their assistance for a variety of reasons. A stable staff, sustainable income and a high-functioning professional environment are necessary for the mental health services on campus to flourish, which must be provided by the University. University President Santa Ono should dedicate his administration to the betterment of CAPS services and cultivate an environment that values the mental well-being of all students, faculty and staff.

Nationwide, mental health practitioners have seen a significant increase in demand for services. In the same vein, on college campuses, practitioners have also seen major increases in demand for care, even prior to the pandemic, but this increased demand has not typically resulted in increased funding for campus mental health services. Harmon has stated his support for improving mental health, and helped launch a student mental health committee to outline a “broad institutional approach.” This is not the first time that CAPS has publicized its significantly increased demand, either; in 2016, CAPS director Dr. Todd Sevig noted a 20% increase in students requesting services for the fall semester in 2015. 

CAPS does not need to be absorbed by another service, such as University Health Service; rather, the University needs to bolster CAPS’s ability to fulfill its present scope of service. In its current form, students often have to wait for several weeks to get a consultation for services from CAPS — especially during peak periods in the fall semester. 

Increases in the budget allocated to CAPS outpaced inflation in all years except in fiscal years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. In 2019-2020, CAPS experienced a 21% decrease in funding, while in 2020-2021, the unit received no budget increase whatsoever. CAPS is budgeted for under the Vice President of Student Life office, which received a minuscule budget increase of 0.2% in 2020-2021.

Although CAPS’s budget for the current fiscal year increased the amount they have to spend by 13%, this has not been enough to meet industry standards or student demand. Salaries at CAPS are uncompetitive with peer institutions. A 2022 site visit by the International Accreditation of Counseling Services noted a “significant concern” that professional staff salaries are below similar positions at other universities and local and regional offices. In order to best retain quality staff members and to compensate for the difficult heavy caseloads they face in their roles, mental healthcare providers must be adequately paid. 

When tragedy strikes for students, CAPS is often the University’s first recommendation. In the wake of the Michigan State University tragedy, the first email from the University of Michigan’s Office of the President listed CAPS, the Faculty and Staff Counseling and Consultation Office, and the Michigan Medicine Office of Counseling and Workplace Resilience under support resources. During devastating and stressful events that impact students, CAPS is treated as a catch-all for short-term support. By increasing funding to CAPS to provide for staff needs, and therefore provide for current students, CAPS may become an even more sought-after resource when it is made more reliable. In order to decrease the pressures put on CAPS, and increase the available resources, students must be directed to other services already available to them, which — despite being left unmentioned in email sign-offs — are accessible through U-M health websites. 

Under “Resources for Stress and Mental Health” from UHS, CAPS is only one resource of many. To name a few, MiTalk provides online tools for students to manage stress and mental health; CampusMindWorks promotes post-mental health diagnosis information and resources with a searchable database; the University Psychological Clinic, while not paid for by student tuition, acts as a therapy and testing center; and Wellness Coaching supports student well-being in many aspects of students’ lives, from substance use to sexual health. Through the LSA Newnan Advising Center and the University Career Center, academically centered support is also an option for students. In addition to these U-M tools, there are also student organizations that offer community and mental health support, like Active Minds, PULSE and Wolverine Support Network.

CAPS cannot efficiently and proactively exist as an all-encompassing office for mental health and student struggles, particularly when it is not meant to be used for long-term support. On average, students seeking services from CAPS attend 3.5 sessions, though it is unclear if one of these sessions counts as the required initial consultation. After five sessions, it is much less likely for students to receive continued counseling from CAPS: when students’ needs are “beyond CAPS’s scope of practice,” or past the individual session limit, referrals to therapists and health care outside of the University are provided, though not consistently. An optional standardized referral process could aid interested students in finding reliable help after CAPS, as well as increase the organization’s reliability and the overall long-term health of students. 

This Editorial Board is optimistic about the University’s recent decision to partner with Uwill, a teletherapy service. In a Daily news article, the U-M Public Affairs department stated that reviews from 450 pilot program participants were positive; as Uwill is opened up to the whole campus, we hope that CAPS and Uwill are better able to absorb student demand. However, even if this development may lead to a better mental health situation on campus, it does not substitute for responding to CAPS’s needs. The University should still meet with CAPS and determine a competitive salary increase. 

A tuition-supported service made available after CAPS sessions would also be helpful for students. They could be matched to a stable and reliable mental health clinician that fits their specific needs without the concern of high therapy costs stopping them. While plenty of students seek only the short-term counseling promised by CAPS, referrals to longer-term care should be made consistently. Alongside referrals, the University should better advertise low-cost, long-term possibilities outside of CAPS that would serve the interested student population. CAPS cannot be the only student resource listed at the end of an email, nor should it be the only option for U-M students, for the benefit of both CAPS employees and the students that CAPS services. 

CAPS is too often the only option for U-M students seeking counseling, but it should not be. For students without expendable resources to search for therapy services, and for those who do not want their guardians notified that their insurance is being used for therapy, CAPS is likely the best option. Given the centrality of CAPS in many students’ pursuit of therapy services, we cannot diminish the importance of funding this campus unit and supporting its clinicians. Even if CAPS cannot provide students with long-term support, the program should be allotted the resources to be effective in the short term. CAPS would not only be able to better support students by providing a first step in therapy services, but it would also serve as a more effective referral point for more long-term therapy options.

The post From The Daily: UMich needs to capitalize on mental health resource improvements appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

Over the past few months, ChatGPT has dominated the conversation around artificial intelligence and machine learning. The model comes close to, and in some cases surpasses, the capabilities of humans to communicate and produce high-quality writing. Much of the debate around ChatGPT is focused on how it will impact university students and professors. With the benefits of AI, though, come the risk that ChatGPT will be used for cheating — something professors and University administrators are already moving to address. It is incumbent on the University of Michigan to take steps now to maintain the ability of professors to evaluate students, while ensuring that graduates are not left behind their AI-familiar peers. 

It should be noted that ChatGPT has many practical uses for both students and instructors that remain outside the realm of cheating. As the model is still occasionally prone to giving incorrect answers to tests of reasoning, tasking students to correct the mistakes made by ChatGPT allows them to understand common errors that even a chatbot may make.

Students can also use ChatGPT to better comprehend their assignments. When it comes to long, dense readings where didactic jargon abounds, the chatbot can help summarize and explain concepts to the student. This can also be applied to code, where a student can ask ChatGPT to explain a certain chunk of code or where an error was made.

ChatGPT’s usefulness is not limited to tests of reason or code; it can also be a helpful resource for writing and discussion without doing all the student’s work. OpenAI’s essay outline feature provides topics of discussion and counterargument, as well as a structure a student may not consider. Simply chatting with the bot can even act as a jumping off point for inspiration and creation. With ChatGPT’s ability to generate prompts, debate ideas and give suggestions, there is certainly no shortage of positive aspects to this technology that we can embrace in the classroom.

Though ChatGPT can be a helpful tool in assisting students with their schoolwork, some of the tasks that it can help with go beyond assistance, such as writing full essays and solving schoolwork. This capability of ChatGPT creates complications for professors to ensure academic integrity on the assignments they task students with.

If students misuse ChatGPT as a means to cheat, rather than as an educational aid, the integrity and meaning of work assigned by professors can become compromised. ChatGPT, while being a very valuable tool in learning, begins to diminish some of the key aspects of learning by completing tasks intended to be completed solely by students. 

Alongside its ability to complete tasks for students, ChatGPT also creates problems as a continuously evolving AI model. Although it is currently still being officially updated by its developers, OpenAI’s goal for the AI in its public testing is to train it to update its own policies, making it self-updating to an extent.

ChatGPT’s continuous updates create new problems for educational institutions, including the University of Michigan. At the forefront of these problems is how the University can keep up with an AI that is continuously evolving at a rate that may be difficult to keep up with. To do this, changes must be made to the way classes are structured.

The drawbacks and benefits of ChatGPT aside, it is clear that the growth and development of AI technology is unlikely to slow down anytime soon. So, where does that leave educational institutions, and more importantly, professors, for whom the task of genuine work grows bigger everyday?

Interestingly, with the pandemic leading to an unprecedented rise in the use of digital resources inside and outside the classroom, there is a belief that people are simply learning at a slower rate than before. Although not the most robust piece of evidence, a decrease in the average score of standardized tests since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequent increased use of remote learning, could be an example of the inverse relationship between learning outcomes and remote learning. Regardless, it isn’t too far-fetched to suggest that an over-reliance on technology and the increased difficulty of professors to keep students engaged during remote learning has led to a learning loss. 

In what could be a pivotal moment in the education industry, teachers are being challenged to combat this phenomenon while technology, especially EdTech, grows at an exponential rate. However, it is crucial to emphasize here that there is no one right solution. Whether instructors want to incorporate ChatGPT, and technologies of a similar ilk, within their syllabi or discourage their usage, there are multiple avenues to explore, each with its own pros and cons. 

We believe that frequent, low-stakes, in-person tests, in the form of short quizzes or assignments at the end of every class or week is a good way to keep students in the classroom and attentive. That way, even if students are using ChatGPT to assist them with their assignments, they are still held responsible for understanding the most important concepts. Coupling that with courses that are more discussion and participation based might further encourage students to interact with the material in a meaningful way. 

Furthermore, in order to harness the advantages of having such technology at our disposal, universities could consider having more courses catered towards the ethics of AI and AI literacy, as the key to avoiding the pitfalls of a resource like ChatGPT is knowing how to use it. Those pursuing majors like computer science could potentially have a required class addressing such topics to ensure that colleges are handing degrees to students who are not only capable, but also responsible in the fields in which this technology is most prominent. 

Regardless of how all the potential advantages and complications this technology will bring to the classroom balance out — or don’t balance out — the onus of using it responsibly will be on students. Software and applications that can help students sidestep the honor code or find the easy way out in a class have always existed, such as translators for foreign language classes or just a simple Google search. The choice of whether or not to use them, however, has always been with students — and that was true long before ChatGPT. What it comes down to, as it always has, is how we want to shape our educational journey. AI technology has the ability to expand our knowledge and skill sets, but only if we use it correctly and with integrity.

The post From The Daily: How should we let ChatGPT change education?  appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

On Dec. 7, 2022, Central Student Government unanimously passed a resolution encouraging the University of Michigan to include the cost of laundry in room and board. Though well intentioned, there are significant climate, capacity and efficiency issues posed by this proposal. By untethering laundry from market forces, students are incentivized to use laundry for, say, a single shirt, which would both be extremely wasteful of water while simultaneously blocking other students from using the laundry machines. While CSG raises important points about the inability of students to offset the cost of laundry with financial aid, their proposed system is not the way to achieve equity. We, instead, suggest that the University could include a certain number of additional Blue Bucks in room and board, and ensure those Blue Bucks can be used for laundry. Alternatively, they could adopt a policy in the framework of the printing stipend, wherein every freshman is given some quantity of free laundry.

CSG’s plan calls to increase student housing costs by $100 (to a number seemingly chosen based on, among other sources, a 2014 article in The University Daily Kansan) at a flat fee for every student — allowing financial aid to cover the cost of laundry for eligible students. In return, the University would make laundry machines available free of charge to all M-Housing residents. Both this Editorial Board and CSG acknowledge that laundry reform is necessary; there exists compelling reasons for eligible students to be able to use financial aid to cover the cost of laundry, alleviating some of the hidden costs associated with college.

CSG’s proposed system would create a laundry system similar to the dining halls: Students pay a large up-front cost at the beginning of the year and are free to use unlimited swipes through the term. Yet the prospect of giving students unlimited laundry swipes raises several concerns. Without the cost to limit student laundry use, crowding in laundry rooms would increase as well as the amount of wasted water and detergent.

Luckily, there are multiple solutions to this problem that allow students to: A) use financial aid on laundry costs to utilize market forces to prevent overuse, and B) not be penalized for frequenting the laundry rooms less often. It’s a system we are all familiar with: Blue Bucks — but with an increased allowance to account for laundry.

Raising the Blue Bucks limit to be inclusive of laundry fees supports the variability with which students do laundry, and is already used by other universities. An additional, say, $50 raise in the allotted Blue Bucks per semester places more autonomy in students’ hands. Students would have the power to delegate a portion of Blue Bucks to spend on cleaning their wardrobe and use the remaining balance on other University amenities. In this instance, students wouldn’t feel compelled to compensate for the flat fee they already spent on laundry to “get their money’s worth.” The Blue Bucks alternative also teaches freshmen important skills about budgeting for what they need and spending on what they want. 

Because Blue Bucks is already a campus-wide currency loaded onto one’s Mcard, there would be little-to-no extra transition costs to add $50 to every student living in campus housing’s accounts. The financial and software systems are already in place to support laundry subsidization, and it is clear that this alternative can be easily adopted and trackable as early as next semester. 

Despite the merits of a Blue Bucks increase, this solution is, in part, fraught. By tying laundry to meal plans via Blue Bucks, you run the risk of a freshman — completely new to the world of budgeting — unloading their entire laundry allotment on Panda Express and Sweetwaters within the first week of the semester. Fortunately, another option, an independent stipend solution, could be to create a separate fund for laundry, similar to the student printing budget. 

U-M students currently receive a $24 printing budget per term that can be utilized on any University printer. Students are also able to add more funds to their printing budget if they reach their $24 limit. If the University determined that each student could receive a $50 laundry budget per semester, for example, market forces would still limit laundry room use and congestion, and frequent washers would still have the option to add more funds to their laundry budget throughout the semester. Students would have fewer options to use excess laundry funds, but by implementing a stipend exclusively for laundry, we eliminate the risk of spending laundry money for other costs, such as eating out.

The new CSG proposal does not address the cost of additional resources needed on the periphery of just one washing and drying cycle, including dryer sheets, detergent, bleach, fabric softener and more. An increased Blue Bucks allowance accounts for these additional costs because of its premise that students will ultimately buy what they need — including cleaning supplies. If CSG hoped to minimize laundry inequality on campus, they could use some of their substantial budget to subsidize detergent costs.

There may be better solutions to this issue than the stipend or Blue Bucks alternatives; however, the CSG proposal for complete laundry subsidization lacks a deeper consideration of student habits, transition costs and sustainability. To promote a more inclusive and cost-effective mechanism for facilitating dorm living, the University needs to reconsider, in some way, the rising cost of laundry services. And with an endowment of over $10 billion more than neighboring, free-laundry institutions like Michigan State University and the Ohio State University, the University’s time to come up with a solution is up. As cleaner habits lead to improved academic performance, an effective plan to diminish barriers to laundry would proliferate the success of students in the classroom going forward.

The Daily’s Editorial Board, hosted within the Opinion section, meets weekly to discuss issues important to our community. The Michigan Daily is committed to publishing a diversity of Op-Eds & Letters to the Editor. Submission instructions can be found on our website.

Editors’ note: An earlier version of the piece stated that CSG’s annual budget is $800,000. This figure is outdated. An earlier version of this piece likewise implied that CSG’s only support for the $100 figure was a piece from the University Daily Kansan. Though the article for that publication is cites the $100 figure, there were more sources for the dollar range.

The post From The Daily: CSG’s laundry proposal is well-intentioned, but wasteful appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

Last month, University of Michigan President Santa Ono revealed the University’s plans to construct a new undergraduate residence hall on Elbel field, which is located southeast of the South Quad Residence Hall. It will primarily house incoming freshmen, with a proposed capacity of 2,300 students. The building’s location on Central Campus is intended to help alleviate the growing demand for on-campus housing among students. 

“Demand among students for affordable, on-campus housing on or near Central Campus continues to rise,” said Martino Harmon, vice president for student life, at a Board of Regents meeting. Harmon, among other faculty members, are hopeful that the addition of the new building will help address problems of limited housing for the University’s growing student body. 

With the University continuing to admit record-breaking numbers of students, this reaction does not adequately contend with the scope of the housing problem within Ann Arbor. Though much of the stagnation in housing construction in Ann Arbor is the result of city land use policy, the University has a golden opportunity to increase the number and variety of housing options available to students. Essentially, it’s time to think bigger.

The last residence hall for first-year students at the University was constructed in 1963, making the addition on Elbel the first expansion of freshman housing in about six decades. By not expanding its housing capacity and the variety of offerings, the University has left many students with no other choice than to seek off-campus housing. An astonishing 72% of students currently live off-campus, where they are left to grapple with the high rent and limited availability of housing in the Ann Arbor area. In luxury apartment complexes such as Sterling Arbor Blu, rent rates can range anywhere from $1,694 to $2,644 per month, per bedroom. Consequently, the Ann Arbor student housing market has historically been ranked as one of the most expensive in the Midwest. Although Elbel is a step in the right direction at addressing the housing crisis, it comes as a temporary solution to a deeper-rooted problem. 

The new Elbel Field residence hall comes at a time when housing in Ann Arbor is as competitive as ever. With rent for a studio apartment averaging $1,684 a month and over two-thirds of apartments costing upwards of $2,000, many U-M students are searching for cheaper housing options amid the growing costs. 

This search is often difficult, especially for first-year students, who have to navigate through a competitive and sometimes carnivorous housing market for the first time. The additional rooms and living spaces that the dorm on Elbel Field will offer for students who choose to stay in on-campus housing, however, will make the market better even for students who choose to live off campus. The fact that 2,300 fewer students will be bidding up the price of off-campus housing will surely assuage pain to renters caused by the supply-constrained Ann Arbor housing market, at least initially. As long as the number of the entering freshman class continues to outpace the construction of new housing units, though, the core problem will not be solved.  

For the 2022-23 school year, the average monthly cost of on-campus housing for a double room setup is just under $1,172 dollars (or $10,545 for a nine month period). Though this cost is cheaper than the average Ann Arbor apartment, it is still around $600 greater than the state average. And for upperclassmen who cannot find a spot in the dorms, there are a limited number of affordable choices — almost none of which are sponsored by the University. 

The Ann Arbor Cooperative Houses are an inexpensive option for housing, but the Inter-Cooperative Council at Ann Arbor comprises of just 16 houses throughout the city. The University has a similar option in Henderson House, a cooperative residence under MHousing that offers the social and practical amenities of an off-campus house and was designed explicitly for sophomores, upperclassmen and graduate students. However, Henderson House has a capacity of just 28 students. This is a living situation that could appeal to many upperclassmen and could be made more affordable than dorm-living — as residents are responsible for maintaining the house — if the University were to expand it.    

While incoming first-year students are somewhat sheltered from the housing problem, the University’s growing student population and the failure of University infrastructure to properly respond to it has resulted in many sophomores and upperclassmen struggling to find on-campus living. With roughly 97% of incoming freshmen choosing to live in residence halls, accommodation for others cannot be guaranteed. Space limitations placed the University in a difficult spot last fall when they had to deny placement of more than 2,300 returning students in the dorms.

This last figure is perhaps the most prescient point of this entire discussion; many current off-campus students want to live on campus. Additionally, those who don’t want to live on campus as a second-year or beyond are not averse for reasons of facilities or location, but because the University can not offer many of the intimate and pro-social living arrangements found in shared houses and apartments. Many of the Michigan Learning Communities offer this social environment — the guarantee of a stable community into a student’s sophomore year — and see students remain in the community beyond their freshman year at a higher frequency than in traditional dorms. Even then, the University only offers 10, some of which are specialized to an academic discipline or require a competitive application process. 

This is not unique to on-campus housing at the University of Michigan. Nationwide, universities have heterogeneous approaches to on-campus housing. From traditional dormitory living for freshmen, to apartments with kitchenettes for upperclassmen, there are plenty of ways that the University can make on-campus housing options more diverse. The Stockwell, North Quad and Fletcher Residence Halls have historically followed this model, catering their offerings and services to upperclassmen. 

If there were more tenable on-campus options for upperclassmen, such as university-sponsored cooperative houses, more Michigan Learning Communities or more on-campus apartments for undergraduates, students would be able to both live with friends while also not being subject to the cut-throat nature of the Ann Arbor housing market. 

A substantial increase in the variety and capacity of on-campus housing is, of course, a years-long endeavor. Nevertheless it is useful to set goals for our administrators as they consider the University’s place within a rapidly changing Ann Arbor. The new construction on Elbel Field is a good start to solving a dire problem and well worth the $6.5 million price tag.

Despite a nationwide dip in recent years, a near record number of Americans are attending college. Ever expanding application pools, especially to the nation’s most selective schools, have proven difficult to accommodate. After announcing the Elbel Field residence hall, Ono explained to The Michigan Daily that since 2004, undergraduate enrollment at the University has grown by 8,000 students.

Universities are not strangers to capacity problems. The University of California, Berkeley notably had its 2022-2023 enrollment temporarily frozen at 2020-2021 levels after a lawsuit from environmental groups. Berkeley’s housing crisis was a prime motivator for the freeze. Paired with a precipitously declining acceptance rate, the University of Michigan must contend with its place in a growing, gentrifying Ann Arbor. The University is responsible for much of Ann Arbor’s cultural and financial wealth, but its presence poses unique public challenges. Until this reckoning, though, the University ought to meet the satiable demand of its students: a new and varied housing stock to meet the needs of a growing community.

Editor’s note: A previous version of this piece stated the average monthly cost of on-campus housing for a double room was just under $1,300. The figure has been updated to exclude the cost of a meal plan and account for the nine-month contract period.

The post From The Daily: build, Santa, build appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

In the wake of the 2022 midterm elections, Michigan defied expectations of a red wave, reelecting Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and electing both a Democratic state Senate and House for the first time in nearly 40 years (although Democrats did hold the state House about 15 years ago). With this Democratic trifecta in power comes the opportunity to address education, make progress on workers’ rights and better leverage federal funds in Michigan.

Education

One concern this trifecta can address with regards to education is literacy. The Read by Grade Three Law requires schools to give reading and writing assessments to children in kindergarten through third grade. If a student falls more than one grade level behind proficiency, they must repeat third grade, which is ultimately unhelpful to students as it merely serves to set them behind their peers. A more favorable method of alternative education for students who fail the test would be to ensure that they can continue onto the next grade level with their peers and learn the skills they fall behind on with remedial education. 

In order to assure that the education system is addressing literacy throughout all parts of the state, state funds should be allocated to different school districts based on demonstrated need. While each district and student is different and there is no perfect spending plan, more can be done to address the fact that a large number of Michigan’s school districts spend at least 10% less than the national average on each student. The curriculum should also be standardized at the state level to minimize disparities in curricula from district to district and to ensure greater access to accelerated education programs for each district.

A more equitable learning experience can be furthered beyond the classroom in funding students’ access to technology and free lunches. Ann Arbor Public Schools, for example, were able to help level the playing field among students during COVID-19 by providing Chromebooks for remote learning to every student.

Not all school districts have the funds to provide adequate technology to each student, but as learning becomes increasingly dependent on technology, that must change. Also, during COVID-19, a federal program existed that allowed students to obtain free lunches. This program ended in July, but free and reduced school lunches are still needed urgently as rising inflation creates further food insecurity for low-income families. Free and reduced school lunches reduce food insecurity, obesity rates and poor health outcomes, making these programs paramount in maintaining healthy and equitable school environments.

These provisions, however, must extend beyond students and to teachers. Because teachers form the minds of the next generation, a minimum salary should be set statewide to retain teachers and to ensure a quality education for all Michigan students.

Workers’ Rights

Now that Democrats have won the governorship and the state legislature, they can holistically approach the issue of workers’ rights and reinvigorate the economy as we move past the immediate COVID-19 crisis. A first priority should be to repeal the “right-to-work” laws implemented by former Gov. Rick Snyder, which weakened union membership in the state to the point where union membership is currently at its lowest point in decades. Although it may seem backward to pay to work, unions require dues and fees to increase their bargaining power — which allows them to increase wages and safety in the workplace across the board. Decreased union membership allows companies to exploit their workers more than if they were unionized and decreases pay and equity, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. For the sake of workers during these increasingly uncertain times and record-breaking inflation, repealing Snyder’s anti-labor laws should be a top priority for this new trifecta government.

Another priority should be continuing to reinvigorate the economy after COVID-19. Michigan actually saw a higher GDP growth than the average U.S. state: 6.2% compared to the national average of 5.7% in 2021. Under Whitmer, the state had the best post-pandemic economic recovery in the nation. This trend, albeit hopeful for Michigan’s broader recovery after the 2008 recession, should be continued with smart legislation and policy that encourages investment without sacrificing the rights of the laborer.

One might say that repealing Snyder’s right-to-work laws would discourage companies from coming to and investing in Michigan. While that might be true to some degree, Snyder’s right-to-work laws didn’t attract companies from coming back after the recession either. Regardless, many companies are either outsourcing their labor to other countries. Further, would Michigan laborers want to sacrifice their rights to bolster the profits of distant CEOs, such as in Texas? Companies that would so brazenly violate the rights of their workers shouldn’t be welcome, under any circumstance. There are other ways to usher in economic prosperity without sacrificing the rights of the worker.

One way to do this is to assist in the broader shift in the automotive industry from fossil fuels to electric or hybrid vehicles. Michigan’s automotive industry is the largest in the country and makes up about 18% of the state’s labor force. It’s integral to the economy of the state and should be encouraged to develop and prosper with more climate-conscious means.

Renewable energy is a rapidly expanding industry, and Michigan could put itself at the forefront of this burgeoning industry through electric vehicles (EVs) and more. One strategy could be tax breaks or subsidies for firms manufacturing renewables and EVs. Encouraging movement of firms to Michigan while retaining environmental integrity would be fantastic. Retraining programs for workers shifting from more traditional manufacturing jobs into cleaner industries would be important as well.

Leveraging Federal Funds

In order to achieve the policy goals outlined above, the trifecta must manage and direct the use of federal funds in a productive manner. With the growing economic importance of developing innovative technology, the federal funding provided by the CHIPS and Science Act would allow Michigan to progress as a technology-manufacturing titan, if used correctly. The CHIPS and Science Act has put forth around $50 billion for semiconductor research and manufacturing in order to further bring back manufacturing jobs to the United States.

With Michigan’s history of being a manufacturing titan, mainly in the automotive industry, there is an opportunity for the state to start the transition from automotive manufacturing to technological manufacturing with the CHIPS and Science Act. If the Democratic trifecta can use the money allocated by the CHIPS Act to motivate technological innovation and manufacturing across the state, it will create millions of jobs and spur major economic growth.

Properly leveraging the funds provided by the CHIPS and Science Act would not only result in overt economic benefits but also further growth in many urban centers as well. Cities such as Detroit, Hamtramck and Dearborn — centers of the automotive industry — can also be hotspots for semiconductor and other technological development with the CHIPS and Science Act. This would not only help the individuals in the city but also revitalize the cities by reinventing the way money flows in and out of these areas. Furthermore, a focus on creating tech manufacturing jobs within the state would also provide local job opportunities for University of Michigan graduates.

Another area that the newly instated trifecta should focus on is counteracting climate change. With the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, there is now over $350 billion in federal funds to help fight climate change and support energy security, which means that a Michigan government focused on environmental policy could and should make great strides toward protecting the environment. The act itself explicitly provides a variety of Michigan-centered commitments to support cleaner air, electric vehicle production and lower energy costs.

The trifecta could use this newly allocated money in a plethora of ways. A newer form of climate-friendly infrastructure is the addition of solar panels on homes and other buildings. Subsidies, tax exemptions and other factors that would incentivize solar panel additions on homes could be enacted by the trifecta to spur individual motivation on environmentally progressive actions. A focus on solar panel construction and other progressive infrastructure would ensure that Michigan reaches its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050.

A third point of impact for the trifecta could be the opportunity to improve and develop various areas of infrastructure within the state with the newly enacted Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Without a doubt, infrastructure, including roads, clean water, accessible electricity and Wi-Fi and public transportation are some of the most important and pressing issues to the average Michigan citizen, and it is critical that this new trifecta take action on these pertinent issues.

With the $1.2 trillion set aside from the federal infrastructure law, Michigan, which has already shown some bipartisan momentum for infrastructure reform, should leverage these funds to revitalize intercity and intracity transportation as well as address other pressing infrastructural issues. This revitalization will not only go miles to spur economic growth but also provide a unique opportunity for Michigan to position itself as a leader in environmentally-centered infrastructure.

Following the 2022 midterm elections, Michigan is uniquely equipped to tackle some pressing issues like education and workers’ rights. The new Democratic trifecta should also seek to leverage the plethora of federal funds from the past few years to put Michigan back on the national map. This opportunity, which comes after nearly 40 years of divided government or Republican control in Lansing, is one that Whitmer and the Democrats ought not to squander. It’s time to capitalize on this opportunity by passing progressive legislation and thoughtfully reconsidering existing policies.

The post From The Daily: How Michigan Democrats can take advantage of their trifecta appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

After an extensive review, The Michigan Daily’s editorial board is endorsing Susan Baskett, Susan Schmidt, Rima Mohammad and Jeremy Lapham for Ann Arbor Public Schools Board of Education. This diverse group of candidates brings the experience and drive necessary to tackle the unique set of challenges facing AAPS today.

Susan Baskett 

Susan Baskett is the only incumbent in the race for the four open board seats. No matter the result this election season, at least three members of the Ann Arbor School Board will be new members without institutional knowledge of the board. Having a member with extensive experience is critical in ensuring continued student success. 

Baskett is an AAPS and University of Michigan alumna, and received her M.B.A. from Duke University before returning to Michigan to work for General Motors. Baskett is one of four candidates endorsed by the Washtenaw County Democratic Party.

While on the board, Baskett has served in a number of roles, including vice president. During her 19 years as a board member, Ann Arbor Public Schools has prospered; the district is consistently ranked as one of the best in the state, with 66% of students proficient for their age group in math and 70% proficient for their age group in reading.

Baskett has presided over a successful AAPS, and has detailed plans for its future in the areas of fiscal health, labor shortages and DEI-related issues. This combination of concrete priorities and a track record of tangible success leave her a natural choice for a voter interested in long-term prosperity for AAPS.

Susan Schmidt

Susan Schmidt is both a parent and a former educator who previously resided in East Lansing, where she served as the president of the East Lansing School Board. She has lived in Ann Arbor for the past nine years, where she has engaged meaningfully with the community. Outside of her K-12 teaching experience, she has experience as a tutor at the Washtenaw County Jail and with mentoring teachers in literacy instruction methods and classroom management. 

Schmidt’s platform is centered around the growing problem of low childhood literacy rates in Michigan school systems. As a strong proponent of removing barriers to literacy, she has championed addressing dyslexia among Michigan school children. Schmidt has spearheaded various campaigns in support of literacy legislation, and her efforts largely contributed to the passage of multiple Michigan Senate bills in support of early childhood screenings for reading disabilities.

While a majority of her efforts have focused specifically on strengthening literacy rates, Schmidt’s platform tackles a broad array of issues, consolidated into three areas: guaranteeing a safe and equitable learning environment, achieving academic excellence and ensuring fiscal responsibility. Throughout her platform, she emphasizes data-driven leadership and the importance of listening to all AAPS stakeholders. Her relevant knowledge leaves her well positioned to be adaptable to changing conditions while bringing decades of personal, professional and institutional experience.

Rima Mohammad 

Rima Mohammad is also running for the Ann Arbor Public Schools Board of Education. While Ann Arbor is rather diverse compared to the rest of Michigan, Mohammad believes that far more can be done to address gaps in equity and communication with underserved communities in the district. She has campaigned on offering more opportunities besides just school board meetings and surveys to give members of the district a voice in their public schools. Mohammad’s campaign for collaborative decision making in education stands to offer a profound impact on AAPS.

Mohammad is campaigning on making diversity, equity, inclusivity and antiracism core values of public education in Ann Arbor, and her background strongly supports these intentions. Along with being a resident of the Ann Arbor Public School District and a mother of four school-aged children, Mohammad comes from a family of Muslim refugees from Palestine. Considering Ann Arbor has a significant refugee population, with many people in this population being Muslim, this aspect of her identity — as well as the knowledge and perspective that come with it — would make her a strong asset to a board with diverse constituents. Professionally, she is currently a faculty member in the University of Michigan College of Pharmacy. This robust research background and ability to empathize with the needs of many of AAPS’ most vulnerable students make Mohammad a qualified and valuable candidate for the school board.

Jeremy Lapham

Jeremy Lapham’s campaign rests on five basic tenets — equity, evidence-based improvement, preparing for the future, teacher autonomy and community. He has campaigned on  a comprehensive DEI platform and on “preparing AAPS students for a modern global workforce.” To this end, his platform includes a section on increasing funding for before and after-school programming, with the goal of improving early childhood education and supporting working parents. 

Lapham’s background in nursing lends itself strongly to his campaign. Working as a school-based nurse practitioner in adolescent health, he is the only candidate who interacts with children in a school setting. As a single father of two children, he understands the challenges presented to single-parent families. He is a first-generation college student with degrees from Washtenaw Community College, Wayne State University and two master’s degrees from the University of Michigan School of Nursing and Rackham Graduate School. Having lived in Ann Arbor for 23 years, Lapham’s relevant background and education are supplemented by his firsthand knowledge of the community.

In accordance with his emphasis on DEI, he recognizes that each student’s ability to learn is a product of many factors outside the classroom, such as mental illness and poverty. To support this mission, he advocates for teachers, students, administrators and paraprofessionals to be educated on different mental disorders, such as anxiety, depression and ADHD. In addition to his mental health advocacy, he has been vocal about the vital role unlearning racism and ableism play in increasing DEI. He also plans on having schools serve as community centers, which would provide a breadth of resources to students. Lapham’s professional experience along with his emphasis on the whole student, inside and outside of the classroom, lead us to believe that he could do valuable work for the children and families of AAPS.

Have thoughts about our pieces? The Michigan Daily is committed to publishing a diversity of Op-Eds & Letters to the Editor. Submission instructions can be found here.

The post From The Daily: Vote Baskett, Schmidt, Mohammad and Lapham for school board appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

It’s the most wonderful time of the year! It’s not Christmas, but it is time for the biennial elections. On Tuesday, Nov. 8, Michigan voters will have the opportunity to vote for a variety of state-level politicians, including governor, Secretary of State and attorney general, as well as U.S. Representatives. Furthermore, three proposals will be on the ballot this upcoming Tuesday, covering several crucial policy areas.

Michigan voters can register until 8 p.m. on Nov. 8 and can do so in person at any township or city office or at the University of Michigan Museum of Art.

Gubernatorial Race

Occupying much of the recent discourse around Michigan politics, the race for governor is hotly contested. Democrat Gretchen Whitmer is up for reelection after spending the last four years in office. A near life-long public servant, Whitmer spent 13 years in the Michigan State Legislature. During her term as governor, Whitmer helped create thousands of jobs, increased funding for education and led the state through the pandemic.

She is opposed by Trump-endorsed Republican Tudor Dixon, who is new to politics and has spent her professional life working for her father’s steel foundry, as an actress and, most recently, as a conservative TV commentator. Key elements of Dixon’s campaign include increasing parental involvement in public schooling, opposing COVID-19 lockdowns and cutting down on corporate regulation.

The candidates’ divergent views and experiences are nowhere more apparent than on the issue of reproductive rights, which are at the forefront of many voters’ minds in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. 

Tudor Dixon opposes exceptions for rape and incest, but supports exceptions to protect the health of the mother. Despite her staunchly pro-life stance, Dixon stated in a recent debate she would accept the results of Proposal 3, which would codify reproductive rights in the state if passed. Even with this cession, Dixon has expressed her disapproval of the proposal, although she has stated that she does not believe abortion should be an issue for the gubernatorial race. While the proposal on the ballot should be the determining factor on the matter, this Editorial Board has concerns that even if it passes, Dixon may implement roadblocks to abortion access or fail to respect the outcome entirely, a concern enhanced by her refusal to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election. 

On the contrary, Whitmer is in full support of Proposal 3 and intends to uphold the rights guaranteed under Roe v. Wade. She has evidenced this commitment not only through her urgency to protect reproductive rights before the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but also through her continued advocacy for these rights since the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn. In the fallout of the June 24 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, she sued to block the enforcement of a strictly anti-abortion 1931 law that is still on Michigan’s books and has worked to share accurate information on abortion. If re-elected, she would seek to ensure that individuals have, and subsequently maintain, access to abortion care and other reproductive rights.

In addition to her advocacy for reproductive rights, another important issue Whitmer has been vocal about is gun control. In late July, Whitmer signed an executive directive aimed at reducing the amount of illegal guns and increasing compliance checks to identify those who cannot legally own a gun due to past criminal history. She has also expressed her support for background checks, secure storage and red flag laws. 

There is also room for improvement on Whitmer’s promise to “fix the damn roads.” Despite being a major aspect of Whitmer’s 2018 campaign, this goal has not been comprehensively met: There has been only a 4% increase in the amount of roads rated “in good condition” since Whitmer took office in 2019. Should Whitmer be reelected next week, she should be held accountable for the promises she so ardently made to voters. 

Even with these shortcomings, Gretchen Whitmer is the better candidate to lead the state of Michigan for the coming four years. Her track record has shown that she is a capable politician, in touch with Michiganders and aware of the issues most significant to Michigan. The other major-party candidate, Tudor Dixon, lacks experience and holds what many would consider extreme views. With consideration of all these factors, this Editorial Board endorses Gretchen Whitmer for Governor of Michigan. 

Secretary of State Race

The race for Michigan’s Secretary of State is between Democrat Jocelyn Benson and Republican Kristina Karamo. Benson, the incumbent, has had an extensive impact on improving access to the Secretary of State’s functions with her emphasis on making more functions of the SOS available online. While in 2018, only 28% of all Secretary of State-involved transactions, like renewing a drivers license, could be done online, today 60% can be completed without having to step foot in a SOS office. This increased utilization of digital operations has resulted in an average office visit time of just 20 minutes — a shocking figure when considering the notoriously long wait times previous generations have endured.

As the Secretary of State is responsible for overseeing elections and ensuring a fair and democratic process, Karamo’s spreading of election misinformation should be considered. Karamo openly discussed her opposition to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, a position insufficiently backed by disproved claims of voter fraud. In contrast to Benson’s established success in this position, Karamo’s continued reliance on scare tactics and conspiracy theories make her a less suitable choice for the position of Secretary of State and as such, the Editorial Board is endorsing Jocelyn Benson for Secretary of State.

Attorney General Race

Incumbent Democrat Dana Nessel is running against Republican Matthew DePerno for Michigan Attorney General. The position of attorney general holds significant influence, including the power to appoint state attorneys and the responsibility of investigating questions relating to elections and the removal of public officials — making the race extremely important in determining the future of Michigan’s justice system.

A topic of contention in the race is the investigation of DePerno for plotting to steal and tamper with election machines. As this investigation falls under the oversight of the attorney general’s office, Nessel appointed a special prosecutor to investigate DePerno in an attempt to avoid any conflict of interest. This showed her ability to be impartial and apolitical when necessary; an important characteristic for an attorney general. DePerno’s evident unpredictability makes Dana Nessel this Editorial Board’s preferred candidate.

District 6 House Race

The leading candidates in the U.S. House of Representatives race in Michigan’s 6th district, which includes Ann Arbor, are incumbent Democrat Debbie Dingell and Republican Whitney Williams. While Williams would be new to politics if elected, the Dingell family has a long-held political dynasty: Debbie was elected to her husband’s seat after almost 60 years of his service, and almost 22 years by his father before that.

Dingell vies for progressive policies related to health care and the environment. A proponent of expanding health care coverage, Dingell is working to restore previous protections under the Affordable Care Act. She has also worked on several pieces of legislation to increase fuel efficiency and protect the Great Lakes. In addition to these policies, Dingell advocates for progress within the automotive industry with a focus on uplifting new companies in Michigan.

Even though Williams’s website has an aesthetic flare that Dingell’s might not be able to compete with, it lacks substance relating to her stances on political issues. While there are not any glaring controversies related to Williams’s platform, its lack of specificity speaks for itself.

Considering the role Dingell plays on a national level, if she loses her incumbent seat, the House of Representatives will become one seat closer to having Republican Kevin McCarthy as the Speaker of the House. This will be dangerous not only to progressive initiatives but also the trajectory of American politics as a whole, as he would likely be influenced by some of the more extreme members of the Republican Party. Dingell’s seat is an important one that she should retain because of her involved role in the community and how she has wielded her role to help the constituents of the district. As such, this Editorial Board endorses Debbie Dingell for Michigan’s 6th district. 

State Senator Race

Other contentious races on the ballot in and around Ann Arbor are those for state senators, in which Democrat Sue Shink is up against Republican Tim Golding in District 14, and Incumbent Democrat Jeff Irwin is up against Republican Scott Price in District 15. District 15 will be the less controversial of the two races, as Irwin is in a generally safe seat. The District 14 race, however, is a highly competitive one, as it extends beyond Ann Arbor into rural parts of the state. 

Policy-wise, Shink’s goals for climate policy, pollution accountability and mental health support are more productive and rigorously outlined than Golding’s focus on family values and Second Amendment rights. Shink’s actionable policy goals lead this Editorial Board to endorse Sue Shink as District 14’s Senator. Given the fact that a Democratic majority within the Michigan Legislature would make policymaking more efficient under a Whitmer administration, we endorse Jeff Irwin as District 15’s Senator.

Proposals 1, 2 and 3

On the ballot alongside these elections are three ballot initiatives, labeled “proposals.” Equally, if not more important than the aforementioned races, these proposals concern the integrity of our state politics, the protection of democratic access and the safeguarding of reproductive rights for all Michiganders. It is key to take a similar degree of care in considering one’s choice on these initiatives, as their outcomes have the ability to determine the future of Michigan’s politics and the everyday life of its citizens.

Proposal 1 concerns term limits for state legislators and the requirement that they publicly disclose their personal financial assets and income sources. The initiative proposes the term limit for state officials be lowered from 14 to 12 years. Currently, state officials in Michigan are able to serve six years in the House and eight years in the Senate, but if this proposal were to be approved, they would be only be able to serve their tenure in one chamber of the Legislature. This would allow representatives to gain more experience in one chamber while also limiting the amount of time they spend in office.

The second section of Proposal 1 concerns the financial transparency of state officials. Michigan is just one of two states — Idaho being the other — that does not require elected officials to disclose their financial information. This aspect of the proposition is a common sense addition to the Michigan Constitution: politicians should be transparent about their earnings, as their constituents deserve the right to see who is funding their causes. 

The approval of Proposal 1 is essential in protecting the ethics of Michigan’s state politics. Placing additional term limits on officials and requiring that they be more open about their earnings creates a more democratic and honest system for Michigan citizens, leading this Editorial Board to endorse a “Yes” vote on Proposal 1.

The next initiative on the ballot is Proposal 2, which, if approved, would expand voting rights in Michigan, lengthen the period to vote by absentee ballot and allow for multiple forms of voter identification. The “Promote the Vote” initiative, as it is being called, would promote both election security and accessibility, variables that have become increasingly important since the previous election cycle. In approving nine days of early voting, Proposal 2 would allow for a transition to more equitable and flexible elections, wherein all eligible Michigan voters have the chance to participate in the election process. Voting “Yes” for this ballot initiative is a vote to enhance the integrity of state elections and grant more democratic voting access. As such, our Editorial Board endorses a “Yes” vote on this proposal. 

Proposal 3 is arguably the most notable of the aforementioned ballot initiatives. Also known as the “Reproductive Freedom for All” initiative, this proposition would establish the individual right for reproductive care for all Michiganders, including the right to make decisions about childbirth, contraception and abortion. It would also invalidate an abortion ban from 1931 which assigns criminal penalties for those who obtain or administer abortions in Michigan.

This initiative is the subject of current debate, with an extremely widespread “No” campaign that claims the proposition is “confusing” and “extreme.” But what this Editorial Board finds even more “extreme” is the alternative to the approval of this initiative: a “No” vote on the proposition leaves those who depend on reproductive health care in Michigan in a dangerous situation, one where the draconian 1931 ban could be enforced. It is essential that we approve this ballot initiative in order to validate reproductive rights and protect the future of abortion in the state of Michigan. As such, the Editorial Board recommends a “Yes” vote on Proposal 3.

Our vote has power, and it is essential that we recognize that fact. The future of the state of Michigan rests on the outcome of your vote, from your governor to your reproductive rights. You have the power to protect the lives, bodies and interests of Michiganders this year, and it is exceedingly important that you utilize your fundamental democratic right. Vote this year — in-person, early or on Election Day — and lead the change that you want to see in the state of Michigan.

The post From The Daily: Endorsements for the 2022 Michigan midterms appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

In recent years, the University of Michigan has been facing a problem common to many universities: too many students are enrolling in computer science courses.

To alleviate this, the University began by trying to hire new computer science (CS) professors, with limited success. Though the Department of Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) does have some new professors slated to begin teaching next year, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science course waitlists remain complicated, and faculty-to-student ratios remain low. 

It’s easy to understand why convincing established computer scientists to enter academia is so difficult, especially when the starting salary of programmers is so high. With such a high opportunity cost of entering academia, many would-be professors are choosing to stay in the professional world, leading to a national shortage of computer science professors.

Computer science is now the most popular major at the University, representing 11% of all undergrads. With more and more students enrolling in CS courses, CSE announced that new U-M students will need to apply to the major during their senior year of high school through the Common Application, making the entry process more similar to the Ross School of Business’s application method. This would help limit the class sizes in CSE courses, but it would also make the program far more competitive and less accessible to most U-M students. Though there would be an option to apply into the major as an “Enrolled Discoverer,” for those who find a love of CS once already at Michigan, the University has confirmed that these seats for Enrolled Discoverers would only account for a minority of CS spots. If a first-year student is admitted to the University but rejected from the CS program, they are disallowed from applying as an “Enrolled Discoverer,” an arbitrary limitation with seemingly limited utility for either thinning class sizes or choosing the best CS majors.

While there are reasons to critique this new University policy, the changes will have concrete benefits for the program. The University has long been praised for being one of the few top-ranked universities with an open CS major, but this hasn’t always worked to its advantage. Schools with closed CS majors, like the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) , have been able to keep class sizes small and offer more concentrations and electives. U-M students, on the other hand, must fiercely compete for spots in upper-level CS courses, and no concentrations are offered.

Though James Earl Jones routinely proclaims that “we are the best university in the world” at every home U-M football game, the differences between the computer science programs at UIUC and the University of Michigan tell a different story. Because of the more robust CS curriculum at Illinois — made possible through smaller class sizes — UIUC routinely ranks in the top 5 computer science programs in the country, beating Michigan while having a notably higher acceptance rate. 

Restricting the Computer Science major would lower class sizes and allow more specialization within the major. However, though changes to the Computer Science program as proposed might increase the University’s prestige at a national level and facilitate the management of class sizes, there are potential downsides to this shift. 

While the application will be open to any student interested in completing a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, there is an undeniable gap in the quality of high school education students across the country and at an international level receive, highlighting the socioeconomic gap between these groups of students and subsequently giving some students an advantage over others. Students who went to high schools that offered computer science courses will have the upper hand at the expense of those who never had access to the same resources. Even though the proportion of high schools that offer Computer Science courses has increased, disparities still persist. For example, Latino students are 1.4 times less likely to enroll in Computer Science classes than white and Asian students, thus reinforcing the status quo in an already fairly racially homogenous discipline. 

This, not even to mention the core question: how do we choose good computer scientists? High school applicants offer severely limited information to an undergraduate admissions committee. Getting an 800 on the reading portion of your SAT might impress an admissions officer, but what does it say about an applicant’s ability to build a neural net 10 years down the line? Specialization is good, and necessary in our modern economy, but we are sorely remiss if we intend to forbid students from studying whole disciplines at the age of 18.  

Moreover, limiting admission to students who are entirely sure they are going to major in computer science will limit the intellectual diversity of the major and, consequently, the types of computer scientists the University is sending out into the world. It is important to admit students who have interdisciplinary interests, which students who are still unsure that they want to study computer science are more likely to have. Knowledge in the humanities and the social sciences is necessary for jobs in the technology industry, as exemplified by demands for tech-savvy humanities professionals in Silicon Valley. That is not to say that every computer scientist needs to recite Hamlet in their free time, but rather that different, and incredibly valuable, outlooks are possible when a student draws from more places than just their core discipline. 

The restrictive application process may also run the risk of scaring students out of applying due to the rigor and high expectations of admissions. Many students might not apply out of fear that, because they have not already had a measure of CS education, they will be disqualified from studying computer science at the University for the rest of their undergraduate career. Remember, students rejected from the CS major when applying may not reapply as Enrolled Discoverers. On top of courses that already discourage students from continuing to pursue a specific degree program (weeder classes), the intimidating threat of not getting into the program initially, and therefore precluded from applying as an Enrolled Discoverer, forces prospective CS majors with less-than-stellar programming backgrounds into a cruel gamble.

In order to combat the challenges facing the increasingly understaffed program while maintaining the University’s commitment to equity, it is vital that the CS department explores alternative solutions in both the short and long terms. Since many classes are currently capped by the number of seats available in person, CS majors often find registering for classes incredibly challenging. Over the course of the pandemic, however, the CS department successfully experimented with remote options for courses, which often streamlined the core operations of classes by freeing resources to help with office hours and grading. In offering remote sections of each core course in the major, the CS department could allow more students to enroll in classes with minimal learning loss due to the existence of in-person supporting resources.

Though a closed major remains necessary until hiring can catch up, the CS department would also be well-advised to model its admissions process after the Ford School of Public Policy instead of Ross. While Ross admits a majority of its class as direct-admits out of high school and opens a limited number of highly competitive seats to students already at Michigan, Ford only allows students to apply at the end of their sophomore year. 

Among students, there’s some debate over the efficacy of each model. John Sader, an Engineering freshman and prospective CS major, told us that because CS, like Ross, is selecting for certain skills upon admission, “CS is different enough (from) other engineering disciplines,” for a Ross-type model to be appropriate. Kevin Ji, an Engineering junior in the CS program, on the other hand, argued that a Ford-like model is better since it would give students “a year or two to explore the major and decide from there.” For Sader though, what’s ultimately important is that the University is “transparent with the admissions process.” 

By restricting application to the major until students have completed the prerequisites necessary for it, the University can successfully limit the effects of the resource gap in CS high school education.

While hiring in the long run will likely catch up and make a return to the current program format possible, by using this moment to initiate a paradigm shift in the major, the CS department can enact positive long-term change. Though CS-adjacent programs like the School of Information (SI) and Data Science exist, the lack of a governing body over such majors makes sharing resources challenging. With a highly theoretical CS major, Michigan rigorously builds students’ foundations in the subject, but often fails to provide significant industry experience. SI, on the other hand, offers a curriculum highly relevant to the industry but suffers from a presumed lack of prestige relative to a CS degree. 

By creating a College of Computer Science in the mold of SI, for example, the University could offer a richer experience by offering concentrations, more CS-related majors and greater opportunities to explore electives. By investing in CS-related majors like data science and UX design, the University can cater to a wider set of interests and free resources in many current core classes. Additionally, because of the inherent crossover between majors, CS students in each major would be able to explore concentrations that overlap across disciplines, allowing for a well-rounded CS education.

Furthermore, this shift in program structure could also alleviate the hiring challenges the department faces. With more industry courses, a School of Computer Science could have PhD students and guest lecturers make up a greater component of its teaching staff. While most theoretical courses would still be taught by professors, many practical ones are better suited to the pedagogical style of those with industry experience. Overall, this long-term shift could prove tremendously beneficial to both the prestige and utility of a U-M CS degree, maintaining fair, competitive admissions standards while increasing the resources available to each student.

After struggling for years to maintain small class sizes and support the onslaught of new CS students entering the major, the University clearly needed to make a change in the program. While the closed major is a step in the right direction, it’s important that the University addresses the equity concerns stemming from this approach and works toward a more sustainable department structure in the long run.

By capitalizing on the breathing room a closed major allows the department, the CS administration should also work toward the long-term creation of a “School of Computer Science,” or other consolidated program, that would allow U-M students to obtain a CS degree while pursuing different concentration areas across the field. By doing this, the program could expand its national prestige and distribute resources more effectively to prevent future hiring shortages. 

Though there remains significant work to be done to improve the CS program, taking the bold step to close the major has the opportunity to accelerate meaningful change. In order to effectively accomplish this, however, the department should revamp its admissions process and restructure the current program format to alleviate pre-existing shortcomings.

Have thoughts about our pieces? The Michigan Daily is committed to publishing a diversity of Op-Eds & Letters to the Editor. Submission instructions can be found here.

The post Changes to Computer Science major are needed, but current execution is questionable appeared first on The Michigan Daily.