Celebrating 134 years of discourse in The Daily

This past summer, the Editorial Board received an email from the daughter of a World War II veteran containing a letter to the editor her father had written to The Daily in 1941. He’d heard Adolf Hitler speak while studying abroad and urged the United States to take an active role in the quickly expanding conflict. His daughter found the printed article cleaning her attic, and she sent it to us in light of mounting global tensions.

We’re glad she did. The Michigan Daily’s just celebrated its 134th birthday, and she inspired the Editorial Board to investigate our archives for other prescient opinion journalism. We learned what generations of Wolverines before us were advocating for — oh, and that Philip Morris cigarettes don’t cause hangovers.

What we examined was simultaneously fascinating, terrifying and exciting. We found ourselves intrigued by how much The Daily’s old coverage mirrors the present and how much we relate to the old college students who wrote it. Some of them went on to die in the very wars they were writing about. Others went on to make scientific breakthroughs or define American culture. Years later, similarly monumental discoveries are being made. In these ways, we felt a sense of temporal kinship with our predecessors.

Now, the Editorial Board would like to share that history with you. Below are 12 editorials that discuss one event from every decade since The Daily’s inception in 1890. As you read them, remind yourself that these were college journalists going through what they felt was insurmountable. Remind yourself that they got through history in one piece. Remind yourself that you can do the same.

1890s: “Is the Daily paper a go?”

Before its name change at the start of the 20th century, The Michigan Daily was called The U. of M. Daily. In its inaugural issue, the paper’s first editorial can be found — an unsigned, unencumbered opinion of The Daily’s editorial board, asking “is the Daily paper a go?” Advertising The Daily as an affordable option for students that was “so wide-awake and progressive, and withal so impartial,” the board boasted the following sentiment: “Yes, the Daily is a go.” And so, The Daily went.

1900s: “IMPORTANT!”

With the turn of the century came a turn for The Daily. In a 1904 editorial, the Board’s members discussed the student-centric aims and nonpartisan sentiments of the paper’s writers. Here, The Daily clarified a key element of its journalistic future: its status as the voicebox of the student body. After deliberations by the University’s “Board of Control,” the Board concluded that the paper was as free as the campus’ students. It is at this moment that The Daily’s Editorial Board was fully noted as separate from the University, one that could advocate for students unabashedly.

1910s: “TAKE IT SERIOUSLY”

In 1918, paranoia swept through campus and the nation as reports of a new disease, soon to be called the Spanish flu, emerged. One editorial on the subject called for students to obey the lockdown orders and to wear face coverings. It criticized the authorities who failed to take the pandemic seriously sooner. Sound familiar?

1920s: “Speculative Sprees”

Yet another tragedy struck in the fall of 1929. In an editorial titled “Speculative Sprees,” the Editorial Board discussed what would soon come to be known as the Great Depression. It noted that this crash, unlike those that came before, didn’t discriminate between big business and working-class Americans. The same sentiment is true today. Throughout times of economic peril, such as the recent “Great Recession,” it is always those with the least financial security that bore the brunt of the fallout.

1930s: “The New President: A National Asset…”

The Daily has never shied away from involving itself in national politics — in any capacity. In 1932, in an editorial written before the first election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was confirmed, the Board made a rather lackluster endorsement: Either Roosevelt or Herbert Hoover would do a fine job as president. Perhaps it was a sign of the times, but as we monitor the polls of the upcoming presidential election, there’s something deeply humorous about the assertion that “either candidate would work.”

1940s: “U.S.-Jap Break Began in 1931…”

In 1941, the United States was called to action when Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese. The Editorial Board, shocked as the rest of the nation was, remarked on the tragedy in the greater context of the second World War. With the U.S.’ entrance into the fighting inevitable, one thing was clear: It would be people the age of those Editorial Board members that would be on the frontlines. The stress of student journalism aside, a potential draft hung over the heads of college-aged men everywhere.

1950s: “The Supreme Court Ruling On Segregation”

Reporting on diversity in education isn’t new for the Daily. In 1954, the United States Supreme Court unanimously decided in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, declaring racial segregation in the public school system to be unconstitutional. The Editorial Board commented on this unprecedented opinion, declaring it to be a victory of racial equality and the future of schooling. More than 50 years later, the University would become subject to its own Supreme Court case in Grutter v. Bollinger, which decided the University could no longer use racial preferences in its application decisions.

1960s: “Teach In: An Opportunity”

On March 24, 1965, U-M faculty held a Vietnam War teach-in on the Diag. This was the first protest of its kind to happen in the entire country, and the University continued to act as a pillar of opposition to the fighting in Vietnam. A group of editors from The Daily came together and wrote a piece encouraging students to attend. At the time, these editors likely didn’t know that their antiwar endorsement would be so impactful. But, years later, it is these exact moments in student journalism that are solidified in history: students encouraging students to educate themselves and engage in campus-wide dialogue about the issues of the day.

1970s: “Abortion reform at last”

In 1973, history was once again made on the floor of the Supreme Court. In a crucial case for the furtherance of women’s rights, the Court decided that abortion should be legal in Roe v. Wade. At a time where there were a slew of anti-abortion policies across the country, this decision was much needed and highly celebrated — especially by The Daily’s Editorial Board. In an editorial, the editors celebrated the reform to abortion policy. This joy didn’t, however, last forever. In July of 2022, The Michigan Daily Summer Editorial Board released “From The Daily: Now, more than ever, we need to stand up for abortion rights,” which discussed Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In one fell swoop, the progress of the century before had been destroyed.

1980s: “A losing investment”

Protests remained fervent on the University’s campus throughout the 1900s, particularly through antiwar demonstrations. Over the course of five years, The Daily’s Editorial Board released multiple editorials calling on the University to divest from South African apartheid, a cause that many U-M students supported. In a huge success for student organizers and protesters, the University did eventually divest from South Africa. Today, similar calls can be heard from students requesting for the University to divest from Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Student movements encouraging the progressive spending of the University endowment have remained wildly outspoken — a pillar in the campus’ commitment to free speech.

1990s: “Common sense answer”

Many of the issues our Editorial Board comments on are older than the paper itself, but on May 4, 1999, the Board discussed the terrible advent of a distinctly new issue — the mass violence that has come to define the gun-control debate. In late April of that same year, two gunmen walked into Columbine High School and killed 15 people. Twenty-five years later, such tragedies have only become more common. On college campuses, in supermarkets and in churches, the fear of gun violence remains just as palpable as it was at the time of the Columbine massacre. Even still, it feels as if nothing has changed: Little has been done to quell these concerns, despite its continued reign of terror.

2000s: “A necessary leader”

While it may seem that the Editorial Board has spent 134 years discussing primarily bad news, there was absolutely some good to be read on the left side of that print page. In the fall of 2008, the Board proudly endorsed Barack Obama for president, praising both his policy agenda and his hopeful personality. His subsequent victory in November marked a turning point in America — a fact not lost on our writers at the time. Looking back on the election of the United States’ first Black president, it is all the more clear that we look forward to the possibility of another step for our country: the first female president to be elected to the Oval Office.

2010s: “It’s about time”

In 2015, yet another long-awaited decision was made by the Supreme Court. That year, the Court legalized gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, a widely celebrated opinion that continues to be protected. The Editorial Board also celebrated in its coverage of the case, praising the justices for their principled decision and looking toward the future of equality for LGBTQ+ folks. But not even a decade ago, the makeup of the bench looked very different — as did their decisions. Today, as we look at the composition of the Court, this kind of liberal decision making seems impossible.

Our message to the future

Our message for this decade is twofold. First, we’ve been in similar situations before. Second, we’ve come out the other side intact. 

To those that believe current conditions will hold, they never do. Something good is there for us in the future if we work hard enough to get there. The talk we hear today echoes the talk we read in our archives from before every catastrophe of the 20th and 21st centuries. When we hear bad news, our first instinct is to jump to the worst possible conclusions.

That’s a problem, and shouldn’t be true. After the Spanish Flu, the Great Depression and Pearl Harbor, we ended segregation in schools, cured Polio and landed on the moon.

The present seems hopeless because we don’t yet know how it ends. After examining 134 years of coverage, we realize that this feeling is not unique. The antiwar protesters calling for an end to Vietnam could never have known that the Cold War would end before the century was out. The civil rights demonstrators staging sit-ins across campus had no idea that they’d see a Black president within their lifetime. Those students that urged the University to divest from South African apartheid didn’t know that years later, the administration would make the same decision about fossil fuels.

The lesson of history is that creating a better future is possible, but it takes work. In our current state of affairs, it will take a lot of work. But we have reason to be optimistic. Despite what many would have us believe, these times are not, in fact, “unprecedented.” Tumult is not exclusive to the present, and triumphing over it is not exclusive to the past. So, as you read the words of the previous generations of student journalists, realize that you aren’t alone: We’ve gotten through the hardship before, and we will again.

Deputy Editorial Page Editor Jack Brady can be reached at jackrbra@umich.edu. Senior Opinion Editor Sophia Perrault can be reached at sophiafp@umich.edu. Editorial Page Editor Lindsey Spencer can be reached at lindssp@umich.edu.

Related articles