4A -The Michigan Daily - Monday, September 19, 2005 OPINION Wbt kd:4d n 3ati JASON Z. PESICK Editor in Chief SUHAEL MOMIN SAM SINGER Editorial Page Editors ALISON Go Managing Editor EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com NOTABLE QUOTABLE Once it reaches the Gulf, really everybody should pay attention at that point." -National Hurricane Center meteorologist Daniel Brown, comment- ing on the potential severity of a new hurricane off the coast of Florida, as reported yesterday by The Associated Press. MICHELLE BIEN TilE BEAN ARCHVES Parlez-vous une autre langue? SUHAEL MOMIN No SURRENDER n 1997, at the request of the Col- lege of Literature, Science, and the Arts Student Government, the LSA Joint Faculty- Student Policy Com- mittee issued its Report on Second Language k Instruction. Recogniz- ing widespread student dissatisfaction with the language requirement, the committee proposed a broad series of curriculum reforms to make it more appealing and interesting. Yet, William Paulson, then chair of the Department of Romance Languages and Literature made it very clear: "It's unlikely that the kinds of changes we can make in the curriculum will have much of an impact on the relatively small minority who strongly resent the LSA language requirement." Eight years later, many of the committee's suggestions have been implemented. Classes are relatively small, instructors attempt to weave cul- tural and social themes into the courses and the four-semester sequence is effectively a two-year language program, not four discrete and disjoint courses. However, despite these efforts, Paulson's "small minority" has continued to grow; acting on cues from students, LSA-SG has approached the LSA administration with a plan to fundamentally change - and irreparably damage - the lan- guage proficiency requirement. Under the proposed change, the "fourth semes- ter" requirement would be replaced by a "2-2" requirement: Insteadof fourth semester proficiency in one language, a student could instead take two semesters in two separate languages. The benefit, supporters argue, would be increased flexibility. Students would no longer have to slave through a language they don't enjoy, but took in high school, because they placed into the third semester and have to take only two classes to fulfill the require- ment. Students would not be forced to stick with a language they didn't enjoy because they didn't wish to start over with semester one of another language. Students would even be able to dabble in two languages, broadening their exposure. Unfortunately, these rationales disregard the intent of the proficiency requirement, which is - as the name implies - proficiency. After two introductory semesters in two separate languages, a student - while able to ask for water and find the bathroom in two different languages - will be able to effectively use neither. While four semesters of a foreign language will not enable a student to achieve fluency, they do provide a solid base. Two introductory semesters do not. In reality, the LSA-SG plan is not about pro- viding flexibility, or enabling students to study languages they would love to understand but can- not find the time to take. The changes attempt to gut the LSA language requirement, but to do so under the guise of giving students "many more options." The suggestion that the current structure of the language requirement needs to be altered because it "punishes people who want to try new things" is disingenuous. Yes, there may be a strong incentive to simply trudge through two semesters of Span- ish instead of starting over with four semesters of Chinese. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, two extra semesters -10 extra credit hours, at most - is not a significant commitment, considering that an LSA student needs 120 credit hours for gradu- ation. If an incoming student is really interested in exploring a new language, he undoubtedly has the time in his four years at the University to do so. Furthermore, it is important to remember that the purpose of the requirement is proficiency. It is a "fourth semester proficiency," not "four semes- ter" requirement; superficial understanding of two languages is not equivalent to a more thorough exposure to one. If someone is interested in dab- bling around in different languages, he has plenty of time to do so after demonstrating proficiency in one language. LSA advisors often show students a pie chart, breaking down how they can spend the 120 credit hours needed for degree completion. Assuming that it takes 30 credits to finish a major, 30 to fulfill distribution and 30 more to complete the remaining LSA requirements (language, race and ethnicity, etc.), that leaves 30 credits (often more) that are entirely uncommitted. Indeed, instead of providing more options and flexibility to those students who have a legitimate intellectual curiosity in language, the requirement change will most benefit those who simply don't want to deal with the academic rigor of studying a foreign language. While the total number of semesters required isn't changing, the proposal makes the requirement substantially less intense by making second-year courses optional. Because language instruction is exponential - lessons are built on previous lessons - the first two semes- ters expose students to far less than the latter two. Thus, the change dumbs-down the requirement by allowing students to get out of higher-level courses. This, fundamentally, is the reason why so many students support the change: It makes things easier. College, however - especially at an elite uni- versity such as this one - is not about doing what is easy. The language requirement may be diffi- cult and time consuming, but it is a fundamental part of the liberal arts education that LSA aims to provide. When the requirement was overhauled in 1997, the joint committee provided three general rationales for mandating language instruction: It fosters intellectual and analytical development, cross-cultural understanding and awareness and opens up personal and professional opportunities. Unless LSA faculty members wish to abandon these goals, they should not accept the watered- down language requirement offered by LSA-SG. Momin can be reached at smomin@umich.edu. Discuss this column with him on the Daily Opinion blog, which is accessible from michigandaily.com. LETTER TO THE EDITOR China's chronic illnesses are another Western export TO THE DAILY: The Associated Press story in last Thurs- day's Daily (Most middle-aged Chinese die from heart disease, cancer, 09/15/2005) reported that heart disease, cancer and stroke are the leading causes of death among middle-aged Chinese adults, indicating that chronic illnesses burden not only wealthy, industrialized nations, but also developing ones. Common contributors include high blood pressure, cigarette smoking, physical inactivity and obesity. This shift to chronic disease is strongly correlated with lifestyle and behavior-changes that often result from industrialization. In the article, World Health Organization director Robert Beaglehole urged China to "learn from the struggles of wealthier coun- tries" in combating chronic illnesses. Yet, it was precisely from these wealthier nations that China "learned" of the fabulous West- ern life and pursued it through materialism and the adoption of Western habits. In our own battle against obesity and other per- ils of industrialization, we must remember the interconnectedness of global health and how our actions affect other countries. I traveled to China with a group of health professionals and students two sum- mers ago and gave a presentation about the importance of healthy diets and exercise to local high school students. Our benev- olence, however, was met by skepticism: "How are you lecturing us to avoid fast food when you (Americans) brought McDonalds to China in the first place?" Industrialization leads to a more sed- entary lifestyle, which, in turn, results in chronic health problems. As globalization continues, we must be mindful of our influ- ential power as Americans. It is imperative that we reflect on how "diseases of civiliza- tion" have affected us in this country and strive to resolve the health problems to set an example for other nations to follow. Alice Zheng School of Public Health al VIEWPOINT A case for judicial activism BY IMRAN SYED John Roberts and President Bush's rabid insis- tence that there is no room for ideology on the U.S. Supreme Court is an interesting argument, one that calls for two short stories. There was once a man, let's call him Marshall. Marshall was born in a log cabin in a rural outpost of his young nation. Through a mixture of skill, intelligence and, of course, luck, he rose to a very high position in his nation and fulfilled his duties with such wisdom and brilliance that even centu- ries later he is the standard by which all inheritors of his position are measured. Long after Marshall, there was another man, let's call him Warren. Warren too rose to the same high position thanks to his hard work, dedication and, of course, luck. He became perhaps the most influential man to hold this position since Mar- shall and is considered far and wide as a defender of the liberties granted by the Constitution. But, if you believe the rhetoric being thrown around by the president's crew, both of these men Apparently they feel the job of the Supreme Court is to do anything but think - just churn out deci- sions like a machine in Willy Wonka's factory. t But if Supreme Court justices had not been thinking, contemplating and indeed formulat-c ing the laws of our country, where would we bes today? Certainly the federal government wouldt have no right to stop Michigan from negotiat-i ing its own oil imports with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, such rightst only granted by the landmark Marshall decisiont Gibbons vs. Ogden. Public schools might not be desegregated, and there would be no concept of "one man, one vote," both the outcomes of ther Warren court's ideology.1 The truth is, the whole point of the Supreme Court is to use its collective wisdom to con-1 template law. The concept of judicial review,1 borne of Marshall and so detested by Bush, is one without which there would be no point to the Supreme Court at all. Why would we putt highly qualified and intelligent people on thet bench if all they had to do was follow the recipe cannot be correctly interpreted without consider- ation for context, something Bush would be wise to realize. Now, not for an instant would I argue we should do away with Congress and the Supreme Court should make all laws. My point, instead, is that the Supreme Court is made up of the wisest, most insightful and most knowledgeable minds of law, and they are qualified enough to contemplate the true meaning of law and if needed, update it to our times. As times change, so should the implication and specific articulation of laws. To argue that a 220-year-old document, wise as it may have been at its time, should be the literal law of the land is ludicrous beyond comprehension. And while we are at it, let me say that if the President truly wishes to keep ideologues off the bench he may wish to retract his statement that Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia are the ideal justices. They prac- tice originalism, a concept many have argued is the strongest form of judicial activism. Indeed, some research has found these two men to be the ,. ..f... ,; . ;< ........................... SI I