4A - Thursday, October 2, 2008 -- } The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@unich.edu 0 Now we know how Detroit feels:' -Bar owner Harry Aiken Jr., about the recent cutbacks that luxury resort Sea Island, off the coast of Georgia, recently made in response to the failing economy, as reported yesterday by The New York Times ANDREW GROSSMAN EDITOR IN CHIEF GARY GRACA EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR GABE NELSON MANAGING EDITOR HARUN BULJINA E-MAIL HARUN AT BULJINAH@UMICH.EDU Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. %FRM T-E DILY A logical solution Law School right to offer free pass from LSAT The Law School Admissions Test - four words that send shivers down the spines of prospective law students every- where. But thanks to the new Wolverine Scholars admis- sions program at the University's Law School, some University undergraduate students may be able to dodge the LSAT. Although the program has attracted a battery of criticism, it could be benefi- cial to students, the state and the University, especially in its efforts to foster diversity. Unnecessary interference 6 The recently unveiled Wolverine Scholars program - as the Law School is calling the admissions program - will allow University of Michigan undergraduates with a 3.8 GPA or above to apply to the Law School after completing their junior year without sub- mitting an LSAT score. The goal is to. help prospective students avoid the costly exam, even mpre expensive test-prep books and courses and hours of studying. But there's a catch: Fewer than 200 prospective appli- cants would be eligible, because of the GPA requirement. Administrators predict that between five and 10 students will be admit- ted through the program. The program has already caused a stir. Some people are accusing the Law School of implementing this program to increase the median GPA of incoming classes. By boost- ing the average GPA, the Law School could potentially raise its standing in the ubiqui- tous U.S. News & World Report rankings, which weigh GPA heavily. In a business where national reputation is pivotal, you mess with those rankings, and heads start to roll. Despite the controversy, the program could prove beneficial. The LSAT has long been a deterrent for poorer students, who can't afford the test and especially the test- prep material. Eliminating the LSAT for some undergraduates would help maintain the diversity for which the Universitystrives. Further, the admission process would also be fairer because it would be based on long- term academic achievement rather than on a single test score. By focusing on University undergradu- ates, the state of Michigan would reap the benefits, too. By encouraging students to attend an in-state law school, when many of the students likely to apply could potentially go elsewhere, the program would encourage highly educated professionals to stay here. It would also encourage qualified undergradu- ates to go on to Law School, now that it is a little easier to apply. Both of these gains would hopefully encourage students to plant roots in the state. For critics hell-bent on charging that the Law School is trying to game the U.S. News & World Report rankings, these rankings are already manipulated and exploited. This is a flaw in the integrity of the rankings, not faults in the Law School's program. Other critics assert that Wolverine Scholars will encourage University undergraduates to enroll in easier courses to inflate their GPAs, thus having a better chance at being admit- ted into the Law School. But for future law- yers, good grades are required by almost all law schools. For better or for worse, this new program won't change students' behavior. Regardless of its benefits and downfalls, Wolverine Scholars is a gutsy program to implement. A get-out-of-the-LSATs-for-free card is very rare at top-tier lawaschools. How- ever, other schools are watchingclosely and, depending on the success of the program, may follow suit. While ranking systems will be in for a world of hurt if other universi- ties and law schools move in this direction, Wolverine Scholars will benefit students, the University and the state of Michigan. Despite its coptroversy, our ruling is in favor of the Wolverine Scholars program. Yesterday, AFRICOM, the U.S. military's Africa Command, became operational. It will be incorporated into the United States' African strategy. But is this increased presence good for Africa? Let's look at Somalia, inthe news again this week - after a Ukrainian IBRAHIM ship loaded with 33 tanks of cargo was KAKWAN pirated off its law- less coast. Since 1991, Somalia has lacked a government and has been plagued by competing warlords, leaving the country in ruins and causing innu- merable casualties. That almost changed in 2006. For the first time in almost two decades, a group known as the Union of Islamic Courts was on the verge of unifying the country and establishing relative stability and rule of law. That almost happened, except for some reason the United States feels that the best way to secure its inter- ests is to interfere with the natural course of events abroad. Where has this screwing around gotten us in the past? These interven- tionist solutions tend to backfire. For example, our oil-driven installation and support of the autocratic Shah in Iran (secret police and all) eventu- ally led to the 1979 Islamic Revolu- tion that brought the current Iranian government to power. There's a rea- son why that government dislikes the United States, and, no, it's not because it "envies our way of life." It's because more than 30 years ago, we support- ed the guy who oppressed, jailed and shot at many of its current members. And then there were all the other screw-ups. We helped to create the Taliban, and turned what would have been a short internal Vietnamese conflict into a prolonged war, to name a couple. What did these actions have in common? Our government thought that it would counter com- munism, and it was, therefore, in the national interest. But in the long run none worked, and these policies only returned to haunt us - the Taliban would turn against us, and the Viet- nam war would go down in history as a tremendous defeat for the United States, let alone devastating to the Vietnamese. But communism was the old enemy. Today, the target is terrorism. That's why Somalia had to lose its shot at peace, and in 2006 we destroyed its best shot at stability in 17 years. The United States believed that the rise of an Islamist movement in Somalia would transform the coun- try into a terrorist safe haven. That's why when the UIC began to gain con- trol over large areas of the country, the United States intervened and in a matter of days shattered the order established by the UIC. It did not matter that the UIC's leader was a moderate, or that the UIC represented a popularly support- ed union of judicial organizations, performing governmental functions and providing police health and edu- cational services. An Islamist govern- ment was unacceptable. There weren't big headlines about that, but in late 2006.a number of U.S. special forces and gunships were sent to Somalia. An unknown number of Somalis were also captured, detained and interrogated - and these guys didn't have the American Civil Liber- ties Union crying on their behalf. It did not end there. We sponsored an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia - a very bad move given the long history (over 400 years) of animosity between the two countries. The United States historically sucks at winning "hearts and minds," but this was a particular- ly thoughtless act. The United States aims to counter terrorism, or at least ostensibly place itself in a position where its actions won't inflame ter- rorist causes. And then we go sponsor the invasion of a Muslim country by a Christian one. Whatever the reason, it looks bad. And make no mistake, it has been ahot recruiting point for the very sort of groups that the United States aims to contain. Learning from our intervention in Somalia. But the United States knows best. Removing the UIC has once again plunged the country into war and lawlessness. And then there is the bit about countering terrorism. Disorder and resentment have a way of defy- ing that goal - in fact, since the 2006 U.S. intervention a group known as Al-Shabab has splintered away from the remnants of the UIC, and earlier this year the U.S. State Department officially recognized Al-Shabab as a brand new terrorist organization. Added to that, the UIC seems to be making a comeback in some areas - you can bet it'll be a bit more "extreme" this time around. Ibrahim Kakwan can be reached at ijameel@uwich.edu. 0 EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Harun Buljina, Ben Caleca, Satyajeet Deshmukh, Brian Flaherty, Matthew Green, Emmarie Huetteman, Emma Jeszke, Shannon Kellman, Edward McPhee, Emily Michels, Kate Peabody, Robert Soave, Eileen Stahl, Jennifer Sussex, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Margaret Young E E TE TSEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU All groups, partisan or not, Cartoon belittles voter should be allowed in dorms registration efforts An alternative to monogamy TO THE DAILY: Although University Housing has rightly allowed VoiceYourVote to returnto the residence halls, University Housing has not dealt with the larger issue still at hand. The University's policies restricting political activity in the dorms violate students' First Amendment rights. As a center of intellectual inquiry,the Universi- ty should encourage political debate and political speech, not restrict it. By refusing to allow par- tisan student groups to canvass in the residence halls, the University is violating students' right to freedom of speech and association. Just like students who live off-campus, dormresidents are free to keep their doors closed or to simply say, "No thanks" to canvassers. And, just like stu- dents who live off-campus, dorm residents have the right to knock on their neighbors' doors on behalf of any candidate they choose. The University of Michigan should follow Michigan State's example on this issue and allow political student groups free access to the dorms. Students don't give up their First Amendment rights atthe residence hall door. We call on University Housing to allow all stu- dent political groups, partisan and non-partisan, to exercise their First Amendment rights by can- vassing in the dorms. Bennett Stein, Renagh O'Leary and Amanda Grigg The letter writers are board members of the University's undergraduate chapter ofthe Ameri- can Civil Liberties Union. TO THE DAILY: I didn't appreciate the cartoon on Monday's editorial page (09/29/2008), which pictured two students walking quietly so as not to draw attention to themselves and provoke the crowd of voter registration volunteers. Admittedly, it seems incredibly petty to find fault in a cartoon. However, the cartoonist is not the only person on campus with a hostile attitude toward voter registration. As someone who registers voters on the Diag Monday through Friday,'and on the occa- sional Saturday or Sunday, I can tell you that not everyone on campus is registered. Since welcome week, I have yet to go a day without registering someone. Though I hate annoying people as much as they hate being annoyed, what we're doing is necessary. J apologize to those of you who are tired of being asked, "Are you registered?" Take conso- lation in the fact that we're almost done. The voter registration deadline is Monday, Oct. 6. And for those people I have not personally accostdd with a pen and clipboard, register to vote. If you aren't registered to vote by next Mon- day, you won't have the option of voting this November. I'm willing to annoy and alien- ate fellow students for just one more week to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to vote. Rachel Slezak LSA sophomore f you've, heard a reference to the 1960's or '70s in recent weeks, it has probably either been a segue into a war hero story about John McCain or a lecture from his conserva- tive ilk wagging a finger of judgment at the sexual revolu- tion that happened during that time. While people may ROSE think of this sexual revolution simply as AFRIYIE an anything-goes, free-love affair ofS moral decadence, Speoking with consider another Tongues reading. Sure, it's true that this era of sex- ual enlightenment is regarded as a time when nonmonogamy, a practice of sexual or emotional involvement with more than one person, was at its height. But the goals of nonmonogamy don't begin and end at having sex with different people. It's more about pos- sible downsides of monogamy: alack of autonomy, jealousy and excessive con- straints on other social relationships. This begs the question:Whatlessons can be learned from nonmonogamy practiced decades ago that can benefit both the monogamous and nonmonog- amous here at the University? One place to start looking for answers is an essay published in the 2004 Sage Journal on Feminism and Psychology, "The Personal is still Political."Offeringahistoricalaccount of '70s nonmonogamy, the essay con- cluded, "This was not an individual matter, but part of a collective under- standing forged through overlapping political, friendship and sexual net- works, which enabled us to discuss and challenge emotional responses such as jealously and insecurity." In other words, nonmonogamy - not to be confused with infidelity, which is the act of violating a mutu- ally agreed upon commitment of sexual exclusivity - requires people to communicate, negotiate and set boundaries. Sound like useful skills? I know what you are thinking: Plau- sible theory, impossible practice. It maybe even tougher to understand the significance of this when you consider students reported sexual behavior. . According to a 2006 National College Health Assessment suivey conducted with University Health Service found that only 24 percent of students at the University had at least two or more partners a year with respect to oral sex, sexual intercourse and anal sex. Compare that to the 41 percent of per- sons who reported having at least one partner. There is a lot these numbers don't tell you, though. While they tell us that students use more restraint when selecting their partners for sexual behaviors with a higher risk of dis- ease transmission, my theory is that these numbers don't represent a true assessment of the state of monogamy on campus because they don't cover a broader range of sexual associations. For example, how many students have tongue kissed another individu- al? Masturbated with someone else? Given a hickey? Manually stimulated someone with his or her hands? While these activities may not generally be counted as sex, they would factor dif- ferently when assessing monogamy. Thus, if you have engaged in these activities with more than one partner over a period of time, you maybe more nonmonogamous than you think. And that's OK. Nonmonogamy offers more practical measures for those who are committed or free- lancing. For the monogamous among us, sexual exclusivity doesn't have to meanthat you can't make new friends with members of your partner's sex. Monogamy can mean that you trust your partner enough to know that your partner's. friends are just friends. Nonmonogamy also teaches us that the face of jealousy doesn't always look like Ike Turner - roam- ing through your partner's belong- ings fits that category, too. Your staples of autonomy can still exist in a relationship, and it shouldn't be a requirement, for example, that -you offer your pin number and Facebook password to someone you are seeing monogamously. For those who want to explore an alternative, nonmonogamy allows people to recognize that they are sex- ual beings with sexual needs despite their relationship status. It's possible to communicate sexual interest to someone you find attractive while also disclosing that presently - or indefi- nitely - you can't meet the require- ments of a formalized commitment with that person. But it also allows you to face your ephemeral partners the morning after, or days after in the street, because you've been honest about the terms of your exchange. Exploring options outside of formal relationships. As college students, the temporal constraint of graduation makes non- monogamy a viable option that one should be afforded without judgment. Some may find nonmonogamy inconceivable for them. Admittedly, it is not for everybody. But we aren't the rational species on the planet for no reason. Let's not only be empowered to investigate our respective disci- plines but also the source of jealousy and possession that sometimes come over us when we romantically engage. We have an obligation to ourselves to develop a rubric for our sexual limita- tions and desires that allow us to truly pursue happiness. Rose Afriyie is the Daily's sex and relationship's columnist. She can be reached at sariyie@umich.edu. 0 CHRIS KOSLOWSKI iiT PsT UR E-MAIL CHRIS AT CSKOSLOW@UMICH.EDU S nyGah misflling in - tor Pa dro1 Id Serious question here Whoa. You've got a crush can debates Do you think physical ranholm, dontcha' atractivens s playe srole :p * V v b O O:G 0 A r