4A - Thursday, October 16, 2008 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com 0 6 74i1E ichian 4Eaithj Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu ANDREW GROSSMAN EDITOR IN CHIEF GARY GRACA EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR GABE NELSON MANAGING EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views oftheir authors. Takig some initiative 'U' must educate voters about affirmative action ban's effect They know that she's a role model to women and other reformers all over America. -John McCain, speaking about Americans' feelings toward his running mate, Sarah Palin, during yesterday's presidential debate. CHRIS KOSLOWSKI 0 P E E-MAIL CHRIS AT CSKOSLOW@UMICH.EDU Oh fun! Are you going to Even Top Gun? What are you doing ride The Maverick? over fall break? iC NThe C o TleX male bo 6 6 Two years ago, University President Mary Sue Coleman spoke on the Diag and promised a loud and noble fight to defend diversity from the ban on race- and gender-based affirmative action that passed the day before. Since then, our lead- ership has grown quiet. But with November fast approaching, and Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action tour hitting two more state ballots, other universities could be faced with the same struggles as ours. If these voters hope to make an informed decision, the admin- istration needs to abandon its caution. Now is the time to talk about how we are defending diversity, for the benefit of other threatened campuses and our own. Mimicking the blueprint fromhis success- ful campaigns in Michigan, California and Washington, Ward Connerly's anti-affirma- tive action group, the American Civil Rights Institute, began the year hoping to get five more anti-affirmative action ballot initia- tives passed. After initiatives in Oklahoma and Arizoni got booted from the ballot for fraudulent campaign tactics and Missouri organizers failed to get the required number of signatures in time, only two campaigns remain. In Nebraska and Colorado, enough voters signed petitions to put anti-affirma- tive action initiatives up for popular vote this fall. Like Michigan voters two years ago, vot- ers in Nebraska and Colorado need to know what they are getting into. And who better to tell them than us? Since 2006, the University has had a unique experience in its battle to maintain diversity. Minority enrollment has declined, but not as drastically as it did at universities in California and Washington. Though dif- ficult to discern, much of that success can probably be attributed to the University's patchwork of outreach programs, comput- er demographics software and expanded streams of targeted financial aid. Other campuses and voters need our open- ness about what has happened here. What has been the real effect of the ban on race- and gender-based affirmative action at the University? What efforts have been made to mitigate its impact? How exactly do they work? How successful has each been? How much more expensive have these efforts been than affirmative action? How has the ban changed the way it feels to be a mem- ber of the black, Latino or Native American communities on campus? The University's hesitancy to answer these questions is most likely driven by self- defense: It wants to avoid the polarization and legal drama this campus has endured throughout its defense of campus diversity. The more open the University is, the more open it is to criticism. And when it comes to diversity, no one will be pleased with the University's answers. Opponents of affirma- tive action are waiting for the first sign the University might be breaking the law. Pro- ponents are worried minority enrollment is still falling. { But the University's silence right now is selfish. With November approaching, vot- ers need answers to these questions, and the University has an obligation to educate them. After all, that is the reason the Uni- versity exists. It seems a bit hypocritical that the University feels obligated to "educate" Michigan voters about the potential benefits of stem cell research when our state has an initiative on the ballot about the issue, but not be just as vocal in an effort to help voters in Nebraska and Colorado. Diversity is still on the minds of Univer- sity administrators, even though they aren't talking about it. Until they do, their silence flies in the face of the fights of the last decade and leaves the national higher education community uninformed about legislation that could dramatically change the face of our campuses. We need an affirmation. We live in a society where muchofoursexualinstruc- tion is discussed_ in the framework of prevention and, by extension, negation. In other words, we are bombarded with messages about what we shouldn't do with respect to ROSE sexual intercourse. First, we're told not AFRIYIE to have intercourse, and then, not to getS ki th caught. Then, we Speaking wit graduate to new Tongues goals: not getting pregnant and not getting sexually transmitted infections. Don't get me wrong: A prevention framework is essential to establishing good sexual health and sexual deci- sion-making. But when this frame- work doesn't indicate what we should do, it can stifle one of the main rea- sons we engage in sexual relations in the first place: pleasure. Yes folks, believe it or not, the "p" in prevention can also stand for the self-affirming concept of pleasure. This immense joy occurs when every now and again we breach bodies with sexualintent or engage in alittle guid- ed self-exploration. Nestled firmly in the yoke of pleasure are practices that help us maximize not only our sex life but also our quality of life. In an effort to pay pleasure some attention, this week we'll unpack female sexual pleasure by looking at statistics on the orgasm deficit, tips for female sexual pleasure-givers and general recommendations on female sexual pleasure for everyday life. When it comes to female orgasm, the word "depressing" is an under- statement. According to an article in the June 2008 Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics Journal, only 30 percent of women "almost always" or "always" achieve orgasm during sexual activity. Compare that to the 75 percent of men who "always" or "almost always" do. While I'm tempted to declare a national state of emergency, I'm encouraged by the article's other offerings. Apparently, out of this 30 percent, 80 percent of women climax before or after vaginal intercourse when stimulated manually, orally or with a vibrator or other device. Only 20 percent, meanwhile, climax exclu- sively during intercourse. It comes as no surprise then that doctors who studied orgasm in Tudor and Stuart England identified "the clitoris as the principle locus of sex- ual pleasure," seconding Eve Ensler's happy fact that the "clitoris has 8,000 nerve endings ... more than any other part of the body." Yet 70 percent of partners engag- ing in sexual activity with women are either asleep at the wheel or unin- formed. And our social context isn't helping much. When we say the word "sex," it instinctively calls to mind the act of male-female penetration. When the many different acts that are likely to get a woman closest to orgasm don't even qualify as real sex, women already enter the bedroom door at a disadvantage. The reality we should strive for is a more authen- tic image. As French feminist author Julia Kristeva notes in "The Sex Which is Not One," female sexuality "is far more diversified, more multi- ple in its differences, more complex." Thus, to incite female sexual plea- sure in your partner, you must re- imagine it outside societal confines. You must be eager to take direction from your partner and educational sources on pleasure with an under- standing thatwomen mustbe engaged on a multi-dimensional level. Dr. Susan Ernst, director of gyne- cology at University Health Service sums it up well: "The latest theories on female sexual function are much more complex than just numbers of nerve endings in certain tissues, but state that female sexual function has a huge component which is psycho- logical, social and emotional." But the practical is always helpful. Kristeva also offers some specifics on bringing about pleasure. "Evok- ing only a few," she writes, "fondling the breasts, touching the vulva (vagi- nal opening), stroking the posterior wall of the vagina, brushing against the mouth of the uterus are ... female pleasures." Now for three general recommen- dations for women: Know thyself. Self-exploration really shouldn't be a recommenda- tion, but a mandate. Invest in a hand mirror and take a look. The sight of your cervix will impress you and give you an empowering perspective about your body. Purchase a vibrator and set aside time in your schedule to have a one-on-one. You can't educate anyone on your preferences if you don't know what they are. Pleasuring women requires more than intercourse. Err on the side of conversation. Even if you have to call a "time out" during a sexual act, you shouldn't endure anything sexual that doesn't give you pleasure. A friend of mine always says, "If you are going to be a passive participant, don't par- ticipate!" Just remember to be incremental about disclosing your sexual preferences and use positive reinforcements if your partner gets it right. Lastly, you don't have to choose. And by that, I mean between vaginal penetration and clitoral stimulation or pleasure and prevention. For the best results, combine all methods. Next time, we'll talk about the men. Rose Afriyie is the Daily's sex and relationships columnist. She can be reached at sariyie@umich~edu. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Elise Baun, Harun Buljina, Ben Caleca, Satyajeet Deshmukh, Brian Flaherty, Matthew Green, Emmarie Huetteman, Emma Jeszke, Shannon Kellman, Edward McPhee, Emily Michels, Kate Peabody, Matthew Shutler, Robert Soave, Eileen Stahl,. Jennifer Sussex, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Margaret Young ENMeLY MxCaHcELSyar Not exactly a riot Talking with the Taliban As a Seattle native, I love my city, appreci- ate it for its diversity and know how lucky I am to be from such an unparalleled place. So I was pleasantly surprised to find my city in the spotlight recently. Seattle was featured in Stu- art Townsend's directorial debut, "Battle in Seattle." Documenting the World Trade Orga- nization protests on Nov. 30, 1999, the film is an intense narrative that combines many different vantage points to form a debatably cohesive, yet undeniably controversial, film about capitalistic greed, constitutional rights and how one city was changed forever. When I first heard about this film, I was ecstatic that some national attention, and per- haps national praise, would finally be given to my hometown for its handling of the full-scale riots that ensued during the WTO protests. Much to my dismay, the film portrays Seattle, and specifically the Seattle government, as an oppressive hub. Rather than showingthe blatant and disgusting disregard that some protesters had for public and civic decency, the film sym- pathizes with violent vigilantes and demonizes the police force for protecting people's safety. That's not to say the city of Seattle was inno- cent. The executive and judicial powers took unconstitutional measures to quell what even- tually became an irrepressible riot. Excessive and sometimes unnecessary use of tear gas, pep- per spray, rubber bullets and physical force left many peaceful and well-intentioned protesters injured. In 2007, a federal jury concluded that, duringthe WTO protests, the city arrested pro- testers without evidence or probable cause, a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. While the city grossly mishandled the back- lash, accounts of the protests often neglect to show the unprovoked violence that the riot- ers unleashed on the city. I remember being 11 years old, watching the local news and see- ing mailboxes thrown through the windows of businesses and stores. Dumpsters and cars were lit on fire, and almost every building wall was defaced by hateful and obscene graffiti. As the media demonized the police force, callous rebels tore the city apart. Three days after the protests ended, I walked the streets downtown. The burning trash cans and tear gas were noticeably absent, but rem- nants of the destructive chaos remained. The city, once romantic and liberating, was ravaged into a skeleton of dejection and emptiness. The most unfortunate thing is that there were protesters there who had something admi- rable to say. While some peacefully advocated for humane working conditions and corporate accountability, others created chaos for the sake of causing uproar. Messages of justice were drowned out by actions of anarchy. Seattle eventually recovered from the dev- astation that the riots left in their wake. The streets were cleaned, the buildings renewed and the city was made whole again. Responding to public and governmental pressures, the Seattle police chief resigned, and the incumbent mayor lost his seat two years later. But now, just as Seattle citizens were beginning to forgive, "Bat- tle in Seattle" is making sure that no one forgets. It is one of many arguably biased media releases that paint the violence as a necessary evil to preach a message of good. In the end, the film is a romanticized account of protesters' attempts to overthrow government and police control in an effort to mass publicize their cause. Having lived through it, though, I see things a little bit differently. Emily Michels is an LSA sophomore and a Daily associate editorial page editor. Coming almost exactly seven years after the Taliban's ouster fromAfghanistan,Defense Sec- retary Robert Gates _ did something this weekend you think would have hap- pened long ago: He acknowledged the possibility of talks with Taliban leader- ship in Afghanistan. _A Given that attacks IBRAHIM have increased by 40 percent over the KAKWAN previous year, and - that this war has already swallowed around $200 bil- lion (excluding costs to our NATO allies) without accomplishing its main objectives, this change would seem like a wise, albeit belated, change that will be in the best interests of the ter- rorism-wary West and Afghanistan. To begin with, what exactly are we supporting by maintaining the cur- rent government? Answering this question requires a brief look back to 2001, when the Taliban had unified approximately 90 percent of Afghanistan. Following Sept. 11, we turned to the remainingl10 percent, a collection of warlords and tribal chiefs on the verge of defeat, to help us unseat the Taliban. This group, the Northern Alliance, suc- ceeded because of U.S. support, and has since required constant financial and military backing just to maintain its hold on the largest cities and main roads. Even then, it has failed to pro- vide most basic services, including general security. Coincidentally, the one area in which this government has excelled is the enrichment of its members. Under the Taliban, corruption was rare. But the current government is turn- ing out millionaires, and the damage from this corruption and the associ- ated drug trade is not just limited to Afghanistan. The Taliban outlawed opium pro- duction during its years in power, but since its departure each passing year has brought another bumper opium crop. Afghanistan's poppies now produce roughly 90 percent of the world's heroin, and members of the current government are cash- ing in. The ex-governor of Kandahar Province admitted to receiving $1 mil- lion a week in kickbacks. (After being removed, the'United States gave him control of another province.) And a recent New York Times article impli- cates the brother of President Hamid Karzai in the opium trade. The Taliban was not nearly as cor- rupt, but how would a greater future role for the group affect the Afghan people? The Taliban is famous for its alleged disregard for the rights of women, homosexuals and minorities, but that's not the complete picture. Sure, gay people were persecuted in Afghanistan under the Taliban, but in traditional Afghan society (particu- larly among ethnic Pashtuns), do you really think the absence of the Taliban would have changed that? Some people may also remember a widely circulated video of a burqa-clad woman being executed in a soccer sta- dium. This was passed on as evidence of Taliban brutality, and more broadly its disregard for women's rights. It was grotesque, buta closer look tells a different story. The woman was tried and convicted of murdering her hus- band. An eyewitness told the Associ- ated Press that, "This is the first time a woman has been killed." And if you lookatthe executioners,youwillnotice that some are women. Female police officers, inthe employment of the Tali- ban. Who would have thought? This is not to say that the Taliban is good, but it is better than the weak U.S.-backed Karzai government. Practically speaking, the progressive Afghanistan died with the 1979 Sovi- et invasion. Since then there has just been war - first against the Soviets, then among themselves, followed by a brief hiatus during the Taliban years, and then again after 2001. If nothing else, the Taliban offers relative stabili- ty - fulfilling a basic function that the Karzai governmenthasn't. Despite the Taliban's faults, it creates a starting point for future progress and reform. And there is one last looming ques- tion about the Taliban: What about its ties to Al-Qaeda, the reason for its ouster in the first place? Following the 2001 Tora Bora campaign, the major- ity of foreign Al-Qaeda fighters left Afghanistan for Pakistan and else- where. Attacks over the last couple years have mainly been the work of Afghan Taliban - and theyare willing to negotiate, potentially reducing the financial and human costs to the Unit- ed States. Over the last few months, How the United States overlooked the Taliban's good. however;reports indicate that increas- ing numbers of foreign fighters are moving to Afghanistan, as opposed to Iraq. American troops attract foreign Al-Qaeda fighters like ants to sugar. If an agreement is not reached with the Taliban soon, this trend will only con- tinue and possibly lead to a rebirth of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, along with 6 the associated violence. The United States and NATO have already spent many lives and hun- dreds of billions of dollars trying to help the Karzai government stand on its feet. In seven years it has failed to . accomplish much of anything, except create a healthy drug trade. Forget what you may have read in "The Kite Runner." Maybe it's time to rethink our commitments. IbrahimKakwan can be reached at ijameel@umich.edu. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be less than 300 words and must include the writer's full name and University affiliation. All submissions become property of the Daily. We do not print anonymous letters. Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu.