6 4A - Thursday, January 29, 2009 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com E-MAIL HARUN AT BULJINAH@UMICH.EDU l e 4natcl igan 43aIly HARUN BULJINA 0 I Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu AVE COURTNEY RATKOWIAK EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR GARY GRACA ROBERT SO) EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views ofttheir authors. A greener tint Letting states set higher standards is the right way to go iready a week into his first term, President Barack Obama seems ready to come through on the promises he made about environmental policies. On Monday, Obama signed a presidential memorandum allowing California and 13 other states to implement stricter standards for automobile emissions. This is in line with efforts Obama outlined in his climate and energy sav- ing plans. If the states decide to raise their standards, there will be a reduction in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which causes global warming. Though automakers may be uneasy about the prospect of having to produce more efficient cars, this is a great way for states to take emissions standards more seriously with- out having to raise the federal standards. California and the other states should take this opportunity to lead the country toward higher standards. c CcD D D CITY P ai h n r Priaizntenvesy During the Bush administration, the Environmental Protection Agency refused to accept California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's request to raise the emissions standards for his state. But now Obama's memorandum calls on the EPA to review the waiver of emission standards for California. The state's proposed stan- dard could reduce up to 30 percent of car- bon dioxide emissions by 2016 - a healthy start toward achieving Obama's promised reduction of emissions by 80 percent in 2050, The new law would give car compa- nies until 2011 to start producing cars that abide by the new regulation. Instead of changing the federal stan- dard, states will now be able to choose whether to raise the bar like California or remain at the same level. This is a good way to allow certain states to get more seri- ous about controlling emissions while per- mitting other states to wait until they're ready. At the same time, automakers will have to start producing more efficient cars in order to satisfy the restrictions in the other states. Unless they manufacture a car for each state, they will have to build all their cars to meet the standards of the strictest states, possibly accomplishing the same thing as a federal standard without the hassle of having to implement one. Detroit's automakers expressed their concern about this regulation. But car companies have no right to complain because they've stalled on making the move to stricter standards for years. Customers want more environmentally friendly vehicles, and making better cars is a long-overdue priority for auto makers. Environmental concerns should be their focus, and this change in policy regarding emissions is a necessary nudge. Besides, moving in a greener direction is Michi- gan's only hope. The state's econoipic future is tied to adopting more responsible environmental policies, and that starts with the automakers. Allowing California to move ahead with better emissions standards is a good way to begin making the country more green, but Obama must continue to push for environ- mentally sound policy in order to reach his necessary goal of an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050. With any hope, this new policy will pave the way for the rest of the country to adopt better standards. With the state's budget defi- cit growing exponentially, some extreme methods of saving money have been floating around the state legislature. Among them is the idea of privatizing they' University. The Legislative Com- mission on Guy- - eminent Efficiency PATRICK was charged with cutting the state's ZABAWA higher education budget, and the fourth suggestion on its list was to cut the University loose from its annual $327 million drain on the state budget and making it a private school. This possibility obviously has quite a few hurdles to clear before it can become reality, the biggest of which may be the constitutional amendment required to let the University go. On the other hand, a private University of Michigan would also have many opportunities that a public university would not. These include offering more financial aid, giving Michigan taxpayers a much-needed break and allowing the University to resume its preferred policies toward minority enrollment and same-sex benefits. One of the biggest concerns about the University becoming a private institution is the elimination of its sig- nificantly discounted in-state tuition rates offered to state residents. With 60 percent of students at the Uni- versity paying in-state tuition rates - and the discount about $23,000 per person per year - this concern is well-justified. But at the same time, the increased tuition rates would enable the University to offer more generous financial aid options. If the University were to raise all residents' tuition to out-of-state levels, it would obtain more than $504 million in additional revenue, much more than the $327 million the University gets from the state. The additional $187 million could then be used to sub- stantially subsidize the attendance costs of low-income students who so desperately need aid even to pay in- state tuition rates. The University currently spends only $184 million on financial aid. Discounted tuition rates should be determined based on who needs them mostratherthanwho lives inthestate. The Office of Financial Aid's website states that the University "does not have sufficient funds to meet the full demonstrated financial need of non- resident students directly." And yet it does bend over backward to help residents of Michigan. This system, in which the University especially focuses on in-state residents, seems antiquated. In an era of globaliza- tion, when students frequently travel across the country to attend college, why is the University still focusing on serving local residents instead of the local and national communities equally? The common justification for this discrimination is somewhat valid: Michigan residents pay taxes to the state that fund the University. But this doesn't make much sense - why should taxpayers who aren't attend- ing the University pay for those who are? A better system of financing is one in which the'University charges equal tuition to all and offers finan- cial aid based on need, not residen- cy. This way, the University can be accessible to those living outside the state, and taxpayers who have noth- ing to do with the University won't be forced to pay for it. Another benefit of a private Uni- versity of Michigan would be the end to discrimination against the LGBT community and minorities. Separat- ing itself from the state would allow the University to also separate itself from the state's bans on same-sex benefits and affirmative action at public institutions. Not only would the University be able to attract the best out-of-state students, but it would again be able to attract LGBT faculty who may currently feel dis- suadedcfrom coming to the Univer- sity because of the ban. At the same What the 'U' will gain if it cuts ties with the state. 6 6 time, the University would be able to continue its legacy of racial diversity and be able to take race into account in its application process. In terms of reaching out to minority students and LGBT faculty, the University's status as a public institution has forced it to adopt policies against these groups. The University is stuck in a system in which it is forced to give priority to residents of the state instead of treat- ing all students equally. This struc- ture also seems to be hindering it from attractingthe diversity itdesires for its campus. A private structure for the University seems to have many benefits, including the ability for the University to offer the financial aid thatstudents need. Inthe end,thefact that the University is a public institu- tion is preventing students from com- ing here, whether they be a minority, gay or from out-of-state. Patrick Zabawa can be reached at pzabawa@umich.edu. 0 EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Emily Barton, Elise Baun, Harun Buljina, Ben Caleca, Satyajeet Deshmukh, Brian Flaherty, Matthew Green, Emma Jeszke, Shannon Kellman, Edward McPhee, Emily Michels, Matthew Shutler, Neil Tambe, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder NERISSA RUJANAVECH I EWP IT Racism from unlikely sources 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. Letters are edited for style, length, clarity and accuracy. All submissions become property of the Daily. We do not print anonymous letters. Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu. The 'date and mate' mentalit A few days ago while walking down Wash- ington Street to the public library, I noticed two young black men coming down the sidewalk toward me. I hoped they would make room for me on the narrow, snow-lined sidewalk. As we squeezed by each other; one of them muttered something and I heard the word "China-wom- an." I was a little bit stunned, but kept walking. When I didn't respond, they shouted at me and laughed as I hurried away. It's been several years since I've been the tar- get of a racist joke or remark. I grew up in Mis- souri and have heard some pretty nasty things over the years - "go back to China" is one that I've heard many times (I am not Chinese). And yet when people talked about racism at my high school, discrimination against Asian- Americans was never mentioned. Discussions on racism always focused on tensions between whites and blacks, which in some ways made sense to me because the racial, social and eco- nomic injustices suffered by blacks were much more prevalent in my community. I was made to feel that I was worrying about pebbles while boulders were being hurled. And admittedly, being an African-American in my community was much more difficult than being an Asian- American. But when I went to California for my under- graduate studies, I discovered the issue of rac- ism is not really about which minority group suffers more. Slavery was a horrendous crime, but so was the internment of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II. Is it really constructive to attempt to rank injustice? Racism is still racism, no matter how big or mal, no matter to whom it is directed toward. The incident on Washington troubles me not only because of the racist remark but because of who said it to me. In Missouri, the people who said racist things to me were white, and as a result I've always felt a sort of kinship with other minorities. Other minorities know what I've gone through - they know what it's like to be stamped with stereotypes. I felt the two black men who called me "China-woman" should know better and should know how demeaning it is to be subject to racism. Did they use a slur against me because they've never thought of racism as something that happens to other minorities? Or did they just not care? It's been several years since I've lived in the Midwest. It's no longer the '80s or '90s, Michi- gan isn't Missouri, and the United States is much more diverse than it used to be. But I'm curious as to whether conversations about race in Michigan are still only focused on tensions between whites and blacks. I hope not, because so many other issues of minority identity are beginning to work their way into our national consciousness - gay rights, for example. I think more dialogue about all forms of discrimina- tion is necessary. Not surprisingly, President Obama's election has meant a lot to me. Finally, we have a nation- al leader who understands what it's like to be a minority in America and who's not afraid to have conversations on tough issues like race or religion. And while Obama campaigned to bring change to America, he can't change this country on his own. Getting beyond the destructiveness of racism is something that we all have to work on together. This is change that I want to believe that America is capable of, racist remarks from anyone have no place in this era of hope. Nerissa Rujanavech is a graduate student in the School of Natural Resources and Environment. hese days, itseems thatsingles at colleges are entertaining an interesting question: Post- pone sex for com- mitment or date and mate? Perhaps the commitment bias is creeping in. After all, our idea of monogamy more , closely resembles a One Tree Hill epi- sode than our next- door neighbor's ROSE .friends-with-bene- AFRIYIE fits arrangement. However, that----- - selfless, always- faithful, emotionally-attentive com- panion may be more common in Hollywood blockbusters and Disney fables than at the Michigan Union. The evidence is in anecdotes and sur- veys. One anecdote can be noted in last year's New York Times contest among college students that asked them to write in about their love lives. The editor noted that only three red roses were exchanged amongst lovers in the 1200 respondent letters and a recurring theme was the "no-strings- attached sexual opportunism of the hookup culture." Another example can be found in the "casual sexual encounter rates" amongst students in the North- east United States. A report entitled "Hookups" in the 2000 edition of The Journal of Sex Research revealed that 78 percent of the students had experi- enced sexual activity with a stranger or a brief acquaintance at least once. But many of us don't need empiri- cal data to know that the tide is turn- ing. However, it's worth exploring whether the grass is greener on the non-committal side. Some clues are offered in a 2007 Michigan State Uni- versity study "Negotiating a Friends with Benefits Relationship" that measured students who identify as "friends with benefits". The study confirmed that most college students have self-identified as this at least once. Accounting more accurately for sexual encounters, this survey included friendly friends as well as exes who still have sex and "people who hangout at the same places" who may not identify as friends. While the reviews around this study depicted these relationships as stressful, the numbers report that these diverse encounters have varied outcomes. Twenty-five percent ended up nixing both the sex and the friend- ship. About one-third stopped the sex and remained friends. A slim 10 percent ended up graduating to com- mitment. The rest (also one-third) maintained their friends-with-ben- efits arrangement. Follow-up stud- ies revealed that students opted into these relationships because they did not want a commitment. What gives with the anti-commit- ment sentiment? I have a few theo- ries. Perhaps our generation has been scared straight by the beat-downs on Jerry Springer and has seen enough politicians fall from grace to know that being unfaithful just isn't worth the drama. And the best way to pre- vent infidelity is to not commit. Further, I would argue that it's not so much that we don't value commit- ment. On the contrary, I think that we hold it to an even higher stan- dard. For twenty-somethings today, the statistics about the failed marital state in America aren't just numeri- cal, they are personal. We've stood courtside at enough nasty divorce hearings. Some of us are the sons and daughters of mothers who raised us on their own. And perhaps the best- kept secret is that some are even the products of lasting marriages that reeked of unhappiness. We know we can do better. Perhaps we resist commitment in the short-term because we know we can do better in the long run. Non- committal sex may have its upsides and downsides, but many of us have learned to separate sexual feelings from the complex tapestry of emo- tions that exist in a committed rela- tionship. And these encounters can be a means to a larger end. "Sexually, I learned plenty about what turns me on," explains writer Tracy Clark- Flory in an article that appeared at Salon.com, "In Defense of Casual Sex." She also states, "By spending time in uncommitted relationships, what I wanted in a committed rela- tionship became clearer." The ups and downs of friends with benefits. Abstinence-only advocates who oppose non-committal relationships have often argued, "There is no con- dom for the heart." But non-commit- tal sex does not have a monopoly on heartbreak, and other factors such as disrespect and a lack of emotional support can also give your partner the blues. Clark-Flory aptly retorts, "That heartbreak isn't always sexu- ally transmitted." In the end, everyone must pave their own path to the partnership - sexual or committed - they seek. As long as respect and consent is a stan- dard, there are no wrong answers. Developing the values in yourself that you seek in others is also important. That will increase the likelihood that your sexual relationships will be a plus factor and not a detractor. Rose Afriyie is the Daily's sex and relationships columnist. She can be reached at sariyie@umich.edu. 6 I 6 T2'iy is looking for a diverse group of strong, informed writers with 1 interest in campus issues to become editorial board members. E-MAIL ROBERT SOAVE AT RSOAVE@UMICH.EDU FOR MORE INFORMATION.