4A -Thursday, April 2, 2009 . .. n The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com E-MAIL ROSE AT ROSEJAFF@UMICH.EDU. Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. v 9Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu GARY GRACA ROBERT SOAVE COURTNEY RATKOWIAK EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position oftthe Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views ofttheir authors. FROM THE DAILY Back under control Drug companies should re-offer discounted birth control Despite the Bush administration's best efforts, forcing drug companies to raise the price of birth control at college health clinics did not stop college students from having sex. All it did was make obtaining birth control more difficult and expensive. Thankfully, the passage of President Barack Obama's stimulus package removes the impediments that companies faced in offering college students discounted birth control. The rever- sal of President George Bush's backward policies should come as a relief to students nationwide. But just removing the penalties for offering discounts doesn't necessarily mean that the prices will drop again. Drug companies should seize upon this opportunity to provide affordable birth control once again by reinstating the dis- ROSE JAFFE XD- 0n - Q~ Lean anVd M1eIas 2 v2o wr &d oid-&U.ehvt-. o U.lvCmPIONmtr+ roafe. 22-/ 0 Putting preventionfirst counts Bush had eliminated. InJanuary2007,the Bushadministration passed the Deficit Reduction Act, which penalized drug manufacturers for offering discounted birth control to universities. To take advantage of the discount for as long as possible, the University Health Service stocked up on the popular birth control Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo. But UHS's supply ran out in September 2008 and the price subse- quently doubled. Wherever possible, UHS encouraged patients to switch to generic equivalents, but for some students that wasn't a viable or smart option. Thankfully, Obama's stimulus package removes the penalties. It did not, however, require the manufacturers to return to the old discounts. This step has been left up to the companies. It's an encouraging development to see the Bush policy overturned. Penalizing those who offered cheaper contraception to college-aged women was an under- handed way of trying to stop college kids from having sex. In the eyes of the Bush administration, the best way to encourage abstinence was to make birth control pro- hibitively expensive. But making birth control harder to buy doesn't mean that students will stop hav- ing sex. Many college-aged kids choose to engage in sexual activity and no amount of legislation is going to seriously impact this. All the policy accomplished was decreased access to birth control - a woman's best option for preventing unplanned pregnan- cies.An infringementuponthischoice means an infringement upon a woman's reproduc- tive rights, and the government was wrong to abridge access to birth control. In order to cope with the higher prices, many students who couldn't afford to pay more for birth control switched to a generic version. But not every type or brand comes in a generic form, and not every woman should be taking a generic brand. No two bodies are exactly the same. Every woman should have the opportunity to use the best birth control for her body, and every woman deserves to be able to make that choice independently of prohibitive gov- ernment regulations. With this policy finally eliminated, it's time for drug companies to restore the dis- counted prices so that all college students can afford to do what they want with their own bodies. Perhaps the most comprehensive measure of sexual health policy currently proposed is the Pre- ventionFirstAct.An ambitious measure that is nine bills tied into one, the major aims of the Preven- tion First Act are to reduce unintended 1 pregnancies, reduce the number of abor- tions and reduce theR spread of sexually ROSE transmitted infec- AFRIYIE tions. The act repre- sents the closest thing to a compromise on the polarized abortion debate we have seen in a long time. It also cuts costs and allows us to walk the talk on restoring scientific integrity in govern- ment. The debate on reproductive rights remains stalemated with pro-life advo- cates on the right and pro-choice advo- cates on the left. But the introduction of the Prevention First Act in 2007 by both pro-life and pro-choice represen- tatives marked a shift in the conversa- tionthat directed political will towards prevention and, by extension, to con- traception. Because of this bill, there is a growing coalition of social liberals, moderates and even some conserva- tives in agreement about prevention measures. According to public opinion polls in a 2005 Guttmacher Institute report, "Promoting Prevention to Reduce the Need for Abortion: Good Policy, Good Politics," Americans want the govern- ment to kick back a few dollars and finance contraception and they would rather have the government paying for contraception than abortion. While I am staunchly pro-choice, I recog- nize that prevention policy is truly the future - and you should too. So what about the economic aspect? The Center for Disease Control's 2007 National Surveillance Data revealed that managing STIs costs the U.S. healthcare system as much as $15.3 bil- lion annually. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter aptly described prevention measures like this: "For every $1 spent on providing family planning services, an estimated $3 is saved in Medicaid expenditures for pregnancy-related and newborn care." These costs rep- resent savings in the current economic recession. Perhaps the restoration of scientific integrity is the most compelling argu- ment. On Mar. 9, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that reinforced scientific integrity in poli- cymaking. It's hard to believe that we are only four months removed from a presidency that languished in religious dogma to make decisions about sexual health policy. Obama's deferral to the scientific community impacts policy implementation on multiple levels. Namely, it implies that we have already arrived at the point where medically accurate information in public school sex education programs should be the standard. But the Prevention First Act is needed to fully link scientific integ- rity to an institutionalized standard of disseminating medically accurate information at all levels of reproduc- tive health.f While this act is hawkish about reducing unintended pregnancies and abortions, it is arguably timid on the scourge of STIs. This is largely because prevention efforts toward STIs have been widely synonymous with con- dom distribution and have lacked political will. In truth, when the term contraception is used in the bill, it dis- proportionately refers to methods of prescriptive contraception and forms of emergency contraception. This is a one-sided approach to combating the multiple public health challenges that are a result of uninformed sexual deci- sion-making and a lack of insurance coverage. As such, while condom distribution lacks political traction, provisions in the act should invest financial capital in the research and development of accurate STI tests and vaccinations for both men and women. We should be reminded that no test or vaccine exists for human papillomavirusinmen, even Coming close to a compromise on the abortion debate. though they can carry and transmit strands that cause cervical cancer. A few weeks ago, I talked about the shod- dy nature of herpes blood tests and the fact that they can be as low as 50 per- cent accurate. Policies should address this not only with lip service but also with financial assistance. Provisions in the act should man- date research and development in STI testing, insurance coverage for STI testing and vaccination. It's not just at the University Health Service, where the, HPV vaccine costs ,a total of $500 and the lab work for certain tests can amount to hundreds of dollars. This is a national problem, and these costs must be subsidized to depart from the dis- ease care system of today and embark on the preventative health care system of tomorrow. The Prevention First Actis currently halted at the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions. Send them an e-mail and voice your opinion at Help-comments@help.sen- ate.gov. - 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, Emily Barton, Elise Baun, Harun Buljina, Ben Caleca, Satyajeet Deshmukh, Brian Flaherty, Emmarie Huetteman, Emma Jeszke, Sutha K Kanagasingam, Shannon Kellman, Jeremy Levy, Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Matthew Shutler, Neil Tambe, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Laura Veith PEGGY MCCRACKEN IVr WP 1T More guidance for graduates Over-educating the workforce High quality doctoral education at the Uni- versity of Michigan is a source of enormous institutional pride for Ph.D. students, faculty and the University. As proud as we are of our many successes, we are still troubled by the fact that only two-thirds of the Ph.D. students who begin doctoral study actually receive their degrees from the University. The Rackham Graduate School believes this number could and should be higher. In partnership with school and college grad- uate programs, we are pursuing a number of practices and policies designed to improve the institutional support Ph.D. students receive as they work toward degree completion. The new continuous enrollment policy, which will require programs to register all Ph.D. students for fall and winter terms beginningin Fall 2010, is one such effort. The proposed policy will provide substantial benefits to students and their programs, including year-round, uninter- rupted access to University services. The policy will also require that graduate programs regularly confirm that students are making good progress toward their degrees and provide an opportunity for programs to address obstacles and offer support to stu- dents. Most importantly, the policy fosters strong connections between students and their program or department. Research shows - and student surveys echo - that these are critical factors in students' successes. Development of the new policy occurred over the last two years and benefited greatly from numerous conversations and meetings with students, faculty, program directors and chairs. The first step toward implementation occurred on Dec. 10, 2008 with the approval of the Rackham Executive Board. The next step will occur this summer when the schools and colleges identify funding to pay tuition for the additional terms of registration required by the policy so that students won't have to pay more tuition. Identifying funding is one prerequisite for policy implementation. As we move ahead with plans to put this policy into effect in the Fall 2010 semester, there are several objectives that must be met. We recognize that Ph.D. students must pur- sue their research in Ann Arbor and abroad as necessitated by their individual scholarship. We will ensure that funding is in place for the University to pay tuition for students making good progress and whose scholarly work takes them away from Ann Arbor. Funding must be in place to support stu- dents in those fields of study - like Near East- ern Studies and Anthropology - that require extensive fieldwork or language study, as well as for fields of study in which Ph.D. students complete their degrees more rapidly. We want to be clear that the faculty mem- bers who know the students and their work will be the ones making key decisions about students' progress. We will also ensure that current Ph.D. students are not disadvantaged by the transition to a new set of rules. Rack- ham is working with each school and college to develop a funding plan to cover these goals. College of Engineering Dean David Munson is confident that tuition support will be avail- able for Ph.D. students whose tuition is not paid by grants or fellowships. "We believe that con- tinuous enrollment will benefit students in the College," he said. "Funding will be available to support students making progress to degree in Engineering, and we are committed to provid- ing that funding." LSA Dean Terrence McDonald confirms that LSA will work with Rackham and the Provost to provide tuition support for students who are making satisfactory progress to degree but do not have fellowship or teaching support that will pay their tuition. He said, "We think con- tinuous enrollment will be good for graduate students in LSA because it supports stronger connections between students and their pro- grams, and as a result more Ph.D. students will complete their degrees." For more details on the proposed policy see: http://www.rackham. umich.edu/policies/continuous-enrollment/. Peggy McCracken is the Associate Dean for Academic Programs and Initiatives for Rackham. This past Tuesday, Michigan state representatives Rebekah Warren (D-Ann Arbor) and Alma Wheeler Smith (D-Salem) presented a plan to make college vir- tually free for all Michigan residents attending in-state; public colleges. With only a couple. ofhigh school atten- dance and income eligibility rules, the PATRICK plan is a bold com- ZABAWA mitment to ensure all Michigan resi- dents receive access to higher education. The government's desire to make higher education more affordable certainly isn't new - as tuition rates have risen at four times the rate of inflation over the past 20 years, lawmakers and students alike have been wondering if students will be able to keep paying for college. But for all the hype about the cost of higher education, few are concerned about the costs of these policies. There are monetary costs - an income tax rate increase of 26 percent for War- ren and Smith's plan - but there are also harmful effects on the job market as a whole. And these harmful effects could be increasing unemployment and lowering college graduates' sala- ries. As a state, Michigan has had diffi- culty retaining its college graduates. In 2007, 35,000 college-educated workers ages 22 to 34 left the state while only 18,000 entered it - the lowest ratio of any state. To counter this exodus, the state began paying for some college students first two years of post-secondary education through the Michigan Promise scholarship in 2006. Now they're toying with the plan to cover all residents' in-state tuition costs. But these plans don't seem like they'll have an effect on the state's col- lege-graduate mass migration. With the horrible condition of Michigan's economy, creating more college grad- uates will only increase the supply of graduates, not the demand for them, so enabling more Michigan residents to attend college will only enable more Michigan residents to leave the state. That's good for them, but bad for the state - and the residents left behind to pay their college bills. Michigan's problem with an over- supply ofcollege graduates isn'tunique to the state - it's a growing national concern. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 29 percent of the workforce has a college degree but only 24 percent of jobs require them. And as the nation produces more than 1.5 million jobseekers with bachelor degrees every year, this is looking like a long-term trend. Unlike Michigan residents, Americans in general don't seek jobs outside their geographic boundaries when they can't find one. Instead, they lower their standards and obtain jobs at which they're over- qualified. According to the BLS, that's the case for five percent of all work- ers. With this oversupply of college graduates and the trend not looking like it's going to end anytime soon, it's hard to understand the benefits of making college more accessible. It may seem as if increasing the number of college graduates is a good thing, especially for those graduates. But the oversupplymeansthatcompanieshave a much greater number of graduates to choose from and graduates have more people to compete against. Graduates, excited to receive a job requiring their degree, will be happy to take any job offer no matter how low the starting salary. After all, one is a high number when it comes to how many job offers a post-graduate is receiving. Thislowers the starting salaries of college gradu- ates. And with a lower salary, students are less able to pay back their student loans, hurting one of the goals of high- er-education policies in the first place. There are those lucky few who do receive job offers, but the discrepancy between supply and demand means there will be some graduates who don't get job offers from any position requiring a degree. So many college 01 Why making college more affordable is a costly mistake. graduates, as the BLS states, end up in jobs that don't require one. Employers are happy to hire them because they get exemplary employees. The group of people most affected here, though, are those who would have received the jobs had there not been an over- supply of college graduates. With the oversupply, employers canhire college graduates when they don't actually needthem,consequentlymakingacol- lege degree a prerequisite for the job. Left out of a job, these other displaced workers need a college degree to get one - and will need to spend tens of thousands of dollars and years out of work in the process. If these people have families and bills to pay, they're out of luck. Even worse, once out of college, they will again displace more workers, continuing the cycle. So while it may seem like a good idea for lawmakers to increase acces- sibility to higher education, policies aimed at improving higher-education accessibility exasperate the problems they seek to solve. They are harmful to the state, the nation and even the col- lege graduates themselves. - Patrick Zabawa can be reached at pzabawa@umich.edu.