._. 4A - Wednesday, January 14, 2009 The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann 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 viewsof their authors. *FRO T.:ExDLtY Paying their way in Score Choice gives unfair advantage to privileged students T he most stressful part of getting into college is, for many students, taking standardized tests. The ACT and the SAT are sources of worry for even the most dedicated over- achievers. With this in mind, the College Board recently intro- duced a policy change to the SAT so that students will have the option of sending in only their highest test score. But the real effect of Score Choice will be to further disadvantage every student who can't afford the tutors, prep classes and extra chances that wealth- ier students receive. The University should reject this change by mandating that all students' scores still be sent. NOTABLE Q UA E Bored, anonymous, pathetic bloggers who lie annoy me." -Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, commenting on the persistence of rumors surrounding her and her family since the campaign, as reported yesterday by CNN. ELAINE MORTON NATRE CA 1 EE-MAIL ELAINE AT EMORT@UMICH.EDU ,r iine. Zk RIAA decision the right one 0 For the past six years, each student's test scores were automatically sent to colleges. However, beginning this March, high school juniors will have the ability to choose which single SAT composite score they would like to send to colleges. The policy, called Score Choice, was actually in effect between 1993 and 2002 but was abandoned by the College Board because it was deemed biased against low-income and minority students who could not afford competitive coaching and multiple re-tests. Now, apparently, the College Board has rethought its decision. This time around, Score Choice is being promoted as an option that will alleviate stress for high school stu- dents. In reality, all it will do is make it easier for rich students to buy their way into col- lege by obtaining that single perfect grade and sending it in as if it was their only stab at the test. With this policy in place, the average SAT score going out to colleges will naturally rise. Colleges will then expect even higher scores. Instead of decreasing stress, the inflation of the average score will make getting into cpl- lege even more competitive. And the scores being sent to colleges will be even less reflec- tive of students' abilities, because colleges will only be seeing the best possible score. What Score Choice will accomplish is an increase in the entire industry behind stan- dardized tests. The SAT isn't about the apti- tude of the student - it's about how many prep books and tutors they can buy. Policies like Score Choice just play into the hands of the industry, making all of its test prep mate- rials a necessary investment for getting into college. Such a situation is naturally unfair to less wealthy students. Because the SAT carries so much weight in the admissions process, students, justifiably, feel compelled to devote as many resources as possible toward improving their grade and remaining competitive candidates. Score Choice will certainly increase the demand for cash cows like SAT tutoring, prep courses and, of course, retesting. In the end, it is the College Board's bankbook that profits, not students or colleges. The disturbing effort to pump more money into the test-taking industry, coupled with Score Choice's likelihood to render the SATs even more inflated, calls for a stand. It's important to set aside the College Board's weak rationalizations and call this policy what it really is: a business growth tactic. Colleges should take a stand against this pol- icy and condemn it outright by still requiring submission of all scores. T he thousands of University you take the disc - the physical disc students who illegally down- that the information is on - then load music off the Internet you've stolen because the owner no should be feeling a longer has access to that specific disk. little more secure. But just downloading a song online That's because last isn't technically stealing because you month, the Record- haven't prevented anyone else from ing Industries Asso- accessing that information. What you ciation of America did was essentially produce a copy - a - a trade group rep- cop. y copy that is the same as the original in resenting the major every single way, but is still available recording labels in to everyone else. the music indus- ROBERT In response to this line of thinking try - announced an comes adelugeofcriticismthatallboil end to its relentless SOAVE down to this fear - the artists aren't campaign of filing getting credit for their music and they expensive lawsuits won't be able to make a living any- against college students who engage more, resulting in the demise of the in online file-sharing. Since 2003, the industry. But this fear is unfounded. RIAA has specifically targeted col- Despite what the RIAA claims, record lege students because we are unlikely sales are not diminishing substantial- to fight the charges in court and will ly because of illegal downloads. The instead settle out of court for $3,000 RIAA contends that every illegally per case. downloaded song is lost revenue, but After dozens oflawsuits broughtthe just because you downloaded a song RIAA bad press, including cases where doesn't mean you would have pur- the organization was found to be suing chased it. A 2004 study conducted minors, the deceased, and even people by economists entitled "The Effect without computers, the RIAA has of File Sharing on Record Sales" con- finally changed its tune and is now cluded that "downloads have an effect asking individual Internet service pro- on sales which is statistically indistin- viders to do the policing themselves. guishable from zero." But just because the RIAA is done rip- It may even be true that file-shar- ping off college students doesn't mean ing is good for the music industry. The we should forget that file-sharing is online community is a great place for still illegal. It's still possible to get in new artists to gain exposure. You may trouble with Internt servive providers not be willing to buy a CD by a band because they have the power to slow or you've never heard of, but you'd be stop Internet access for those who are more likely to download it and listen downloading. to it - and then maybe you'll recom- And that's a problem because file- mend this band to a friend who will sharing shouldn't be illegal, anyway. buy the CD or go to the band's con- It's an easy philosophical argu- cert. You might even buy a T-shirt. - ment. Stealing music over the Internet Aside from the possible benefits just isn't really stealing. Music is only of file-sharing, another good indi- information, and information can't be cation that downloading shouldn't stolen in sucha way that the original be illegal is that so many people are information isno longer available. If doing it and very few people think it's wrong. The vast majority of Ameri- can society does not break laws, and if many people are breaking them it probably means the laws are flawed, not the people. A study conducted by the Solutions Research Group in 2006 found that only 38 percent considered downloading a copyrighted song to be a "very serious offense." Are the people who responded to the survey just immoral thieves? Not really. In the same study, 78 percent of people surveyed said that taking a CD from File-sharing helps artists more than ' it hurts them. a store without paying was a very serious offense. Fifty-nine percent considered parking in a fire lane to be very seripus. So it's not that people are lawbreakers, it's just-that laws against file-sharing are mostly pointless. With the RIAA backing off college students, it may be tempting to forget about the legal status of file-sharing. Though fewer lawsuits is a welcome change, there's no reason that anyone should be punished for downloading, even with a punishment as trivial as a slowed Internet connection. Pun- ishing illegal downloading just isn't necessary at all, because far from stealing, file-sharers are actually giv- ing musicians some positive press - and that's more than can be said for the RIAA.' Robert Soave is the Daily's editorial page editor. He can be reached at soave@umich.edu. 4 EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Emily Barton, Elise Baun, Harun Buljina, Ben Caleca, Satyajeet Deshmukh, Brian Flaherty, Matthew Green, Emmarie Huetteman, Emma Jeszke, Shannon Kell- man, Edward McPhee, Matthew Shutler, Jennifer Sussex, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder KEN SRDJAK I VIE 0 T Put morals before money. With businesses portraying workers' unions negatively in an attempt to get away with irre- sponsible and opportunistic investment practic- es, it's important to recognize workers' unions as one of the more potenttools for defending human dignity and equality in our world. As we experi- ence the problems that result when investment institutions put profits over people, we must take strides to reverse these values in our lifestyles by voicing our concerns to the institutions that per- petuate them. Sadly, the University's administrators have continued this misconception in its investment policy. In an official statement, Chief Financial Officer Timothy Slottow stated that the prima- ry responsibility of endowment investment is to "generate the greatest possible income" and "to shield the endowment from political pres- sures based on our investment decisions solely on financial factors" while making no mention of the ethics of investment. Years prior to his state- ment, administrators agreed - under consider- able political pressure to divest from poisonous tobacco contracts - that although the University "cannot achieve moral purity in its investments, it does not mean that it can never or should never take a moral position on any investment." In light of this mixed history, I hope that the response to the University's questionable investment in the unfair labor practices of HEI Hotels and Resorts will be part of a trend for further posi- tive change. As one of the fastest growing hotel chains in recent years, HEI makes money through a pro- cess referred to as "hotel-flipping," where it buys hotels, slashes labor and overhead costs, increas- es sales, and then sells off operations as soon as possible. To HEI executives, this "streamlining" approach has been the most profitable strategy. However, employees do not benefit from the profit HEI is making. Labor cuts have exposed workers to growing physical demands as workloads have increased. Meanwhile, workers' benefits remain stagnant. In the summer of 2008, workers at two HEI Hotels in California decided the best way to achieve respect, safety, and decent benefits from their employer was to band together and join a union. Since employees have come out in favor of electing their union leaders, they have been met with harsh repression, harassment, and intimi- dation from HEI management. And, since impor- tant University endowment investors have likely been focused "solely on financial factors," HEI's behavior was not prevented by any condition of financial support. This doesn't mean that we can't begin anew. Many universities, including the University of Notre Dame and the University of Pennsylva- nia, have taken steps to work with HEI to amend labor practices and permit the workers' union election to use the worker-preferred, card-check election process. Over the past semester, work- ers from California toured universities including Michigan, Brown and Harvard while telling their story to students. Predictably, these brave repre- sentatives have since faced harsh interrogation and surveillance from management after speak- ing out. In response to this and other complaints filed with the National Labor Relations Board, Uni- versity CFO Timothy Slottow has agreed to rec- ognize and forward a petition now circulating among concerned students. The Board of Regents is now paying attention to how our $65 million investment in HEI is being used. But it will be another thing to see ifa serious follow through will secure justice. After all, Coca-Cola came back to campus just four months after its crimes in Colombia and India propelled the University to susend its contracts. The company returned without any major revisions to its practices. Despite a history of putting profits above peo- ple, I hope that University administrators will not only have the compassion and strength to resolve this case in favor of human equality but also to shape an institutional policy that recognizes the dignity of all workers.. Ken Srdjak is a LSA senior. Hope not in Obam a While people on all sides of the political spectrum will debate the positives and negatives of _ Obama's election, one especially neg- ative consequence of the election has already happened: a reduction in activism. Obama supporters, includ- ing those here at PATRICK the University, ZABAWA can no longer be heard calling for mass social change. Instead, they're all busy scampering around and trying to find a ride to inauguration while turning a blind eye to what they can do in the pres- ent to change the world around them. Obama has been elected, but with a failing economy, the nation's problems worsening and resources stretched thin, the right kind of activ- ism is needed now more than ever. Sadly, it seems that, on a national scale, those who didn't support Obama have realized this more than those who did. New York Times Columnist Nicholas Kristof recently discovered that conservatives are doing more good than liberals. He cites Arthur Brooks, author of "Who Really Cares," a book about who donates to charities, as stat- ing thatconservatives give more money to charity than liberals, give blood and volunteer more frequently. While lib- erals are relying on Obama to fix what's wrong with the country, conservatives are turning to someone other than the government - themselves. Activism will be even more impor- tant during Obama's presidency because whetherornotthegovernment will be able to get things done is ahuge questionfor the Obamaadministration. As the nation's deficit approached $1.2 trillion even before Obama's planned stimulus spending, many legislators - including those in his own party - are growing concerned about money, something the government doesn't seem to have much of rightnow. Last Thursday, Senate Budget Com- mittee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., warned that, "The combination of the retiring baby boom generation, rising health care costs and inadequate rev- enues will explode deficits to clearly unsustainable levels." The govern- ment's excessive borrowing to fill in the nation's deficit has also caught the ire of Lou Crandall,the chiefeconomist at Wrightson ICAP, which analyzes Treasury financing trends. About the nation's rising debt, she stated,"There's a time bomb in there somewhere, but we don't know exactly where on the calendar it's planted." Concerns about the deficit may especially weaken Obama's chances of getting programs such as health care reform passed. Obama has recently raised the possibility of waiting for the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire instead of repealing them immedi- ately. The funds were supposed to be used to pay for universal health cover- age. This concerned Sen. Ben Nelson, D.-Neb., whose words about Obama's healthcare plan perfectly convey the attitude of many of those in Congress, "It's going to be very problematic to me unless they cantell me how it's goingto be paid for." With less of a chance that taxpayer money will be able to support those in needs, activism is needed to solve the problems the government can't. Even here in Ann Arbor, there are causes in need of aid - take for example the Whit- more Lake Health Clinic, just thirteen miles north of Ann Arbor. The clinic was started by University of Michigan Medical School residents over thirty- five years ago and serves especially those who are uninsured or underin- sured. But today the clinic is struggling to stay afloat, as it owes hundreds of thousands in unpaid bills, including $125,000 in taxes to the Internal Rev- enue Service. Because it serves the poor, it desperately needs donations to survive. And while donations to the Obama campaignmay or may notbring about universal health coverage some- time down the road, a donation to the Whitmore Lake Health Clinic will def- initely make a difference in the lives of the 1,600 patients who visit the clinic each year. Dems shouldn't let post-election activism fizzle. With ever-increasing national prob- lems and the decreasinglikelihood that Obama will be able to have a significant effect on them, seldom has there ever been a greater need for activism on campus. Americans, including those at the University, can't afford to hedge their bets on the Obama administration in the same way they hedged their bets on the stock market this past decade. It is Americans themselves who can provide the hope that they wish for the world. Students at the University have even greater opportunities than most to make changes withso many charities and service organizations righthereon campus. Now is not the time to break from activism because of Obama's vic- tory - now is the time to bring hope to the world and be "the change you can believe in" yourself. Patrick Zabawa can be reached at pzabawa@umich.edu. 4 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 to thedoily@umich.edu.