4 4 - Friday, October 2, 2009 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com E-MAIL BELLA AT BELLZ@a)UMICH.EDU L 4e AtIC41*0an 4 BELLA SHAH I Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu ROBERT SOAVE COURTNEY RATKOWIAK EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR / The Nat, SCi. Class, what evidence Auito iu do we have that indicates an increase in average human height over a > ti me? ", GARY GRACA EDITOR IN CHIEF Uoh 1 think lmstuck' 1 It 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 pig and a protest LGBT advocates should fight intolerance, not free speech Last night, dozens of protesters gathered at the Blind Pig. Members of the LGBT community and their supporters turned out to protest the scheduled appearance of contro- versial reggae artist Buju Banton. While Banton's lyrics advocat- ing violence toward gay men certainly merit protest, the protesters shouldn't have tried to force the Blind Pig to cancel the show. All viewpoints, even those that are entirely detestable, deserve to be heard, and criticism of Banton - and other fringe perspectives like his - should never shift into criticisms of his right to speak. Instead, they should be drowned out by reasonable views. 2' '5 . Body image goes both ways The outcry from the LGBT community came in response to some of Banton's lyr- ics, which use derogatory slang terms for gay men and advocate violence against them. His controversial reputation led sev- eral venues to cancel his concerts, includ- ing the Mejestic Theatre in Detroit, which was supposed to host him Wednesday. His show was moved to the Blind Pig in Ann Arbor, which prompted the LGBT commu- nity to attempt to secure his show's cancel- lation, arguing that his blatantly violent lyrics should not be hosted in the venue. Among the protesters at the Blind Pig on Wednesday were LGBT activist groups, University students and Ann Arbor Mayor John Hieftje. It is disgusting for someone to advocate the things Banton advocates in his song "Boom Bye-Bye," including shooting gay men with Uzis and, arguably, pouring acid on them. People were correct to take issue with Banton's backward and offensive message. But by making the protest about the Blind Pig's decision to host this artist, the protesters crossed a line. While it's true that the protesters have a right to oppose the Blind Pig's decision, they shouldn't have focused on silencing Banton. Free- dom of speech isn't just a legal protection - it's a moral position as well. Freedom of speech rests on the precept that everyone can speak as they wish, and those with fringe, disgusting views like Banton's are brought to light as such by everyone else. But even more troubling about the efforts to censor this view is Hieftje's role in it. As a governmental official, Hieftje can't be reasonably considered separate from the office he holds, and his attempts to convince the Blind Pig to cancel the show were especially detestable considering his status. Hieftje, as a figurehead for the city, shouldn't be positioning himself against free speech. It's true that the despicable nature of Banton's message makes the LGBT com- munity's reaction somewhat understand- able, especially when one considers all the obstacles to social acceptance that LGBT individuals continue to face. Hate crimes, social stigma and marriage laws are only a few of the discriminatory adversities these people live with. But progress toward LGBT acceptance won't come by censoring views of intolerance and hate - it will come by hearing and repudiating these views. Ann Arbor's LGBT community rightly protested Banton last night, but partly for the wrong reasons. Next time, students and city officials should wage their battles more carefully. ith shows like "The Big- gest Loser" and "More to Love" popping up all over primetime television and the evening news's obsession with the obesity epidemic, " body image issues have gotten a lotv of publicity. Wom- en's magazines like Cosmopolitan are always offer- JAMIE ing cosmetic and BLOCK confidence tips to women who, despite already being at a desirable weight, still feel they need to look better (and need 44 new ways to please their men). But in all of these media outlets, one group remains tragically uncovered: underweight males. As someone who stands at a decently tall 6'4" but weighs in at just under 140 pounds, I often find myself looking in the mirror, won- dering if museums would hire me to pose as skeleton. But more often, I find myself making little jokes just like that one as a coping mechanism so I don't think about what's really on my mind: How could anybody be attracted to someone whose ribs are visible nearly all the time? Walking around campus, it's hard not to notice the large population of muscular, fit, healthy-looking guys. It's not that they jump out or anything, but they're everywhere. I know it's fickle of me to be upset that I don't look like them, but it's hard to stop wishing for something you see countless others achieving almost effortlessly. Beyond letting body image issues, ferment on my own, I have had a fair share of nicknames and jokes made about my particular build, nearly all of which I have at least pretended to be on board with. To name a few: "Skeletor," "Holocaust victim," "tf you turned sideways you'd disappear" and "Watch out for light breezes." Admittedly, many of the jokes are somewhat funny, but they certainly don't help me feel any better about myself in the long run. I appreci- ate them as an escape from shame, though. Hell, I even made a Skeletor T-shirt for myself in middle school. I wanted friends, so I was forced to turn my flaws into something likable. The fact that some people have body image issues and that others make jokes about is nothing new. It's obviously not a good thing, but it's not unique to my situation. What under- weight men face that others don't is the lack of readily available support and comfort. In all the school-spon- sored discussion on body image I've attended since middle school, my sit- uation has never come up. Nor does it come up on primetime TV, on the news or in magazines. Underweight males need to be a part of body image discussions from the start, not just a statistic used to make the other num- bers look bigger. Along with having these body issues underpublicized is an inherent guilt abouthavingthe issue in the first place, which can worsen already low self-esteem. Whenever I complain to anyone looking to lose even a little bit of weight, my complaints are met with statements like "Are you kid- ding? I'd kill to be thin like you." But you never see someone who wants to gain weight lamenting that they can't be more like their overweight friends, because the media has trained us to think that this is obviously insen- sitive, while forgetting to mention that the struggle can go both ways. Not only am I physically weak, but I also lack the mental and emotional strength to accept who I am. It's not enough to have an emerg- ing group of young, thin, hipster male role models. Just because there are famous people built like me doesn't make me feel any more adequate. What I need is for my lack 'of confidence to be taken seriously, not tossed away as an unreason- able complaint from someone with a divinely bestowed metabolism. This pressure to be macho, when unchecked, can lead to steroid abuse and other unhealthy habits like hing- ing on fatty foods, not to mention intense depression. Imagine hating yourself every time you wear short sleeves because you have to look at your skinny arms and wrists, and you'll start to get the idea. Underweight people can have low self-esteem, too. While underweight males are arguably one of the smallest groups in the bad body image pie chart, I can guarantee that most of you know a male who, whether he admits it or not, wishes he could bulk up. As someone who has been dealing with this problem for as long as I can remember, I beseech you to be sen- sitive with these friends, regardless of how "okay" they may seem to be with their weight and build. The common saying of "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" just doesn't hold up here - the small can fall just as hard, and it doesn't take much to tip them over. -Jamie Block is a senior arts editor. He can be reached at jamblock@umich.edu. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Emily Barton, Ben Caleca, Brian Flaherty, Emma Jeszke, Raghu Kainkaryam, Sutha K Kanagasingam, Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Harsha Panduranga, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Laura Veith SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU P atsy overlooks the social Only proactive policies will reality offair pay policies combat pay discrimination 4 The brighter side of business TO THE DAILY: In Vincent Patsy's recent column, he devel- ops his entire argument upon the basic idea that people are paid less because they are less productive (Policing equal pay,.09/30/2009). The economic principles stated in his col- umn - that, in the free market, people would be paid what they ultimately deserve - are undoubtedly true on a two-dimensional model. However, that view, like many simple economic models, completely ignores social context. Patsy's description of the "outbidding" pro- cess is unrealistic. Workers can't actively com- pare wages and continuously shift between an infinite number of jobs as they please. Like- wise, employers don't constantly observe a pool of workers, vying for labor and thrilled to pay high wages. Employers will, of course, pay less if they can. That's the entire basis of pay discrimination in the workplace. Since the Lilly Ledbetter Act was cited in Patsy's column, itrcan be assumed that the argu- ment is mainly about the pay gap between men and women. Patsy's column revolves around the assumption that the group that earns less is "less productive and (produces) fewer goods per day (than those who snake more)". This point is the argument's biggest and most insult- ing flaw. It is both arrogant and misleading to suggest that women earn less simply because they are inherently less productive. It's unfortunate that groups with histories of oppression make less money, but it's not entirely surprising. It is, however, shocking that some people still imply that it's due to an inborn racial or gender inferiority. Kaitlin Henry LSA sophomore TO THE DAILY: Though Vincent Patsy's latest column voices an interesting concern about Obama's efforts to level the playing field in terms of wage dis- crimination, he overlooks and skews some key points that are important to keep in mind (Policingfair pay, 09/30/2009). Stating that the market is the most useful tool in which to cure inequality is overly simplistic, unrealistic and even irresponsible. In order to make noticeable strides toward actual equality at the workplace, to borrow Patsy's advice, based upon talent and devotion alone, efforts must be made and action must be taken to ensure that the ground is fair at the beginning. By ignoring racial and gender-based policies, whether intentional or de facto (an unimportant qualifying tool, as discrimination is discrimination), we're allowing these poli- cies to perpetuate. The Obama administration is nobly trying to amend an already set system of flawed favoritism. Sometimes, when deficient - if not blatantly unfair - practices like pay discrimination are not explicitly spelled out in policy, it is easy to believe that they have arisen as a result of natu- ral causes and therefore will be fixed, lessened or accepted by waiting. But it would be ineffec- tive to rely on the market change itself or become organically evened because it has no interest in doing so. More importantly, there are human ways to expedite the process and rectify the situation. Allowing the government to step in and assist in creating a justbase is far from nepotism - in fact, standing back and watching a stoppable stagger continue as Patsy suggests would be just that. Rebecca Egler LSA junior uring my time at the Univer- sity, I've become aware of ste- reotypes surrounding various majors. College lore says that General Studies students , find it difficult to spell their names correctly, while it's - believed that Envi- ronmental Studies majors live deep in the woods and BRIAN smoke great quan- FLAHERTY tities of pot. And a_ common assump- tion about Business students like me is that we are moti- vated by selfish interests like making money. But like many of the labels that get thrown around on college cam- puses, that one misses the point of why people choose Business asa major. Of course, that's notto saythatmon- ey-grubbers are a rarity in the world of business. There are more than a few Ross School of Business students who are ready and willing to offer 90-hour work weeks and years of their lives to prestigious but cutthroat firms. Busi- ness programs tend to be a magnet for intelligent, aggressive people who dream about Maseratis and Hermes handbags. But many people are drawn to business for other reasons. Personally, I wasn't certain that I wanted to study business until, during high school, I learned a true story that most Business majors learn about here at the University. The story is about river blindness, a debilitating disease caused by a parasite commonly found near rivers and streams in Africa. When transmitted to a human host by the bite of a common black fly, this parasite multiplies and, if untreated, causes itching, skin disfigurement, lesions and eventual blindness. For million of children in many African villages, the existence of this parasite meant that growing up blind was sim- ply an unavoidable part ofgrowingup. Until the 1980s, there were no good options for fighting river blindness. But that changed because Merck, a large pharmaceutical company, did some- thing that had never been done before. After identifying a substance that had little commercial value but did have the potential to treat river blindness, Merck invested millions (at a financial loss) to develop and test a drug called Mectizan. It turned out to be very effective in treating river blindness, and in 1987, Merck's managers pledged to provide Mectizan free of charge to anyone who needed it (a commitment that Merck continues to honor today). An estimated 16 million children have been spared from river blindness due to control efforts involving Mectizan, and Merck has set a goal of completely eradicating the disease by 2020. Mectizan is tangible proof that a good business can do much more than generate money. At their best, enter- prises aren't soulless machines run by robots. Instead, they are groups of people working together to shape the world according to their values. Merck's first purpose, according to its mission statement, is "preserving and improving human life." But one thing that high-performing companies like Merck,Boeingand GE have in common is that they are built around cultural values other than money. In fact, busi- ness research gurus like Jim Collins have found that the highest perform- ing firms don't set profit maximization as their main goal. A recent survey of big pharmaceuti- cal firms showed that Merck isn't sim- ply an anomaly - respondentsreported donating 13 percent of their income to charitable causes. Actions that aren't strictly profit-driven take place across industry boundaries. Many shoppers at Target would be surprised to learnthat five percent of the company's income is donated in order to serve community issues. Finance textbooks and econo- mists can claim that the primary goal of a business should be to maximize profits, but an alternative view is that profits are simply a necessary condi- tion for a business to continue its work - which can be whatever its managers and shareholders wish it to be. Business majors are more than money-grubbers. Unfortunately, business students and corporations have recently got- ten a bad reputation. Events like the financial meltdown, companies like Enron and managers like Bernie Madoff have exposed the fact that the private sector can fail and is often overly driven by short-term oppor- tunism. Left unchecked, businesses can do nasty and unethical things in the pursuit of profits, ranging from stealing from investors to dumping poison into rivers. In debates over business and assess- ments of business people, it's impor- tant to see the good in addition to the ugly. Private enterprises have occa- sionally given us problems, but they've also given us solutions: cars, Mac and Cheese, global supply chains, iPods and most other modern conveniences. In a century that is likely to see a ris- ing population, increasing scarcity of resources and wide-scale environmen- tal challenges, enterprises will con- tinue to act in ways that preserve and improve the quality of life for billions of people. And behind a lot of those enterprises, there will be managers, a lot of them former business students, who see profit as a tool with impact rather than an end goal. - Brian Flaherty is an associate editorial page editor. He can be reached at bfla@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 Uni- versity 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 Daily is looking for a diverse group of strong, informed, passionate writers to join the Editorial Board. Editorial Board members are responsible for discussing and writing the editorials that appear on the left side of the opinion page. E-MAIL ROBERT SOAVE AT RSOAVE@UMICH.EDU FOR MORE INFORMATION. 4