4A - Monday, October 12, 2009, The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com LJb Midiigan &aijl 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 GARY GRACA EDITOR IN CHIEF Unsigned editorials reflect the officialposition of the Daily's editorialboard. Allother signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views ofttheir authors. Opposites attract Gender-neutral housing option a must for the University When it comes to on-campus living arrangements, Uni- versity Housing is usually flexible. You can choose to room blind, substance-free and even pick the number of people you want live with. But there's an important option miss- ing from the checklist: You can't pick the gender of the person with whom you're going to live. This may change now that University Housing is finally taking a closer look at offering gender-neutral housing - a desired but unavailable option for many transgender students. To accommodate needs of every student, including those who wish to live with someone of the opposite gender for any rea- son, the University should offer this option on the next round of It's too bad that we're getting e-mails from fourth- graders who are saying that they're too young to die:' - Ann Martin, administrator of Cornell's "Ask an Astronomer" website, commenting on hype surrounding the Mayans' supposed prediction that the world will end in 2012, as reported yesterday by MSNBC. ELAINE MORTON E-MAIL ELAINE AT EMORT@UMICH.EDU C bieyoe irarie In defense ofpolitical1 science 0 housing application surveys. Currently, University Housing only con- siders the needs of transgender students if they specifically request separate housing and have had gender reassignment surgery - which is not the case for many students who identify as a gender other thn their birth gender. In April, the Spectrum Center proposed changing this policy by adding a gender-neutral housing option in April. And with recent support from the University's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, University Housing is giving it seri- ous thought. Transgender students may be a small per- centage of the campus population, but that's no excuse for making it difficult for them to find acceptable housing. Forcing these students to go beyond the housing survey to obtain a suitable living arrangement may discourage them from even trying, alienat- ing these students from comfort in residence halls. It's also likely that University Hous- ing will discover a greater demand among transgender students for gender-neutral housing if it includes it in the survey. The University must accommodate for greater diversity in its.housing strategy by provid- ing its transgender students an option that fits their personal lifestyles. But gender-neutral housing isn't just for transgender students. Many other students may prefer this living arrangement, and they should be able to bequest it. The idea that unmarried men and women can't - or SE Football seating should go to those who arrive early TO THE DAILY: Chris Koslowski has got it right (First come, first seated, 10/09/2009). At last year's game against Michigan State, I had to explain to a pair of Spartans why, despite the magnitude of the game, the student section was not already a quarter full an hour before kickoff. First come, first served seating would reward those who want to show up early and allow the more casual fans to still file in and find a seat (and honestly, if Michigan is playing, there is no bad seat in the Big House). I proudly arrive at the Big House two hours before kickoff each Saturday and, along with Koslowski, believe the atmosphere in the Big House would experience a much needed boost from first come, first served seating. While I understand some feel seniority is more impor- tant, it's key to note that a higher class status doesn't mean you care more about the game than other students. That way, the fans who want to come early have the opportunity to sit with stu- dents like them, rather than spending much of the second quarter making sure the drunk girl in front of them doesn't fall and hit her head. Rewarding students who get to the stadium early would hopefully cultivate a more dedicated, pas- sionate and loud atmosphere throughout the student section, something even the brand new skyboxes can only hope to aspire to. Adam Mael LSA junior Banning the Diag preachers would violate free speech TO THE DAILY: I can't help but take offense at Mr. Pan- duranga's column (Ban biased speech on Diag, 10/09/2009). In his short time on this Earth, Mr. Panduranga has learned exactly the opposite les- sons that history has repeatedly demonstrated to mankind. I cannot begin to imagine the kind of dangerous world that Mr. Panduranga insists we live in - one where "most" speech is protected, shouldn't - live together isn't the type of thinking that residence halls should fall vic- tim to. Ifa student wants to live with some- one of the opposite gender, that student should be able to make that choice. And according to genderblind.org, 36 colleges across the country have already demon- strated the feasibility of allowing members of the opposite sex to live together by enact- ing gender-neutral housing in their resi- dence halls. There are some concerns that this will empower couples to live together, which could lead to messy living situations and increased domestic violence. While this concern must be treated with the utmost seriousness, University Housing could over- come it with training sessions - at orienta- tion, for instance - that teaches students how to avoid and diffuse such confronta- tions. An additional concern is that the gender-neutral housing could inadvertently create a predominantly transgender hall that could be subject to stigma and persecu- tion. But as long as the'entire student com- munity is given the option of gender-neutral housing, there will be plenty of other stu- dents entering into opposite-sex living arrangements, offsetting the stigma. The University of Michigan thinks of itself as a progressive leader among colleg- es, but to live up to this label it must join the dozens of others that let students choose which gender to live with. D LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU but certainly not the kind speech that makes one "uncomfortable" or "insults one's sensibilities" (or even - banish the thought - speech that vio- lates some arbitrary University code). Of course, I'm confident that Mr. Panduranga, having been installed as the head arbiter of his imaginary world, would be able to rationally, without bias, determine exactly what speech is safe for the mind and what speech is strictly verboten. No person on this campus, neither the cam- pus faith zealot nor the neo-Nazi, is nearly as dangerous as the kind of person Mr. Panduran- ga holds himself out to be - that is, the kind of person who openly and without reservation condemns the freedoms of speech we hold so closely and defend so fervently. Countless numbers of enlightened individuals before us have debated this issue and have consistent- ly come to the conclusion that speech is an inalienable right. Our Founding Fathers found it to be of such importance that it was literally placed above all rights granted to U.S. citizens. In fact, they practically considered this truth to be "self evident," though that evidence was apparently lost on Mr. Panduranga. So, in celebration of the rights afforded to me by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitu- tion, I offer this to you, Mr. Panduranga: Better to be only thought of as an idiot before opening your mouth and confirming it to the world. Chris Georgandellis Alum Rich Rod needs to cool down during game time TO THE DAILY: I wanted to congratulate the football team on a great effort against Iowa. Sure, young players made mistakes - that's to be expect, ed. But these kids are coming together. That's more than I can say for Coach Rich Rodriguez. How about some decaf, Rich? YOU, not the Iowa Hawkeyes, had the young players rattled. There's a time to vent and a time to encourage. It looked like you didn't realize the distinction existed in Iowa City. Clint Bohlen Alpena, Mich. ought to apologize to all my read- ers for wasting your federal tax dollars. My alleged transgres- sion? According to Sen. Tom Coburn t (R-Oklahoma), it's because I'm a political scientist. In the summer of 2007, I earned about $2,300 as a research assistant on a project funded PATRICK by a grant from the National Science O'MAHEN Foundation. But instead of providing a mea culpa, I will now chal- lenge my accuser to analyze the evi- dence behind his argument - as any good scientist ought to do - and ask him to quietly drop his charges. On Wednesday, Coburn introduced an amendment that would forbid the NSF from funding any work in politi- cal science in fiscal year 2010. He sug- gested that my field's average funding of $9.13 million a year over the last decade diverts money from more important scientific work. Leaving aside that $9.3 million is only .15 percent of the $6.9 billion in funding the NSF received last year, Coburn's makes numerous misguided arguments in trying to axe the fund- ing. He claims political science isn't really science and he argues it doesn't provide a useful service to society like curing cancer. He also believes media organizations provide all the political analysis people need. On his website, Coburn suggests "that the political projects funded by the NSF have little to do with science." Here, the senator confuses political science with practical politics. As I tell my students every semester political science is the study of politics, not the advocacy of a political position. The evidence gained from scientific study, however, can certainlyinformpolitical advocacy. Loosely paraphrasing Karl Popper, a well-regarded philosopher of science, scientific discovery rests on two principles: developing a theory and using data.to test the theory. Like physicists and biologists, political sci- entists do botl of these things in their work. Take one of the projects that Coburn disparages as a waste of money in his analysis: studying the "costs" of vot- ing, particularly the amounts of time voters wait in line to vote. Forty years of research by political scientists has confirmed that increasing the time cost of voting tends to lead to declines invoter turnout. How do scholars know this? They theorized that longer amounts of time waiting in line or tougher registration rules made it more "costly" to vote by taking up potential voters' time. To test thectheory, politicalscientists then analyzed different voting laws and waiting times across states and found that tougher registration laws and lon- ger waits correlated with lower voter turnout. The theory held up against attempts to control for other factors, like a lack of opposition candidates. Coburn's second argument suggests that political science doesn't provide anythinguseful to society. Let's extend the example about voting costs. In a democratic society based on elections, it seems important to know about how many voters get to the polls, especially if some groups of voters, like African- Americans, have to systematically wait in longer lines than others. The University's own Walter Mebane has done extensive research into this phe- nomenon and provided expert testi- mony in court cases about it. To take other examples, political scientists also study how to design political institutions. Let's say you want a power-sharing government to mute ethnic or religious conflict in a divided country, like Iraq. You might want to know what sorts of ramifica- tionsvarious sorts of electoral systems will have on resource distribution. Or perhaps you want to explore federal- ism as an alternative to grant minority groups local governance. Allen Hick- en, Jenna Bednar and Ken Kollman, all political scientists at the University, study those things, often with funding from the NSF. Coburn's reasons to cut funding are misguided. Finally, Coburn suggests that the news media can provide all the politi- cal analysis we need. But the truth is that news coverage, while often pro- viding valuable insight into politics, generally focuses haphazardly on short-term developments and not on recognizing underlying strqctures. Political scientists are in it for the long haul.We're not just interested in who's going to win the current election and by how much - although our forecast- ing models do a decent job predicting that. Rather, we seek to understand broader questions underlying political processes. So after defending the science and relevance of political science, I'll take my last few words to engage in selfish political advocacy: Please encourage your senators and representatives to vote "Nay" on Tom Coburn's ignorant Amendment 2631 to gut political sci- ence funding. - Patrick O'Mahen can be reached at pomahen@umich.edu. 6 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 DANIELLE DEPRIEST AND NAOMI SCHEINERMAN The bla-me game and Israel 0 As students at an institute of higher learning, we have the unique opportunity to explore the intricate dynam- ics involved in international conflicts and resolutions. We have the chance to consider all sides of a story, expose our- selves to others' beliefs, and ultimately formulate our opin- ions after careful examination of the facts. In a conflict as divisive and deeply rooted as that in the Middle East, incongruent narratives inevitably emerge seeking to explain the past, present and expectations for the future. But these narratives do not operate in polar black and white terms - indeed, a great deal of gray area exists between them. Campus discourse often focuses on different groups exchanging nothing more than opposing perspectives. The embittered and accusatory battle for the "right" story creates an atmosphere of mistrust, which prevents the conversation from progressing beyond simply laying blame in a situation where neither side is completely guiltless. Mike Sayre's viewpoint last Wednesday accused Israel - and U.S. support for Israel - of being the sole obstacle to achieving a just and lasting peace (Seeking solutions in Palestine, 10/07/2009). But this type of biased attack refuses to acknowledge the Israeli perspective. An examination of the United Nations' Goldstone Report provides an example of the importance of critical analysis in a situation that is seeped in complexity. Since Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas's per- petual bombardment of Israel caused physical damage, injuries and deaths in Southern Israel, as well as constant fear. In response to Hamas's violation of international law and unrelenting bombardment of Israel, with 7,000 rocket attacks since 2005, Israel acted on its right to self-defense and launched a counter-terrorist operation last winter. With a terrorist organization controlling the area and launching rockets from people's homes, the protection of civilian lives during Israel's attack on Hamas proved increasingly difficult. Aiming to preserve innocent Pal- estinian lives, the Israeli Defense Forces took exten- sive measures to limit civilian casualties. Such measures included warnings by phone calls, text messages, leaflets and radio announcements of impending attacks on Hamas targets. Israel willingly forfeited its strategic advantage to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties, only to later be accused of human rights violations. The accusations levied against Israel by the Goldstone Report fail to take into account Israel's right to defend itself according to international law. It serves as an example of the polarizing approachto the situation standingin the way of rational analysis. Its purpose was biased and nonobjec- tive - the "findings" were predetermined and concluded before the writers actually began their investigation. The mandate of the Goldstone Commission calls upon the Human Rights Council to "investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Human- itarian Law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people." The mandate itself was titled "The Grave Violations of Human Rights in the Occupied Pal- estinian Territory." This presumption of guilt before an actual investigation is a severe problem in the protection of international human rights. This biased and illegitimate premise undermines the United Nations' ability to safe- guard human rights. To learn from the mistakes of the Goldstone Report, students on campus have an important obligation to come together and rationally explore the situation's multifaceted nature. More comprehensive views lead to critical under- standing and effective discourse. Michigan's campus is an ideal place to engage in this kind of effective conversation because of the rich diversity at the University that lends itself to healthy dialogue. We hope that our fellow students will make the cru- cial distinction between pure bias and analysis of facts in future campus discourse. As we get further into the school year, we challenge the Michigan student body to educate, engage in constructive conversations, and avoid the "right" and "wrong" rhetoric that so often distracts us from pro- ductive conversation. The question now is what we can do to help contribute to a peaceful, fair and sustainable solu- tion to the Middle East conflict, encompassing aHl views and sides of the story. Danielle DePriest and Naomi Scheinerman are vice chair of American Movement for Israel and a board member of American Movement for Israel; respectively. 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.