0 4A - Monday, November 16, 2009 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com E-MAIL HARUN AT BULJINAH@UMICH.EDU 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 of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. HARUN BULJINA A f LW U T j MAcIE W£R Smoking andif studen ts' rights 0 Abusing Bridge Cards Legislators should end student fraud in welfare program n these hard economic times, state legislators have had to make tough choices on howe to save money. In many cases, they have made mistakes like the decision tocut the Mich- igan Promise Scholarship, which hurts thousands of students who are trying to pay for college. But it's also important to acknowledge the fact that some college students are hurting the state by unfairly taking advantage of a welfare program called the Michigan Bridge Card. This program is intended for people who are struggling to make ends meet. The state should end the widespread fraud tak- ing place under the program, and students, for their part, shouldn't take money they don't need. The Michigan Bridge Card is part of the the Bridge Card program so that only those Electronic Benefit System, a program that who are truly struggling can apply for it. allows the state to provide direct finan- But just because it's easy to cheat the cial assistance to citizens who qualify system doesn't mean college students for it. The card provides people who are should. Students who didn't need the struggling to make ends meet with $200 money but went for it anyway just because a month to help pay for groceries. Accord- they knew they would qualify are behav- ing to the Detroit Free Press, an estimated ing irresponsibly. The Bridge Card should 1.2 million Michigan residents were issued not be viewed as no-strings-attached free cards as of December 2008. cash. Students should be demonstrating The problem is that the program lacks that they are mature; responsible adults oversight mechanisms to prevent recipi- who are ready to make their own decisions ents from buying things other than food, - not childishly waiting to cash in on wel- leaving enforcement up to individual fare schemes. Behaving in such a manner is stores. In 2008, it was estimated that morally wrong. Bridge Card fraud amounted to more than The state has a responsibility to take care $300 million each year. And as the State of those who have fallen on hard times, News reported in September, some of this and welfare programs are a necessary way is due to the actions of college students, of helping the least fortunate. But the sad who exploit loopholes to qualify for the reality is that when welfare programs are card and then make unauthorized pur- taken advantage of, the truly needy are the chases. ones who suffer. Legislators could use the It's obvious that the program needs a widespread greed of certain college stu- system for more fairly determining the dents as an excuse to reduce the program eligibility o Bridge.CardI applicant ,_Bytat it entrely,.Mkhiga'sorstwill declaring dependency status and not spec- be the ones who come away harmed, all ifying work-study income, financial aid because certain people couldn't say no to or scholarships, many students who don't money they didn't need. need the money can qualify. And due to Some Republicans in the state House of poor enforcement, they can use the money Representatives are calling for an audit to buy things other than food. Misused, of the program. The government should the Bridge Card becomes a liability, cost- move to tighten eligibility and cut down on ing the state more than $25 million a year. luxury purchases while making absolutely Michigan already has difficulty affording certain not to reduce the accessibility of the programs it needs. The state must fix this program to those who need it. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Emily Barton, William, Butler, Ben Caleca, Michelle DeWitt, Brian Flaherty, Emma Jeszke, Raghu Kainkaryam, Sutha K Kanagasingam, Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Harsha Panduranga, Alex Schiff, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Laura Veith Last week, the University held its first public forum to dis- cuss implementation of the campuswide smok- ing ban. While not - really answering questions like, "Whose idea was the smoking ban?", the University clarified what will happen to stu- dents who violate the ban. No tickets ROBERT will be issued - SOAVE instead, smokers will be urged to attend workshops to curtail their offensive behavior. As of July 2011, the University will be, in the words of School of Public Health Dean Ken Warner, quitting smoking "cold turkey." Why wait two years? The admin- istration claims it wants to take this time to gather input from students and faculty. That, of course, makes sense, since it didn't bother to inform the Michigan Student Assembly or the Senate Advisory Committee on Uni- versity Affairs until the day before the policy was announced last spring. But I find myself wondering if the Univer- sity set a date so far in the future in order to minimize complaints from students, most of whom will graduate before being affected by the ban. Whether intentional or not, this tactic maybe working.I'veheard some people who aren't thrilled with the idea of a ban say that they don't care too much because it won't ever affect them. But regardless of how many stu- dents this will impact, all members of the campus community have an obli- gation to voice their opposition to an unfair policy that sets a dangerous precedent against students' rights. I'm not a smoker, and never have been. But the ban isn't just a concern for smokers. The issue at hand isn't even public health. If it were, this issue would already be settled, since out- door smoking is neither widespread nor particularly harmful to non- smokers. While I can see the merits' of banning smoking inside University buildings (which is already in effect) and preventing smoking directly out- side building entrances and windows, outdoor smoking only poses health risks to the smokers themselves. The University, then, isn't attempting to improve public health - it's seeking to regulate the health of individual peo- ple, the smokers themselves. Such a move raises troubling ques- tions about how far the University will go to regulate health on an individual level. Can you imagine the University putting limits on how many desserts you can eat in residence halls? Requir- ing you to visit the CCRB a couple times a week? Measuring your waist and forcing you to diet if you weigh in at an unhealthy size? I know some people hate this "slip- pery slope" argument. But this isn't a joke - take a look at Japan. According to The New York Times, the Japanese government passed a law last year that required companies and local govern- ments to pay fines for employing over- weight people who fail to slim down. Blatantly absurd policies like this one don't appear on their own: They come about after society has acclimated to policies that are less absurd. And those policies were preceded by ones that were only slightly absurd. The "slip- pery slope" exists. Just as Japan's policy discourages companies from hiring overweight people, the University's smoking ban will eventually turn away prospective students who are smokers. That's a shame, since smokers disproportion- ately fall into lower income groups. The ban broadcasts the message that .these students aren't good enough for the University unless they can quit smoking. Dissuading such peo- ple because their habit isn't favorably regarded by the administration direct- ly contradicts the role of an institution of higher learning. Instead, the Uni- versity should welcome students of all different beliefs, backgrounds and habits. Smokers should feel included in a tolerant, freethinking campus, without being ostracized or forced to conform. 'U' can't regulate health on an individual level. Even if you accept the University's argument that it wants to bring down health care costs, I questionhowmuch money will be saved by banning an activity that only about 14 percent of employees and 16 percent of students engage in. Keep in mind that smokers won't be forced to quit, they just won't be able to smoke on campus. So instead of significantly reducing health care costs, all this ban will do is further inconvenience and alienate smokers. The University is free to promote public health all it wants by offering programs to assist smokers who want to make the choice to quit. It can hand out pamphlets on the risks of smoking. It can offer discounted smokingcessa- tion products, as it plans to under the ban. Buttheactivityitselfmustremain a right of all students on campus. I urge everyone to attend the next forum, which will take place at 5 p.m. on Nov. 19 in the Walgreen Center's Stamps Auditorium on North Cam- pus. Students and faculty must make it clear to the administration we aren't comfortable on a campus that tram- ples the rights of individuals so easily. - Robert Soave is the Daily's editorial page editor. He can be reached at rsoave@umich.edu. Business climate change SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU Don't blame the coaches for the football team's losses team while the responsibility t pletely differen The fault li' Martin. TO THE DAILY: Not for hirin It's easy to get angry with Michigan football coach. He beat coach Rich Rodriguez about what looks to be a the less-than-s second losing season in a row, and it's easy to Virginia. The f be displeased with Michigan Defensive Coor- plan to strip dinatorGregRobinson and a defense that is one existing talent of the worst this program has ever seen. But to ensuring your lay all the blame on them is naive. A number enough, it's no of factors combined to create the situation the in the Big Ten,i Michigan football program is in today. gram wasn't in Think back to the Michigan football team tion to the sp: after the win against Florida in the Capital responsibility t One Bowl, which sent Lloyd Carr into retire- So, where a: ment. Michigan was going to lose a lot of tal- talent. Tate For ent - Chad Henne, Mike Hart, Jake Long and able in the poc others were off to the NFL. However, the team much quicker, t was still in good shape. We had one of the best The offensive 1 rising quarterbacks in the country in Ryan tionable, butv Mallett, and Mario Manningham would have talented startir been a key player if he stayed another year. All We have more we needed to do to compete was upgrade our in the run gam offensive line. the Big Ten. Th on the other side of the ball, the back seven puts up a fairl was depleted. It's the main reason we got each game. destroyed by Oregon and dropped the open- on defense,' er to Appalachian State. We had a very solid part, it's not sc D-Line, though, more than enough to anchor lack of quality, even a championship-caliber unit. ented lineback( Enter the coaching change. Manningham of facing Big7 runs to the NFL, Mallett transfers, and sud- to support Wa denly, we need skilled offensive players and should be the b can't focus recruitment on the defensive back ing season. seven. With half of a recruitment year, it was If we don't going to be ugly anyway. We weren't going to perhaps the n get enough talent to solve all our problems, but he or she may 1 it still didn't need to be as ugly as last season. direction. How This isn't Rich Rodriguez's fault. Everyone away from our knew Rich Rodriguez would need a different Rodriguez and player base to build the new offense. He came and the problen into Michigan with a stock of offensive talent be attributed to he couldn't use, and very little defensive talent. It also isn't Lloyd Carr's fault. What was left Jared Karlow of Michigan's offense was plenty to carry a LSA senior defense progressed. He had no to prepare the team for a com- t offense before his retirement. es with Athletic Director Bill g Rich Rodriguez - he's a good big-name BCS contenders with mighty recruiting draw of West fault was the timing. You can't away your offense when your is going to be instrumental in team is competitive. Simply t that the spread doesn't work it's simply that the football pro- a position to make the transi- read, and it was Bill Martin's o see that. re we now? We have offensive rcier needs to get more comfort- ket and learn to get the ball out but then again, he's a freshman. line play has been highly ques- when you lose your extremely ng center, that tends to happen. depth at receiver positions and se than almost any program in e offense has sputtered but still y reasonable number of points we need to recruit. For the most heme that's messed us up, it's a consistent play. Some truly tal- ers, a large nose tackle capable Ten interior linemen, a corner arren and another solid safety iggest priorities of this recruit- get ten wins next season, then ew athletic director, whoever be, may need to look in another wever, for now, keep the blame r coaches. Greg Robinson, Rich Lloyd Carr all performed well, ms our team has now really can't o their actions. f you walked through the Diag on Wednesday afternoon, you might have seen an odd collection of movers andshakers. In attendance were a famous climate l change expert pre- viously featured on the Colbert Report, Ann Arbor mayor" John Hieftje, envi- ronmental activists A clad in green hard hats and a guitarist BRIAN singing his environ- FLAHERTY mental affections over some beefy riffs. The scene was organized with the support of 350.org, an international grassroots environ- mental-action organization focused on what is perhaps the greatest challenge facing our generation - to sustain the environment by keeping carbon diox- ide levels in the atmosphere below 350 parts per million. There are three important things about the number 350. The first is that peer-reviewed science says a planet with more than 350 parts per million carbon dioxide in its atmosphere isn't compatible with the environment that allowed life on Earth to evolve. To cross that line for any extended period of time will almost certainly pose a serious threat to the survival and live- lihoods of organisms across the planet, including people. The second thing to know iswe've already passed that: C02 levels are roughly 390 ppm. Third, get- ting back to 350 ppm is going to be a tremendous challenge that will require dramatic economic changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A lot of people count on the federal government to confront the climate change challenge. But we shouldn't hold our breath waiting for the sort of swift, decisive public policy deci- sions that climate change demands. Experts are pretty confident that even the watered-down cap-and-trade bill now being considered by Congress won't pass this year (and it's already years overdue). The sad political real- ity - and one that may not change for quite some time - is that there aren't enough votes on Capitol Hill to get strong greenhouse gas legislation onto the president's desk. Any action the federal government takes is likely to be too little, too late. And any action state governments take is, for the most part, limited only to individual states. Luckily, this doesn't mean our plan- et is doomed, because strong federal action isn't the only route back to 350. Private-sector solutions and ordinary people could also get us there. In fact, they're already outpacing the federal government. Nonprofit organizations are one of the focal points in this trend. Grass- roots organizations like 350.org, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace have made headway by successfully promot- ing both conservation and awareness about the environmental impacts of individual and group decisions. And other nonprofits are taking fresh, effec- tive and less obvious approaches to environmental problems. For instance, the environmental think tank World Resources Institute is partnering with business powerhouses like Goldman Sachs to funnel investments into green companies and turn clean technologies into profitable opportunities. Meanwhile, clean technology com- panies are pushing the envelope by advancing earth-friendly technolo- gies and bringing them to the market. Solar panels that were prohibitively expensive a decade ago have become increasingly cost-effective as technol- ogy has advanced, and solar panel sales have grown by more than 50 percent annually in recent years. In a similar vein, newborn "smart grid" compa- nies are using IT and new devices to help electricity producers generate and distribute electricity more effi- ciently, reducing their usage of dirty fossil fuels. As technologies like these become cheaper and more efficient, they're likely to replace fossil fuels, with or without a government man- date. Of course, reaching 350 requires changes from most businesses, notjust clean tech companies. Big companies produce high greenhouse emissions in everything from generating electricity to making chemicals to producingcon- sumer goods. But there's a silver lining here, too. "Sustainability" has become a common and oft-repeated buzzword in leading firms and business schools, and smart companies are cutting their carbon emissions and marketing them- selves as green companies. Google, for instance, recently set a goal to go car- bon neutral. Private sector solutions lead the 0 green revolution. Consumer intervention can serve as a substitute for government man- dates, as conscious consumers use their purchasing decisions to sup- port green companies and apply pres- sure to firms that waste and pollute. New websites, like carrotmob.org, are emerging to help environmentally conscious consumers organize boy- cotts of firms that aren't being friend- ly to Mother Earth. And companies that sell environmentally damaging products may take a hit as competi- tors' products are marketed and sold as greener alternatives. Global climate change screams for government action, but until that happens, students, people and private organizations can't afford to wait. The 350 goal is daunting, critically important and will require a revolu- tion in the ways people consume and produce. And students at the heart of cutting-edge environmental research, and who are just beginning careers in new industries, are likely to play a key role in gettingthe planetbacktowhere it should be. - Brian Flaherty is an associate editorial page editor. He can be reached at bfla@umich.edu. i