0 4A - Thursday, February 18, 2010 The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom 4C iidi an tip Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu JACOB SMILOVITZ EDITOR IN CHIEF RACHEL VAN GILDER EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MATT AARONSON MANAGING EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views ofttheir authors. He she/ze The University should adopt gender-neutral language policy M ost students would identify themselves as either male or female. But students who defy the traditional gen- der binary have brought to light the importance of using gender-neutral language on campus. Limited use of gender- neutral language on campus has resulted in an exclusive environ- ment for students that don't categorize themselves as "he" or "she." But a recent resolution by the Michigan Student Assembly could encourage the use of gender-neutral language on campus. Univer- sity President Mary Sue Coleman should sign MSA's resolution and University departments should adopt policies that require the use of gender-neutral language to create an inclusive environment for everyone, regardless of gender identity. wow - in less than 30 hours almost 17K of you are following - amazing - watch out Kim Kardashian." - White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, commenting on the number of followers on his Twitter account, as reported by Fox News yesterday. ELAINE MORTON E-MAIL ELAINE AT EMORT@UMICH.EDU eli ir ~s ~~~l.' r,-e~~st.l I ,~.~ ' ~s 3 ecf, cuYf, 's 0 . ,'s' S t rv ra0 isr so css eie 1e:> sty' pA L' Y 1 n O1' 01' ' (C /'} ,A }V " 0Y 3' t. x Pit~ Hail to the maverick 0 As reported by the Daily on Monday, MSA recently passed a resolution that would change the language of the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities to be gender-neutral. The resolution is current- ly being reviewed by the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs, the facul- ty's main governing body. If SACUA passes the resolution, it will proceed to Coleman's desk for final approval. Currently, there are no University policies that enforce the use of gender-neutral language. There have been some movements on cam- pus to use gender-neutral language. Some professors in the Women's Studies Depart- ment have begun to use gender-neutral lan- guage. Similarly, the Department of English recently determined that the use of the sin- gular "their" - formerly a grave grammati- cal error - was appropriate instead of "he/ she." And some gender-neutral students sub- stitute pronouns like "ze" for "he" or "she." Gender-specific language contributes to a learning environment that excludes some students. Gender-neutral language has a base in efforts to eliminate the ways that language favors males - most people are familiar with using "he/she" instead of a singular male pronoun to be inclusive of women. Though individuals who don't identify with any gender haven't usually been the focus of gender-neutral language, the use of binary gender language doesn't include their identity. On campus, students are excluded by the use language that is specific to either gender in the classroom and assignments. Adopting a University-wide policy would be the most effective means to encourage an inclusive environment. The symbolic weight of such a policy would create a sig- nificant impact among students and faculty. What's more, gender-specific language is not merely a problem at this University, but also nation-wide. By adopting such a policy, the University would stand out as a leader on the progressive front. And it wouldn't be a burden on professors and staff. It would simply require profes- sors to more carefully consider their words and avoid using gender-specific language that doesn't include all students. And, as the Department of English has determined, not even the use of the once-abhorred singu- lar "their" is grammatically out-of-bounds. Students should also be encouraged to use gender-neutral language. But first, the University should enact measures proposed in the MSA resolution to include gender-neutral language in the Statement of Student's Rights and Respon- sibilities. If this resolution passes, more progress in the use of gender-neutral lan- guage will follow. D ear Sarah Palmn, I know you've been busy with book signings and tea parties and all, so I won't blame you if you haven't had a chance to read any of my columns. To be honest, if you had read them, you may have got- ten the wrong impression of me. For some reason, MATTHEW my readers tend to think I'm some sort GREEN of glib pawn of the pro-choice, pro- gay, elitist, Jew- ish, liberal establishment. Under that assessment, one would think that I'd detest everything for which you stand. But, boy, would that be wrong! In the reflection of your rim- less glasses, I see the heartbeat of America. It calls to memory images of the good old days that I never had the opportunity to know - before all those crazy "rights" movements in the 1960s - when life just seemed so pleasant for everyone, you know? The future just looks brighter when I hear you talk about returning to family val- ues and taking the power away from the educated elites. You've proven that you don't need to spend all four years at one college to have a lot of thought- ful plans for the country. On matters of so-called "health reform," your resolve to keep the gov- ernment's greedy hands off of Medi- care is just what we need in a leader. If you were our president, when our men and women come back from Iraq and Afghanistan (and presumably Iran and North Korea by then, am I right?), there wouldn't be any death panels denying them their needed operations. When it comes to the recession, I know all your economic expertise will surely come in handy. Your idea that tax cuts will help reduce the national deficit is spot on! You understand that spending money on what liberals call "infrastructure" is really just irre- sponsible pork barrel phooey. And I know you won't tolerate the injustice of Wall Street getting a bailout when my friends and I on Main Street can't afford going to the Chop House on a Friday night. So let's get down to brass tacks: You have simply got to run in 2012! I know you're thinking about it, so I'm letting you know that you have my endorse- ment. You and I both know that it was John McCain who held you back in the fast election. Those temper tantrums and that haircut! Gevalt! With so many brilliant ideas for the country, so much vigor and charm, how could any real American resist you? But before you rush back to the Republican Party, I think you ought to consider your options. Why should you constrict yourself to the parochi- alism of the Republican Party? It's so rigid and status oriented - hardly a place for a maverick! Do you sum- mer in Kennebunkport or do you hunt caribou on the Aleutian Islands? No, ma'am, you're not one of them. And that's a good thing! The two-party system is old hat. Now's the time for a party that nei- ther defers to big business nor goes overboard with social reforms. We need a party to oppose the corrupt Republicans and Democrats alike, and to stand up for "Average Joes" all across America. Just a week or two ago, those patri- ots over at Gallup asked everyday Americans who they'd be most likely to vote for in 2012. Among independents, 24 percent said they were unsure or would vote for a candidate not from the two major parties. Sounds to me like a pretty good place to start for a third-party 2012 bid. And judging by the way President Barack Obama and the Democrats lose support from cen- trists every day, it also looks like that number will only increase. How could any real American * resist you, Palin? Now, I know you might be think- ing, "Well, gee, if I run, I'll just take real American votes from my conser- vative pals up in Washington, giving the election to the liberals." And it's true that this methodology has a basis in history. Third-party candidates almost always fail, and they oftenruin the electoral chances of the candidate nearest to them ideologically. If you run, you are all but guaranteeing vic- tory for the Democrats. But it would send a message. Real Americans must be heard! It may be political martyrdom - but think about all the publicity for the movement! I know you've been doing a lot of palm-reading lately, so perhaps you don't need me to predict the future for you. You might already know that it's a good idea for you to run for president in 2012 as a third-party candidate, and an even better idea to convince a handful of real Americans to run for congressional seats in your party, too. If that happens, the political land- scape in Washington will definitely be brighter after the 2012 election. Your friend, Matthew L. Green - Matthew Green can be reached at greenmat@unich.edu. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Jordan Birnholtz, William Butler, Nicholas Clift, Michelle DeWitt, Brian Flaherty, Jeremy Levy, Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Emily Orley, Harsha Panduranga, Alex Schiff, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith, Robert Soave, Radhika Upadhyaya, Laura Veith SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU MSA shouldn't eliminate MedicalAmnestyActmakes rights in a new constitution irresponsibility acceptable LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be fewer 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. Cooperation, not competition TO THE DAILY: The new all-campus constitution being pro- posed by the Students for Progressive Gov- ernance is not progressive. It should not be approved by MSA this week or adopted by the student body in the March election. The last attempt to re-write the constitution by hold- ing an unelected constitutional convention was ruled unconstitutional by the Central Student Judiciary and was ordered to disband. The con- vention was effectively reconvened as a student group in order to achieve the same purpose. The proposed new constitution is far less dem- ocratic, more bureaucratic, much more vague and omits many important rights and protec- tions that are provided to students and student organization in the current constitution. While the current constitution's Bill of Rights protects against discrimination based on "race, sex, color, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expres- sion, disability, Vietnam-era veteran status," the proposed new constitution omits national origin or ancestry, gender identity and expres- sion and veteran status. This is unacceptable. The proposed constitution also omits the Bill of Rights article on dissenting opinions, which under the current constitution protects the right to be graded solely on academic perfor- mance and not be penalized for disagreeing with a professor's views. The proposed constitution would give the MSA president the right to veto resolutions passed by the assembly. The assembly would then have to meet a two-thirds vote in order to overrule the veto. This would allow one person, the president, to severely undermine the abil- ity of the assembly to put the democratic will of the student body into action. As we continue to face a crisis in public education and a decline in minority student enrollment, we cannot allow our democratic rights and our ability to mobilize the power ofxhe student body tobe abridged. Kate Stenvig Rackham Representative to MSA TO THE DAILY: The Daily's recent editorial about exempt- ing intoxicated minors from legal repercussions when seeking medical attention overlooked some key factors when calling for the state Sen- ate's action on the Good Samaritan bill (The safe callfor Michigan, 02/15/2010). The attention-grabbing first line of the edi- torial, "An individual shouldn't be punished for doing the right thing," fails to negotiate the other side of the discussion. The individual currentlybeingpunished under existinglaws is an underage adult consuming alcohol illegally. Why does someone breaking a law deserve to be protected? Perhaps the drinking age should be lowered, but by making the decision to drink illegally, minors are immediately in danger of facing legal trouble and are acceptingresponsi- bility for any situation that arises. Should this be the avenue we take to corral college binge drinking? The Michigan Student Assembly, by petitioning the state government, thinks so. By accepting the fact that college students will continue to drink inordinate amounts of alcohol, we are surrendering the fight to curb the lethal behavior. An increase in 9-1-1 calls at Cornell University, which is cited in MSA's resolution to support the Good Samaritan bill, may be a result of the law being passed. Increased 9-1-1 calls at Cornell University may also be a result of an increase in underage drinking due to the law being passed. Without the danger ofpotentiallygettingintrou- ble for calling for help from a friend, one might ascertain minors will drink more freely. So where should we look to fight the deadly game of college binge drinking? Passing the Good Samaritan bill is not the answer we need. It forfeits our ability to successfully attack binge drinking, the root cause of alcohol-relat- ed deaths. Admitting defeat to the higher edu- cational problem of alcohol is not in the best interest of the University, nor does it follow its role as "in loco parentis." Stephen DeMare LSA Senior remember my first year on this campus like it was yesterday. I recall being surprised to see packed librar- ies on a Sunday. I remember being introduced to the, bell curve system and dreading the competitive spirit it brought forth. To this day, I still don't understand how this system BRITTANY is helpful. For SMITH example, students placed in Math 115 still take Math 105 and do exceptionally well, and their sky-high scores are a detri- ment to other students who aren't as advanced. This, in turn, makes the grading for less advantaged students even more stressful, adding to an already exacting course load. But I digress. What stood out the most - and what continues to catch my attention - are the innumerable student organizations on campus. Students are involved in a laundry list of organizations. Sometimes they overlap in interest, and other times they are as diverse as the campus community itself. But what makes me scratch my head is this question: do students really have an invested interest in the organizations in which they hold leadership positions, or do they simply claim leadership in mul- tiple organizations for their own self- interest? The events that student organiza- tions plan often overlap with other organizations' plans. In my experi- ence, however, I have noticed that the student leaders of similar orga- nizations are hesitant to collaborate on events with each other. Instead, it seems that students prefer to work in a fragmented model - one where each organization works alone. But in real- ity, some organizations with overlap- ping interests would produce better events if they decided to work togeth- er instead of as separate entities. I am again left to wonder why this is so. Perhaps it is because the cul- ture at the University is one in which students are self-absorbed and more interested in the "I" instead of the "we." If collaboration could further advance an organization's mission to, for example, provide mentor- ship to inner-city youth, then it's not apparent why collaboration is often replaced by multiple student orga- nizations with parallel agendas but fragmented activities. My question about the lack of coop- eration isn't condemnation - it's curi- osity. I wonder why collaboration is so rarely pursued on campus. And I can't help but ask if student leaders' self- interest is the cause. If student orga- nizations with similar interests were suddenly a singular organization, the student leaders that run these orga- nizations would no longer be able to have resum6-building leadership titles, which wouldn't be as helpful to their future prospects. But I would hate to think that students have lead- ership titles in one or multiple orga- nizations simply so they can impress prospective employers and graduate program admissions officials. This helps explain why student organiza- tions don't collaborate to a greater extent. Holding separate events may not always be the best way for groups to advance their causes, but it does allow leaders to say that they orga- nized the events themselves. The optimistic part of me would like to think that the culture of this university is one that defines lead- ership as independent and that stu- dent organizations prefer to advance causes in their own independent fashion. However, I admit that when I see students who don't seem to have a fire in their belly for the interests that their organization serves, I can only assume the title that they hold is held for personal interests and not the community's interests. Student orgs should collaborate for greater results. Sadly, it seems that some student organizations have been reduced by their leaders to resum6 builders. The interests many student organizations serve might be better furthered by cooperative efforts between similar groups. Consolidation is perhaps too much to hope for, but greater col- laboration between student leaders is a very real possibility if leaders can set aside their egos - and their resu- mes - and work together to produce greater results. It's not always neces- sary for organizations to hold their own independent events, and leaders should consider if their organizations could better further their cause by partnering with others in the com- munity. - Brittany Smith can be reached at smitbrit@umich.edu. 0 " 0I