6 4A - Monday, February 22, 2010 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com C ICdI,&an 4aly Edited and mandged by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St AnnArbor, MI 48109 =m" r rothedaily@umich.edu 0 I was positive that I won... But I saw that Evan needs a medal more than I do. Maybe because I already have one." 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 of their authors. Keeping close to home 'U' must encourage graduates to stay in Michigan T he University has always been known for its high-caliber academics, its dedication to furthering research and its large in-state student body. But with Michigan residents leaving the state in large numbers in response to the poor econom- ic climate, the ratio of in-state to out-of state students enrolled at the University could change. And though the University may be forced to change its in-state to out-of-state student ratio to main- tain its academic reputation, it should remember its commitment to the state and its residents. To help benefit Michigan's failing economy, the University should focus on the creation of programs that will keep students in Michigan after they graduate. - Russian Olympic figure skater Yevgeni Plushenko, commenting on his belief that he should have won the gold medal instead of American Evan Lysacek, as reported Friday by Time magazine. BELLA SHAH E-MAIL BELLAAT BELLZ LPUMICH.EDU Spring Brek aa arEc %Y DAyiv TENbRouG-H ~ "$, ' o Tim w rt s m oat-en ,~gAernl -ausd Rcvv ods15jrsiscllt i aryspnd rF' ftrsyctanv - 7 /d Acl a ft-t. m tl - .. .- - i.twrsse ci-s) 5 a't s. spec, eo tapeabea' c =re- c e s r e msk-eantreaL Prrm -ktiw "wan ecless"-. :~tsba-Sr" rsi tassa?- weir every}day and sedalse -Ilcetves Sri uo ° j d at-it 5aIt- ale'sttv Sv Polit ical correctness run a mo Currently, 65 percent of University stu- dents are Michigan residents. 35 percent of students are non-Michigan residents. But, as the Daily reported last week, a Decem- ber 2009 U.S. Census study showed that at least 32,759 residents have left the state between July 2008 and July 2009. The state population is currently hovering at a little under 10 million 'residents. The resi- dential population has not been under 10 million since 2001. Despite the declining in-state population, the number of in-state applications to the University rose by 6.6 percent. And while the University is fully aware of the dwindling population, offi- cials - including University Provost The- resa Sullivan - aren't concerned about the decrease in state population. As Sullivan pointed out in a recent Daily article, the declining state population isn't expected to reflect a huge change in in-state applicants and enrollees in the near future. But in the event that an even larger popula- tion decrease occurs in the future, the Uni- versity must stay committed to Michigan and its residents: The University is a public institution and Michigan residents support it through taxes. In return, the University must maintain its commitment to the state. But the University's commitment may not always mean preferring in-state to out- of-state students. The state depends on the University to produce the best possible workforce, and that means the University must maintain its high academic caliber. It would be a disservice to the University and the state if students accepted weren't well qualified. University graduates are in prime position to stimulate the growth of science and technology industries in Michi- gan. Regardless of population changes, the University must continue to admit highly qualified individuals to ensure its continued production of students that will benefit the changing Michigan economy. It is currently unclear what - if anything at all - the state's population decrease will mean for University enrollment. The University may find no shortage of highly qualified Michigan students to admit. But regardless of a potential ratio change, the University should encourage students to stay in Michigan after graduation. The University should further develop partner- ships like the job placement program that the College of Engineering has with Ford Motor Co. Programs similar to this partner- ship will encourage University graduates to seek employment within the state. To maintain a balance between a com- mitment to academic excellence and a commitment to the state, the University must produce a workforce that will benefit the state's economy. Building up and cre- ating programs that would encourage stu- dents to remain in state after graduation is just one way that the University and the state could improve. We all want solutions - it's a basic human need. The world is a big, complex place, and we want to deal with its problems in bits - and pieces so that we may at least have the satisfac- tion of solving a partof the problem. But too often such an approach simply doesn't work. TheI Michigan Student IMRAN Assembly and the SYED Daily's editorial page, in their push to mandate the use of gender-neutral language on cam- pus, have forgotten this timeless les- son. The idea is simple enough: Propo- nents say that the pronouns "he" and "she" discriminate against students who do not identify with either. The better approach, they say, is to have the University, its faculty and stu- dents use gender-neutral references such as "they" whenever possible. But that solution is so perfunctory that it borders on offensive. MSA recently passed a resolution to switch to gender-neutral language in the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities. The Daily's edi- torial page went several steps further, calling for a University-wide policy - one that, alarmingly, would "require professors to more carefully consider their words and avoid using gender- specific language that doesn't include all students" (He/she/ze, 02/17/2010). The reaction was predictable, with most of the online comments to the Daily's editorial expressing varying degrees of frustration over political correctness gone wild. The simplistic political correct- ness driving the change bothered me as well. But I'm much more concerned that this is yet another instance of a hollow gesture masking a gross lack of commitment to understanding the underlying issue and to taking the costly steps to resolve it. To make my argument clearer, let's consider the example of "Don't ask, Don't tell." The policy was insti- tuted in the mid-1990s and sold to us as progress. Gay people could now serve in the military, as long as they pretended not to be gay, which, of course, really means that gay people still cannot serve in the military. Since the policy was instituted, more than 13,000 service members have been discharged because they chose not to pretend. The stopgap rhetorical change that "Don't ask, Don't tell" brought was not only not a solution but actu- ally stands in the way of a true solu- tion today: Every time a proposal to change the policy is brought forth, opponents can simply point to DADT and say it was compromise that is progress enough - while knowing full well that the policy did nothing to change the underlying biases that led to the exclusion of homosexuals in the first place and, in fact, encour- aged the view that homosexuals are outsiders who don't belong. It is exactly that sort of exoticiza- tion and polarization that I fear will result from this simplistic switch to using gender-neutral language. That women feel excluded by the default use of the pronoun "he" and that transgendered people feel excluded by "he/she" being the only options are undeniable. But these feelings of exclusion are symptoms brought on by the wider problem of discrimination and lack of under- standing. A superficial rewriting of the student handbook (proposed by MSA) or even outright censorship of classroom discourse (which is the inevitable outcome of the Daily's proposal) will do nothing to correct those underlying problems. Like our hyper-sensitive society, the University is very good at saying all the right things. In the brochures for the University's various schools, you can read pages upon pages about its commitment to diversity of all forms. And yet the fact remains that the moment I step foot into any of my Law School classes and take a look at the racial composition of the class, it mayas wellbe 1910 as opposed to2010. Discrimination in language is part of a larger problem. For all its talk aboutbeing inclusive to people of all backgrounds because they bring unique experiences to the campus community - rhetoric that was carried all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2003 cases of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bo- linger - this University still had to be threatened, harassed and coerced into meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in the Michigan Stadium reno- vation process. Be it a race and ethnicity require- ment that lacks bite, a Detroit Center that's closed to all but those with a special card or yet another sympo- sium on this, that and the other thing plaguing inner cities, we've had plen- ty of talk and empty gestures around this campus. Perhaps an institution of such immensity can do no bet- ter than a glacial pace. But students should know better than to become enablers. - Imran Syed can be reached at galad@umich.edu. 0 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 ASA SMITH I Good behavior, bad regulation Two eyes on the road What is more important to the state of Michigan: money or crime rates? This question is now less hypothetical than you may think. A new proposal from Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, aims to bring back an ideal that was banned over 30 years ago in the state. Granholm has introduced a measure that would reinstitute the time off for good behavior practice in Michigan penitentiaries. Granholm has decided to bring back the poli- cy, which was phased out in 1978, shortening prison sentences for inmates with good prison records. So which is more important? It is a tricky question, to be sure. Michi- gan has been driven almost to bankruptcy by a combination of the failing auto industry and inept governments in Detroit and Lansing. As a result, any money-saving venture should cer- tainly be welcomed. But the cost of security is definitely something that needs to be looked at closely. It seems to me that the concept of time off for good behavior is a fairly counter-intuitive measure. If someone murders another person but gets along great with other convicts, I don't think that makes the murderer any better of a person. In the same vein but on the other end of the spectrum, ifa man goes to prison for pos- session of marijuana and repeatedly acts up in prison, that doesn't mean he's less fit to be released. The issue at hand here shouldn't be time credits or good behavior, but a complete reform of the justice and corrections systems in the state. Non-violent offenders, such as posses- sion or white-collar crimes, shouldn't be pun- ished in the same fashion as people convicted of rape or murder. The sentencing system - and the 'use of prisons - should be looked at with a more critical eye and include more cre- ative punishments for non-violent crimes. Granholm has allowed Michigan to turn into a national laughingstock on her watch - argu- ably, the state has two of the worst cities in the nation in terms of crime and economics. To allow more violent crimes to occur by repeat offenders is not a good way to combat this. Another issue to be dealt with is the issue of Michigan's state government and its inability to manage anything resembling a budget. Gra- nholm and her cronies seem to believe that if you tax high, then somehow businesses will flock to your state and your best and brightest will stay in the state. In actuality, this leads to less money and less opportunity for the state to bounce back. If Granholm wants to save money, she has a few resources at her disposal. She can trim cor- rections in earnest. Decriminalize drugs like they did in season three of the television series, "The Wire." Make parts of Detroit into "Ham- sterdam." (I don't feel bad about not explaining this. If you don't watch "The Wire," you don't get the pleasure of the reference.) Or maybe don't overspend on welfare by $6.2 million. There is also the issue of state lawmakers and their salaries but maybe we can discuss that issue another day. For me, this comes down to a personal deci- sion. I don't want to walk down the street and wonder if some child rapist got out of prison early because he was buddy-buddy with a guard in prison.,There are a million ways to save money in Michigan, cut parts of correc- tions, cut stupid unnecessary funding in other departments like agriculture. Granholm has effectively killed this state enough. Please don't allow the actual killers back into society. Asa Smith is an LSA sophomore. know the buttons on my phone so well that I can text with my eyes closed. But when I try to multi- task while texting or talking on the phone, the results are usually ugly. I tune people out, , trip over bumps in the sidewalk and, ; once, ran right into the black poleh separating the two open, double doors COuinwinE at Panera. But I'm willing RATKOWIAK to accept my weak- nesses. That's why I rarely talk on the phone or text while driving a car, especially while navigat- ing Ann Arbor, where student pedes- trians (including myself) blatantly disregard all traffic laws. Most of my friends regularly type and talk while they drive, though. And one of the first things they say about it is, "I do it, but I know Ishouldn't." The Ann Arbor City Council is try- ing to change that, and it's about time. On Tuesday, the council passed the first draft of a proposed city ordinance that would make it illegal to text or talk on the phone while drivinginAnn Arbor. Of course, this isn't a novel idea - the state of Michigan is currently in the process of passing legislation that will prohibit texting while driv- ing. But I'm glad to see Ann Arbor has decided the issue of impaired driv- ing is serious enough to take action now instead of waiting for the state's bureaucracy to take its course. The proposed Ann Arbor ordinance prohibits both motorists and bicy- clists from talking on the phone, lis- tening to voicemail, texting, using the Internet or operating a GPS, unless in an emergency situation. There is one big exception - hands-free devices v aren't included in the ban. That seems like a cop-out, considering multiple studies have shown hands-free devic- es are no safer than using handheld cell phones. But despite that, the City Council still has the right idea - even if most University students aren't going to like the law. According to the Governors High- way Safety Association, six states and Washington, D.C. currently ban cell phone use while driving, and 19 states and Washington, D.C. ban tex- ting while driving. In both the state of Michigan and in Ann Arbor, similar legislation is long overdue. A New Eng- land Journal of Medicine study from February 1997, one of the first studies on the topic, showed that motorists using cell phones while driving were four times more likely to get in a car accident than those who weren't on their phones. Those findings have only been reinforced over the past 13 years but not without a few shocking adden- dums - like the fact that driving while on the phone is as statistically danger- ous as driving drunk. But even without those facts, it's easy to see the dangers of distracted drivers who talk on the phone while navigating campus. In a city like Ann Arbor, with cramped streets and a high population of bikers and walkers, the ordinance should be as unforgiving as possible to discourage the behavior. And in its current form, the proposed legislation will be plenty strict. In the Ann Arbor ordinance, talk- ing or texting while driving would be a primary offense. That's a leg up on the state's version of the bill, where texting while driving is only a second- ary offense - the motorists can only be ticketed after they've been pulled over for another traffic violation, which makes it hard to take the state's law seriously. And the proposed fines for vio- lating the Ann Arbor ordinance are steep, especially for cash-strapped college students - a $125 fine for a standard violation and a $300 fine if the violation resulted in a motor vehi- cle accident. Driving on the phone is as risky as driving drunk. 0 0 The high fines might seem unnec- essary, but when students drive in Ann Arbor, we're often only in the car for five or 10 minutes at a time. It's not like most of us are commut- ing or sitting in gridlock, where it might be more understandable to talk on the phone to pass the time. I know that the thought of making a $125 mistake would definitely be enough to make me put the phone away until I got home from Meijer. Some people may complain that this is just another way for the Ann Arbor Police Department to make easy money handing out tickets. I'm usually in that camp - after all, I often wish our city's law enforcement had better things to do than ticket cars at 9:45 a.m. for parking in spots that are only free from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. But now it looks like Ann Arbor might be about to crack down on an activity that will finally have more positive effects than just feeding the city's coffers - and that should be enough to support hanging up our phones before we start our cars. - Courtney Ratkowiak was the Daily's managing editor in 2009. She can be reached at cratkowi@umich.edu. 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. All submissions become property of the Daily. We do not print anonymous letters. Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu.