4A - Wednesday, January 6, 2010 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com E-MAIL CHRIS AT CSKOSLOW@UMICH.EDU Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu CHRIS KOSWALSKI I So the CEO of Domino's is You know what this means, PizaBowl, here we corn the new athletic director. 'ht * 6# am a Mich igan'smra lt ole 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. Maintaining the legac Daily's editorial page will uphold commitment to students News media has been called the fourth branch of govern- ment. National newspapers like The New York Times cover national issues, serving as checks on the govern- ment at the state and federal levels. As a locally-focused news- paper, The Michigan Daily serves as a check on the University's administration and the local government. And, as a paper run entirely by students, it focuses on issues that impact its primary readership: the University community. This editorial page will continue to serve its readers by providing a varied, informed dis- cussion of relevant issues that impact the lives of students. The Daily has a rich history. In the 1960s, an investigative reporter at the Daily won acclaim for his work covering the Univer- sity administration. In 1955, when Jonas Salk created the first successful vaccine for polio, the Daily broke the news. In recent years, editorials have called for an office of veteran's affairs and handicapped seating in Michigan Stadium - and the University has heard. All of these events have developed an editorial page focused on one thing: serving the students. The Daily boasts 120 years of editorial freedom in proud letters on the front page in each and every edition. This is some- thing that the staff of the Daily values at the utmost level. Editorial freedom means that the Daily is an autonomous entity. It is not run by the University. The content within it is decided upon, written and edited entirely by students. The Daily's duty is to inform students of the issues that affect them. It is my responsibility as editorial page editor to ensure that this page continues to fulfill a dual purpose. First, it will provide the student body with informed opinions on issues that students should care about. Second, it will facilitate debate with input from all sides. The editorials that will hereafter fill this space will present students with opinions based on fact and the Daily's values. Edito- rials are unsigned because they aren't the opinion of a single individual. These edito- rials - considered, debated and formulated by the Daily's editorial board - stand for the ideals that the Daily has developed over the course of 120 years. Editorials have unapol- ogetically supported and will continue to support social progressivism, environmen- tal responsibility, community involvement and advocacy for students' rights. But this page is also a forum for discus- sion. As college students, we should value few things more than debate. For this part of the paper to function properly, the Daily needs its readers to speak up. Viewpoints offer the chance for students and groups to offer their opinions. Letters to the edi- tor facilitate discussion between students. These pieces come directly from students and faculty, and the fresh ideas they bring keep our page as diverse and informed as the University's population. I encourage you to write if you have something to say. I promise I will consider your contributions with the gravity they deserve. As editorial page editor, I will make certain that the widest possible variety of opinions is represented on this page. This page will not fail its historical significance. It will not compromise its principles. And it will continue to speak to the unique con- cerns of its readers. Rachel Van Gilder Editorial Page Editor erry Christmas, people of Michigan. This is your par- ents, the state government. We've decided that your New Year's Resolution this year will be to quit smoking, and to " that end, we pres- ent your Christmas present: astatewide smoking ban in all work places, minus a few pesky exemp- ROBERT tions, like cigar bars SOAVE and smoking spe- cialty shops. And, oh yeah, Detroit's three casinos. But all you smaller, more vulnerable establishments, well, you justhave to kick the habit. Don't balk, dear readers, at this patronizing tone. Now that the smok- ing ban has Gov. Jennifer Granholm's signature on it, the state has officially taken on the role of the morality police. And as lawmakers tread down the slip- pery slope of regulating public health, the biggest losers are private property and individual rights. After years of fighting over which businesses to exempt, legislators finally passed a statewide workplace smoking ban that was signed into law by Granholm on Dec. 18. In 4 press release touting the bill's final approv- al, the governor's office repeated the misleading mantra of ban proponents, claiming the ban "will make Michigan the 38th state to ban smoking in public places." But smoking is already prohib- ited in most public places in Michigan. And now it is private property owners that, for the first time, will be required to prohibit smoking. This misconception stems from state policymakers' gross misunder- standing of the definitions of the words "public" and "private." Their view, it would seem, is that the private/public designation depends upon the function of the property, and if a building is open to the public it is a public place. But this is fundamentally flawed - private property is private property no matter what its owner uses it for or who is per- mitted to enter. In fact, a private place is simply one that is owned by a private citizen, whereas a public place is one that is owned by some unit of government, be it local, state or federal. The terms have nothing to do with the number or type of people that inhabit a certain space. Nor does it matter what the space is being used for. A restaurant or bar is a private place in the same way that a house is a private place. Police build= ings, courthouses, state parks, etc., are public places. Itis the ownership alone that determines whether property is public or private. Because public property is govern- ment owned, the state may prohibit smoking in public places. Smoking is already prohibited in most public buildings - the University of Michigan for example, banned smoking indoors years ago, and in July 2011, will extend the ban to include outdoor spaces as well. This extension of the University's ban is ill-advised for several reasons - foremost, perhaps, that the Univer- sity administration should not require its students to make certain lifestyle choices - but at least University prop- erty is public space. The private prop- erty of Michigan's restaurant and bar owners, on the other hand, is not pub- lic space, no matter how loudly (and incorrectly) Granholm and state legis- lators assert that it is. Permitting the state government to dictate whatsort of behavior is accept- able on privately-owned property is reckless and dangerous. Why not ban smoking in people's homes as well? It is not only in the workplace that non-smokers encounter secondhand smoke. While we're at it, why should the smokers be allowed to suffer from their bad habit? Certainly it follows logically that if a healthier public is the end goal, and the governmenthas a right to intervene in individual behav- ior in both privately-owned space and publicly-owned space, smoking should simply be banned completely across the entire state. And yet most people will recognize that this would be too far for the gov- ernment to go - that the government has no right to compel healthy behav- ior from its citizens. This is because some people would rather engage in an activity that they find pleasurable (like smoking) even if it's bad for them. But permitting the government to ban smoking on private property is a bold step inundermining both the right and the ability of people to live their lives the way they wantto. The state shouldn't dictate people's private behavior. While proponents of a ban cling to numerous falsehoods, I'll touch on just one more. It's absurd to claim that restaurants and bars will benefit economically from the enactment of the smoking ban. If banning smoking was beneficial for an establishment, the establishment would prohibit smoking on its own, as many bars and restaurants across the state have already done. But that's the owner's call, not the government's. After all, who understands the business better: the owner whose life and livelihood depend on it - who has likely spent years improving it and is inextricably linked to its success - or a bunch of Lansing bureaucrats? I say this every time I write a col- umn against smoking bans, but I'll say it again: I am not a smoker. I'm not looking out for myself here. But an important principal is at stake here. With regard to private property and personal behavior, lawmakers should butt out. - Robert Soave was the Daily's editorial page editor in 2009. He can be reached at rsoave@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 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. a a WANT TO BE AN OPINION CARTOONIST? E-MAIL RACHEL VAN GILDER AT RACHELVG@UMICH.EDU ALEX SCHIFF | The federal filibuster flunk Investing in ethics This country's political system has officially become more dysfunctional than the Thanks- giving dinners of many American families. And while watching our leaders attempt to fix this country's health care system isn't quite as depressing as listening to NFL commentators ask, "Why do they still allow the Lions to play on Thanksgiving?" year after year, it's pretty close. I'm holding out for the day Mitch McConnell challenges Harry Reid to a duel with pistols at dawn, televised on C-SPAN - no, ESPN - and sponsored by Budweiser. In fact, this could be an improvement. At least we would have finally acknowledged that poli- tics has become less about improving our nation and more about winning partisan points. It's this growing polarization of American politics that has paralyzed policymaking. One of the most controversial things about the current health care bill is that it forces insurance companies to actually provide health care to people who pay for it. For the most part, this bill is an expansion of a bloated, subpar patchwork of public and pri- vate insurers and providers - a bill I half support because of what it could accomplish, and half dis- dain for what it could have done and didn't. Yet, somehow this incremental effort at reform has been transformed into the decisive battle in the war against socialism, communism and fascism all at the same time. If it were up to me, political parties would be banned outright and all levels of government would be dissolved. In my utopian society, all dis- putes would be settled via steel cage death match. It would be quicker and more effective than the dysfunctional, polarized system we're currently forced to endure. Unfortunately, if Democrats can barely pass the reforms on which they were elected with a filibuster-proof majority, I don't have much hope for Congress implementing my model of governance. Luckily, I have a Plan B: get rid of the filibus- ter. I've come to the conclusion that this archaic rule is one of the greatest contributing factors to the crippling inertia of the legislative branch. At first, I thought the filibuster was written into the Constitution and thus nearly impossible to elimi- nate. To my surprise, I found that there is abso- lutely nothing stopping the abolishment of the filibuster but the Senate itself, as it is an entirely self-imposed limitation written into the Senate's procedural rules. Each party criticizes the other vehemently when it threatens to use the filibus- ter but neither will dare dispose of it in case they need it later. The common supporting argument for the fili- buster is that it allows the minority party to pre- vent the majority party from being too radical in its legislative pursuits. But in the modern era, the only thing the filibuster accomplishes is putting an enormous amount of influence in the hands of a few senators that feign uncertainty over a bill. Because a simple majority can't pass legislation anymore, party leaders have to insert special provisions and make concessions just to appease wavering senators. It wasn't always this way. In the 1950s, there was an average of one filibuster per year. Accord- ing to research by political scientist Barbara Sinclair, threat or actual use of filibusters has become a staple of the legislative process - grow- ing from affecting only 8 percent of legislation in the 1960s to 27 percent in the 1980s and finally rising to 70 percent since the Democratic take- over of 2006, when Republicans found them- selves in the minority. Hyperpartisanship has made it a political imperative to oppose all action of the other party. With the need for a supermajority to move a bill through each step of the legislative process, the filibuster ensures that the policies enacted by Congress will be weak, watered down and full of frivolous measures to appease senators in the middle. The system in place is so constrained by these two factors that the term "representative democracy" threatens to lose its meaning. If we can't vote representatives into office that will enact the policies we want, can we really claim to have a voice in how we are governed? Instead of serving the public good, our rep- resentatives are holding health care for ransom. When the American people elect a party as a majority, that majority has a mandate to take the nation in the direction the people voted.for. America deserves the change it voted for when it gave control of both Congress and the White House to the Democrats. America deserves democracy that works. Alex Schiff is an assistant editorial page editor. Even before incoming freshmen make their way to Ann Arbor for the first time, chances are they've heard something about the University's colossal endow- ment. At $6 billion, even after the col-l-fh t lapse of the stock market, it's among the ten biggest endowments of any American uni- MATTHEW versity. In casual GREEN competition with friends at. other schools, I always enjoy mentioning that fact. Taking on a somewhat Freudian tone, I occa- sionally tease, "My endowment is big- ger than yours," to which my friends tend to supply some witty repartee. But recently, one friend pointed out that, although our endowment might be huge, some of its compo- nent investments are really nothing to brag about. It was something I'd heard before - the University is con- stantly under some sort of criticism about its investments. This time, however, I felt ignorant about the issues my friend raised and decided to look into the matter. Upon doing so, I was at once sur- prisedby how extensively the Univer- sity replied to a vast array of political and ethical concerns on the webpage for its Office of Public Affairs. One could spend hours on that page just reading about all the individual posi- tions the University has taken on social issues, in addition to assorted policies regarding its investments. A link entitled "Coca-Cola," for instance, provides PDF files containing correspondence between the Univer- sity's chief financial officer and Coca- Colaexecutives. Uponreadingthe files, a remarkable narrative unfolds. In the past few years, the Uni- versity became concerned about certain unethical practices at Coca- Cola bottling plants in Colombia and elsewhere. The University's CFO petitioned Coca-Cola to permit an investigation by an unaffiliated organization to explore questionable labor conditions. These efforts led to, amongst other things, improved collective bargaining rights for Coca- Cola workers, contributing to what I found to be a history of ethical invest- ment choices made by the University. That history started in 1978, when the University chose to divest from apartheid South Africa after the Uni- versity's Board of Regents adopted a resolution saying that an advisory committee should be able to evalu- ate an investment if a serious ethi- cal issue arises. This clause was also invoked in 1999, when then-Univer- sity President Lee Bollinger led a successful campaign to divest from companies that profited from the sale of tobacco. Both these instances should remain points of pride for us. Yet, there's always room for improvement, particularly since the University invests in hundreds of companies each year. Take the case of Nestle, in which the University invested over $6 million in 2008. The Swiss foods company has recently come under fire for a variety of ethi- cal issues ranging from child labor on cocoa farms to price fixing to carry- ing out business with dictatorships. But what should matter even more to the University is a little closer to home. In Stanwood, Michigan, a small town near the center of the state, Nes- tle planned to open a Perrier watei bottling plant in 2001. Since then, the plant has been the center of a contro- versy regarding the environmental damage caused by the plant's abuse of a natural aquifer. Other than pro- viding some employment - which is admittedly vital in this state - the plant hurts Michigan by pumping 500,000 gallons of water each day and destroying established ecosystems. To be sure, the University's finan- cial officers probably invested in Nestle for a variety of good reasons. Nestle is, after all, among the world's biggest foods companies. And espe- cially now, as this state struggles to keep (let alone create) jobs, Nestle may appear to be a responsible choice on account of its continued employ- ment of Michiganders. 'U' should use its endowment pull for social good. 4 4 But if the University could per- haps turn a blind eye to Nestle's other unethical actions, it simply cannot ignore the company's deleterious effects on Michigan. Rather than divest, the University ought to chan- nel its recent history with Coca-Cola and petition Nestle to make positive changes to the way its Stanwood plant affects the environment. Despite what some may still think, the University is not an insatiable Gordon Gekko, intent solely on mak- ing as much money as possible. Indeed, it has shown remarkable ethical care in recent history. But the University cannot become compla- cent just because it has done the right thing in the past. It is the University's responsibility to make every pos- sible change for the better. And while change is sometimes challenging, the University can take a small baby step in favor of social justice by reconsid- ering its investment in Nestle. - Matthew Green can be reached at greenmat@umich.edu The Daily is looking for a diverse group of strong, informed writers to be columnists next semester. Columnists write 750 words on a topic of their choice every other week. E-MAIL RACHEL VAN GILDER AT RACHELVG@UMICH.EDU FOR MORE INFORMATION