I 4A - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com E-MAI.CHRISTINAATCIISUIi &UMICI.EDU N IC igan Baly Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu CHRISTINA SUH Qn e' u00 9a ".7/ $ M. >K 4 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. Efficient emissions Automakers must adapt to new EPA regulations Clean air doesn't need to be expensive. And it won't be under new federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency, in response to a directive by the Obama administration, unveiled new federal rules that would limit emissions and set more stringent fuel econ- omy standards for cars and trucks starting in 2016. The regula- tions are expected to save the consumer about $4,000 in gasoline expenditures over the lifetime of a new vehicle. But more impor- tantly, they are essential to the preservation of the environment. Automakers should work aggressively to meet the long-overdue standards by the government's deadline. Banned discussion 4 On Thursday, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation released a new set of regulations that would be the first restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and the largest increase in fuel economy standards since their inception in 1970. Under the new emissions standards, passenger vehicle fleets are expected to aver- age 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. Automo- bile greenhouse gas emissions are expected to fall 21 percent below current projected levels by 2030 with the new regulation. The new rules are crucial for the preser- vation of the environment. The U.S. is one of the largest polluters of greenhouse gases in the world. And vehicles account for one- fifth of American emissions, according to an Apr. 1 editorial by The New York Times. These emissions contribute to global warm- ing by trapping heat inside the planet's atmosphere and raising the temperature of the earth. By restricting the amount of these gases that are released into the atmo- sphere through vehicle emissions, the gov- ernment has demonstrated its commitment to combat climate change. This will help set a global standard and curb the damage of global warming and pollution. Higher fuel economy standards will help Americans save money. Like many environ- mentally friendly initiatives, the initial cost will be recouped in savings later on. The initial cost of new vehicles will increase by an EPA-estimated $985 for 2016 models, but buyers will save around $4,000 on fuel expenses in the long term, as reported in an Apr. 2 Washington Post article. Spending less on gas will leave consumers with more disposable income to spend in other parts of the economy. This move was a necessary one for the Obama administration. It set boundaries for an industry known for prioritizing prof- its over the environment. Automakers have, until recently, been loath to respond to the rising demand for more fuel-efficient cars. But the vice president ofthe Alliance of Auto- mobile Manufacturers, Gloria Berquist, has called the new requirement a "roadmap for future fuel-economy increases." While it's encouraging that automakers are on board with the new regulations, the rules should be seen as a guide for the future development of the automotive industry. The new regulations will lower green- house gas emissions that are dangerous for the environment, and come with.the bonus of saving consumers money. Automakers must show their dedication to a cleaner environment and their patrons by work- ing diligently to meet4he new regulations by 2016. And the Obama administration should continue to ensure proper enforce- ment of the regulations. 've learned much in the two weeks since my letter to the Uni- versity's president (Dear Presi- dent Coleman..., 03/25/2010). First, I learned that Uni- versity President Mary Sue Cole- man believes she's my mother. Or at - least she wants to be. And who could blame her? Just look at that black ALEX and white thumb- nail photo. But she RILES also wants to be your mother. Cole- man thinks she knows what's best for our health, even though most of us are competent adults capable of mak- ing decisions and dealing with conse- quences. She's also a negligent mother to the campus community. I attempted to contact the University president on numerous occasions, only to be turned down every time. E-mail after e-mail, I found it hard to believe that I couldn't receive a 30-second reply from Coleman, even if it was only to shut me up. Every attempt was followed by a response from some member of the University's massive bureaucracy directing me to some other bureaucratic agency. Our president's disregard calls into question her priorities. It amazes me that President Barack Obama has directly reached out and written per- sonal letters to citizens more than our University president has addressed student concerns. And although Obama is certainly no Coleman, I'm sure the man has a few things on his plate - a health care bill to pay for, two inherited wars and the largest debt in American history, for starters. This is merely a microcosm of -the lack of transparency, absence of student input and complete indif- ference the University has shown to the campus community in regard to the smoking ban. The Smoke-Free Initiative Steering Committee hasn't granted the public any information on its meetings. Not to mention that the University hasn't ruled out develop- ing a database to track students who fail to adhere to the ban, according to a Nov.12 Smoke-Free Initiative infor- mation session. The steering commit- tee ironically asked for student input at two farcical "listening sessions" yet refused to reconsider any part of the initiative, despite being offered common sense alternatives, like more pronounced enforcement of the cur- rent ban, the establishment of smok- ing zones or a vote by the University community. Granted, some of Coleman's rea- sons for the Smoke-Free Initiative are likely motivated by good inten- tions like lowering the University's health care costs. But these justifica- tions are severely compromised by her compensation from a corporation that will likely benefit from the smok- ing ban. Coleman sits on the board of directors for Johnson & John- son, from which she earned nearly a quarter of a million dollars in 2009, and holds 11,159 shares of common stock, 10,777 shares of common stock equivalent units and 7,600 exercis- able stock options in the company. Johnson & Johnson is the producer of a host of nicotine replacement products, including Nicoderm and Nicorette. Coleman explains, "the University will offer free behavioral sessions and selected over-the-coun- ter smoking cessation products to faculty and staff, along with co-pay reductions for prescription tobacco cessation medicines (and) discounts on tobacco cessation aids." In other words, under the proposed Smoke-Free Initiative, the Univer- sity would subsidize products made by Johnson & Johnson. The Univer- sity would purchase more nicotine replacement products, likely resulting in financial gains for Johnson & John- son and, consequently, Coleman. Another thing I've realized is that most people I talk to are against the smoking ban. This is particularly true after I explain what the ban specifi- cally entails. I've managed to convert at least a dozen individuals who pre- viously favored the ban with sweet reason. When I explain to them that it's an issue of individual choice, per- sonal responsibility, lack of transpar- ency and an unenforceable means for the University administration to claim campus is "smoke-free" and continue to wave its twisted banner of political correctness, they listen. The smoking ban shouldn't be only Coleman's choice. 4 Our time at the University should be spent embracing the privileges and responsibilities of adulthood, not avoiding them. In spite of Coleman's negligence, she wants me to believe that she's entitled to hold my hand and protect me from her perceived dangers of the real world. Coleman can't continue to ignore the fact that 1,373 students, faculty and staff have signed a petition opposing the smoking ban since Apr. 1. As a presi- dent who claimed to be receptive to "input from the campus community" and "ensuring that the needs of our University's varied constituents are understood," she has failed dismally, neglecting to take into account stu- dent input and allow for communica- tion between the administration and campus community. Before Coleman tries to force any "culture of health" on us, she should address her own culture of conflicting interests. - Alex Biles can be reached at jabiles@umich.edu. 1 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: TOTHEDAILYvUMICH.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. 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. I Gold's 'Worship' cartoon makes offensive comparison TO THE DAILY: Daniel Gold's cartoon is such a pitiful com- mentary to see for one of Christianity's holi- est times (Weekend of worship, 04/02/2010). Remembering that Jesus Christ died on a cross and rose to life offering the gift of eternal life to those who believe in him, comparing Good Friday and the story of redemption with Hash Bash and the story of human depravity and self- worship, is an offensive comparison. Calling it a weekend of worship and making the connection between worshipping God on Good Friday and worshipping something other than God for the so-called great Hash Bash Saturday, through a play on words, comes across as a cheap hit at something and Someone many of us hold as sacred. Jesus died for the sins of the world - and what happens during Hash Bash proves that the world needs to be saved. Douglas Keasal Staff U should compromise by selling smoking permits TO THE DAILY: In recent weeks, Daily columnists Rob- ert Soave and Alex Biles have condemned the University's campus-wide smoking ban as an assault on personal liberty (Coleman's smok- ing gun, 04/06/2010, Dear President Coleman..., 03/25/2010). Though I agree that the ban is illiberal and paternalistic, it also seems unfair that non-smok- ers mustpay higher health care costs to subsidize smokers' poor decisions. Instead of issuing an outright ban on smoking, the University should sell on-campus smoking permits. With a nation- ally renowned public health school, the Universi- ty should be able to estimate how much smoking would increase an individual's health care costs over the period of a semester, and this would be the cost of a permit. Purchasers of the permit would be able to smoke in designated areas on campus and could present their permit to any DPS officer. Anyone smoking on campus without a permit would receive a sizable fine, the fees of which would go toward administrative costs for the program. The selling of permits is preferable to both the upcoming ban and the status quo. Though the ban will restrict personal liberty, not having a ban forces responsible, intelligent people to indi- rectly bankroll smokers by paying higher health care costs. Issuing permits would allow individ- uals to make personal decisions, but would also put the onus on them to pay forthe consequences. Matthew Brunner Less work more play Staff Ban prote from secoi TO THE DAILY: cts non-smokers nd hand smoke As debate on the campus-wide smoking ban heats up, Daily columnists Alex Biles and Robert Soave have added to the discussion (Dear Presi- dent Coleman..., 03/25/2010, Coleman's smoking gun, 04/06/2010). Soave has questioned Presi- dent Mary Sue Coleman's allegiance to Johnson & Johnson, among other corporations. I would like to take the time to tell you why I fully sup- port the smoking ban. Soave and Biles have ignored the fact that smoking is terrible for everyone involved. As a student going into the health care field, I see the burden smoking puts on society and health care facilities on a daily basis. The Environmental Protection Agency published a report in 2008 outlining the burden smoking places on society, citing 440,000 preventable deaths and $150 bil- lion in health care costs annually. Some people, including Biles and the College Libertarians, have also argued that the ban is an infringement on personal rights, stating they have the "right" to smoke. I would argue that they have no right to make me inhale second hand smoke, thus putting me at risk for health related problems later in life. The EPA and Cen- ters for Disease Control have said that second hand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemi- cal compounds, including ammonia and carbon monoxide, a poison to the human body. Second hand smoke has also been classified as a carcino- gen, or cancer causing agent, since 1992. As a non-smoking student, I continually am upset by walking into a bar (a public place) or simply down the sidewalk and being engulfed by someone's second hand smoke. Second hand smoke causes coughing, phlegm, chest discom- fort and reduced lung function in non smokers, not to mention the need for a shower. It's one thing if you want to smoke the cancer stick on your own, it's another if you make me. So the next time you're walking on campus and you get a whiff of smoke, think of Coleman and the poli- cies protecting students livinga healthy lifestyle. A.J. Humes Nursing senior recently heard someone remark that the U.S. school system - specifically elite private schools and public schools for gifted stu- dents - operates on a model that demands a high level of perfor- mance but not necessarily a high level of learning. I am inclined not only to think this BRITTANY is true but also to assert that this is SMITH one of the major problems in Amer- ican education deserves immediate attention. Schoolchildren today are pushed to be the ultimate Renaissance students - acquiring book smarts, making con- tributions to their communities, taking up athletics if playing an instrument is not an option and demonstrating lead- ership outside of the classroom. I ques- tion these measures of meritocracy. I am concerned that schools are send- ing a superficial message to students "to do more." I am concerned that "doing more" doesn't actually increase the depth of education, even if it does improve applications. I remember the days of pulling all-nighters in high school, studying late nights for my Advanced Place- ment classes, going to Borders to buy books to prepare for the AP exams and searching for ways to raise my GPA a few decimal points. But now that I reflect on my high school years - spe- cifically, my junior and senior years - I can acknowledge that the desire tobe the best student academically induced anxiety and, consequently, extracur- ricular activities didn't concern me as much. Institutions of higher learning and now selective high schools have created an admissions process that only adds to this pressure by using standardized tests as gatekeepers. But I am critical of schools that use standardized test scores as indica- tors of a student's ability to thrive in his or her school. A standardized test measures a student's test-taking skills and not that students' comprehension of the material. Though widely used, test scores are a superficial means of assessing a student. I seethis probleminnewlyproposed federal standards as well. As much as I love President Barack Obama and his policies, I suspect that the stan- dards created for his Race to the Top program, an initiative in which states compete for financial support from the federal government, may merit a posi- tion in "Race to Nowhere" - the name of a documentary film that spells out the problems of pressuring youth to be high-achievers. In "Politics and Pars- nips: Obama's Common Core," Susan Ohanian of The New York Times details the requirements that states like Michigan have to meet to compete for funds under Race to the Top. According to Ohanian, in order for. states to be eligible for aid, they must commit to the Common Core Stan- dards document, which contains the Exemplar Text list as an appendix. According to Ohanian, the Exemplar Text includes books like Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" as required reading for the an eleventh grader and William Wordsworth's "Preface to Lyrical Ballads" for a ninth grader. Obama wants students to have a firm grasp of a variety of classical litera- ture. Though I understand that many of the titles on the Exemplar Text list demand high performance from stu- dents, I am not sure how much stu- dents will actually benefit since the list is so extensive. Obama's Race to the Top program encourages the overachiever mental- ity that has contributed to the stress of high school students vying for limited seats in the nation's top-tier institutions. Obama's policy is con- nected to the cultural issue of over- working our children in the name of academic rigor. Or is the aim of Obama's policy for American stu- dents to be exposed to the breadth of classical literature and not necessar- ily its depth? That would be another example of embracing a superficial standard of education. It pushes stu- dents to know and do more but not necessarily to learn more. Our culture is too focused on grades. 4 Colleges and universities have an image of a high-performing student that expensive private schools and competitive public schools strive to produce. More often than not, this standard doesn't promise the engage- ment of the student's learning and understanding of material. But it is daunting and creates a high-stress environment that leads students to equate how successful they are with the prestige of the high school, col- lege or university to which they are admitted. But it's not the fault of the stu- dent, parent or even Obama that this environment exists. Instead, the problem is the culture that has been created with the permission of parents, schools and the govern- ment. This culture needs to change. As remarked by a contributor of the documentary film, "The Race to Nowhere," if the United States is going to "get off this treadmill" of measuring greatness by test scores, then "we're going to have to get off of it together." - Brittany Smith can be reached at smitbrit@umich.edu.