4A - Thursday, September 16, 2010 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.corn E-MAIL CAMERON AT CNEVEU a UMICH.EDU Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu CAMERON NEVEU I ".11 1 -~ ~ )ZY ~ il~r+ G~e~kt 0 JACOB SMILOVITZ EDITOR IN CHIEF RACHEL VAN GILDER EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MATT AARONSON MANAGING EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflectthe official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. Undisguised bigotry Cox should dismiss assistant attorney general ften, it's best to turn the other cheek in the face of hate- ful ignorance. But when hate speech is extreme and public, it must be confronted. Andrew Shirvell, a Uni- versity alum and a current assistant attorney general for the state of Michigan, has taken aim at the Michigan Student Assembly President Chris Armstrong almost exclusively because Arm- strong is MSA's first openly gay president. Shirvell's undisguised hatred for members of the LGBT community has compromised his ability to serve as a public official. Michigan Attorney Gener- al Mike Cox shouldn't be comfortable employing someone who's bigotry so clearly has the potential to influence the work he does on behalf of Michigan taxpayers. Cox must take decisive action to respond to Shirvell's hate speech - and his pro forma slap on the wrist this week isn't going to cut it. Mr. Green goes to Washington. Jnterns in Washington, D.C. tend to have certain attributes in com- mon. Unseasoned yet confident, these individuals are career-driven, politically con- scious and general- ly affluent enough to afford to live in D.C. without get- ting paid. They're a pretty w61-edu- cated crowd, and they're often well MATTHEW connected, too. With all that going GREEN for them, it's no_ wonder why many of them think they've got their lives figured out. They think that this step leads to that step which leads to this law school and that job and this whole, wonder- ful planned-out life. Barely a week into my internship this summer, I started to get nervous that I hadn't completely sketched out my life post graduation. Even though I still have two years left in Ann Arbor, I would lay awake in bed some nights considering a host of ques- tions about the next stages of my life. Should I really study abroad? Take another internship or two? Washing- ton? New York? Law school? I'll admit I'm rather anxiety-prone in general. I could've spent the sum- mer studying Buddhist meditation in Nepal and I still probably would've had panic attacks. But from talking to some of the friends I made while I was in D.C., it became clear I wasn't the only one who was getting nervous about mapping out my future. I decided I'd start looking for guid- ance from people who had insight into more than merely which LSAT class to take. I asked the advice of every- one it was socially acceptable to ask. Fortunately, in addition to the myriad ambitious twenty-somethings there, D.C. is also home to scads of profes- sionals eager to give opinions and tell their stories. First, I spoke with congressional staffers, young lawyers and non-prof- it types. They were my first glimpse into what a political career is really like. Their stories varied, but a com- mon thread was that none of them went immediately to law school after college - and about half never stud- ied law. This was surely a departure from what my friends and acquain- tances were planning on doing. As the summer progressed, I got to meet an eclectic bunch of Washing- ton insiders - a television producer, a CEO, a journalist and a couple lob- byists, among others. They had vastly different success stories, but they all had similar things to say. For starters, they each suggested that I ignore the nonsense spewing from the interns around me. That might've been the best advice of all. Yet more than that, they all reassured me that a career need not follow a linear path. Each of these people had seemingly unrelated professional experiences that didn't fit neatly together, but all of them were quite successful. Once I realized this, an unfamiliar calm came over me. Then, on one of my last days in Washington, I went to a Middle East policy seminar in one of the congres- sional office buildings. I got there early, and when I noticed a table with coffee and pastries, I couldn't resist. As I spread a modest portion of cream cheese on a bagel, a man asked me where I found the schmeer with chives. I didn't recognize him at first, but I quickly realized - admittedly from his nametag - that he was a congressman. After I pointed to a tub of Philadelphia, the man made small talk with me and eventually asked ifS wanted to pursue a career in politics. I said yes, but that I didn't know the path I ought to take to get there. I was pretty awkward at this point and I'm not quite sure why he didn't leave me to play with his Blackberry. Unconventional career advice from D.C. insiders. ButI was glad to hear the congress- man's advice. He said I ought to use my twenties to grow as a person before really worrying about my career. I mentioned my study abroad anxiety 0 and he told me to go for it. His advice was not to be concerned about what classes or experiences will be profes- sionally "useful," but which will make me a balanced human being. In other words, he told me to do everything conventional wisdom said not to. And he did so in a tone perhaps more befit- 0 ting a maharishi than a politician. In spite of so many invaluable and quirky experiences this summer, I don't know if I'll end up in politics. But I figure the lessons I learned all boil down to wisdom that could be relevant to any career path. Experi- ence as much as possible, don't get nervous and don't decide upon a career prematurely. - Matthew Green can be reached at greenmat@umich.edu. Shortly after the MSA election in March, Shirvell launched a campaign against Armstrong. Shirvell started his blog, "Chris Armstrong Watch," in late April. The blog has railed against what Shirvell calls Armstrong's "radical homosexual agenda," as he put it in his initial Aug. 29 post. The first blog post also contained a photo of Armstrong with "Resign" writ- ten over his face and a rainbow flag with a swastika in the middle of it next to him. Subsequent posts have labeled Armstrong a liar, an elitist, a racist, a pervert and a "viciously militant homosexual activist." Over time, the attacks have expanded to include several MSA members who work closely with Armstrong. Recently, Shirvell has taken to showing up at events at which Armstrong is present. Though much of Shirvell's tirades are one step from utter nonsense, his dis- dain for the LGBT community is obvious. Shirvell criticizes the LGBT community's push for social equality in blanket state- ments that are plainly offensive to every- one. Though offensive, however, Shirvell's hateful remarks aren't a threat to campus. The University community recognizes Shirvell's attacks as what they really are: the rants of a bigot. Attorney General Mike Cox has not reacted appropriately to this reality. As reported on Tuesday, the attorney general's office confirmed to the Daily that the office was aware of Shirvell's blog. Yesterday, the Detroit Free Press reported that Cox had "chastised" Shirvell for the statements made on the blog. According to a statement from Cox, Shirvell is entitled to "a right to free speech outside working hours ... But Mr. Shirvell's immaturity and lack of judg- ment outside the office are clear." Shirvell's increasingly extreme actions of discrimination aren't the result of a lapse in judgment. His behavior does not stem from immaturity. It stems from hatred. And this type of hatred makes Shirvell unsuitable to remain a government offi- cial. It will affect his ability to objectively interpret laws - which is the job of the attorney general's office. It's unacceptable that Cox hasn't dismissed a member of his staff who is so blatantly bigoted. A finger- wagging won't change the fact that Cox has a responsibility to employ a thoughtful staff that will fairly carry out their jobs on behalf of the citizens of this state. Shirvell doesn't fit this mold. Cox shouldn't tolerate such offensive behavior from someone who is required to fairly defend the law. A scolding isn't an acceptable response to the hatred that con- tinues to be published on Shirvell's blog. Cox must take serious action. He should remove Shirvell from his position in the attorney general's office. WHAT GRINDS YOUR GEARS? 0 ASHLEY GRIESSHAMMER I College rankings matter The Daily's opinion blog wants to know what you think about life on campus. Check out the twisted thoughts of Will Grundler as he laments how annoying aggressive joggers are. Go to michigandaily.com and click on 'Blogs'. ROGER SAUERHAFT The net should remain neutral I'm one of those people who considers a school's ranking to be very important - a view contrary to that of many other students. Maybe it's because I like to know that my school is among the top performers in the country or because I want to reassure myself that I am get- ting the best education possible. Whatever my personal underlying reasons, a school's rank- ing is important. Yet many students neglect to consider rankings as one of the school's biggest assets when making college decisions. First, let's talk about where the Univer- sity stands. In this year's rankings released by Kaplan and Newsweek, the University was featured as number 11 among the top 25 most desirable large schools (having10,000 students or more). Among the higher-ranking schools were New York University and Harvard. The University of Michigan also came in fifteenth on a list of 25 top schools for future power bro- kers, beating out Notre Dame. It's great that the University is pulling in high rankings, but how do students connect with these? As a freshman,)I can still clearly remember long months of college searches, applications and decisions. My brother is currently a senior here, so the University was already on my list of schools to apply to. But how did I decide to apply to other schools? Because I intended to become a business major, my goal was to end up here at the Ross School of Business. But I needed a back-up plan just in case that didn't happen, so I went to a list of rankings. Finding that Indiana University was right behind the University of Michigan, I chose to apply there. Since the two business schools were neck and neck at the time, I had a tough decision of where to go. And I based my whole decision on these rankings. Thankfully, I ended up here, at a fabulous school that has consistently been among the most prestigious universities in the country. The academics here are excellent, especially for a public university. Our school's name has been thrown around with the likes of Ivy League colleges. And what can the University of Michigan name do for us? Land a job, of course. When I saw the rankings in an article on Sept. 13, I also spotted an item at AnnArbor.com with the headline "Job recruiters find University of Michigan grads more valuable than Ivy- leaguers." I was shocked. I skimmed the article to find that our University was ranked num- ber 6 by the Wall Street Journal on a list of schools that produce the best graduates over- all. Schools like Harvard, Stanford and Princ- eton, for example, were nowhere on the list. The University seems to produce some heavy- hitters, at least according to The Wall Street Journal. As a preferred-admission student to the business school, I'm partial to Ross. I love the building, the people and the academic pro- gram. As a side note, The Wall Street Jour- nal's survey also found that, to recruiters, the University ranks first for business grads, first for finance, sixth for accounting and seventh for marketing and advertising. People clearly know what we're all about. When I'm apply- ing for internships and jobs, it's reassuring to know that prospective employees will recog- nize the prestige thatgoes along with the name of my school. So how important should these rankings be? For me, it's all about landing a fantastic job. The problem with many recruiters is that they don't know much about the school itself. So they look at our rankings. And when poten- tial employers to go off rankings, which many probably do, they will see before we even enter an interview situation that any student from our University will be well prepared to enter the workforce and succeed. Rankings are like a first impression. They're the first things people will see about a school. Along with a high ranking comes high prestige, and I would hope that as students continue to make decisions about their college choices, they factor in where the school ranks. Even though a ranking shouldn't matter enough to define an individual, it does. Ashley Griesshammer is an LSA freshman. Google has long reveled in its position as the Internet firm that could do no wrong by consumers. The 12-year- old company, which has strong ties to Ann Arbor, has long distanced itself from its competition not only through famously complex algorithms - which maximize web- browsing efficiency - but also by repeatedly safeguard- ing the free flow of information on the Web. The uncluttered, clean appearance of Google is one of the many aspects that make it so universally loved. Google's recent headline-grabbing squabbles with China over censorship appealed to the masses for altruistic rea- sons. This was one of the world's most powerful brands foregoing profits in favor of taking a stand against the oppressive Chinese government. In April, Google even published statistics showing the number of requests made by national governments for removal of data from the Internet. Given these actions, it's no surprise to hear that Google was once among the staunchest of the Obama adminis- tration's allies for net-neutrality. According to Bloomberg BusinessWeek, net-neutrality means all information on the Web is shared free and equally. "Allowing broadband companies to control what peo- ple see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the internet such a suc- cess," Google employee and Web pioneer Vincent Cerf told Congress, according to The Economist, prior to the April ruling by a federal court that the Federal Communi- cations Commission - the FCC - had no right to regulate Internet service providers. Everything changed on Aug. 9, when Google complete- ly reversed course and abandoned net-neutrality, much to the chagrin of the administration and the FCC - as well as advocates for the freedom of information. Google CEO Eric Schmidt teamed with Verizon to suggest a plan for a tiered pricing system on the Web, essentially partitioning the Internet into fast and slow lanes depending on what each user is doing. Congress has yet to reach a consensus on the issue, but if this plan comes to fruition, service providers will be able to decide what content will flow quickly and what will flow more slowly. Making the concept of net-neutral- ity a relic of the past. "Google has taken a big step back in people's eyes," ana- lyst Craig Moffett of the financial research firm Sanford C. Bernstein told Bloomberg on Aug. 12. "The company that's supposed to not be evil is suddenly being character- ized by the net neutrality crowd as the arch-villain." Schmidt supports the plan by saying the market has created the demand for a tiered system and that efficiency will lead to better results for everyone. Advocates point to the usual free-market talking points, like the idea that government involvement with the Web will lessen pri- vate investment and derail innovation. However, it was the government's innovation that created the Web itself through the Department of Defense. The Economist recently posed the question of wheth- er or not companies such as Amazon, Facebook and yes, even Google, could have become what they are today under such a plan? Would open source systems - essen- tially allowing anyone to create anything - be able to thrive under a Web that is no longer open? The future of the openness of the Internet has never been so bleak. The book is currently being written and net-neu- trality advocates appear headed for tough times given the stunning shift by the company that has been named as the world's most powerfulbrand four years running. The potential for abuse of power by the service provid- ers seems limitless. Advocates of Google and Verizon's plan may point to the open market as a positive, but an open market is characterized by competition. The market being entirely dominated by AT&T, Verizon and Comcast is hardly a beacon of open competition. Furthermore, given Comcast's pending acquisition of NBC Universal, a major provider of content, the stage is set perfectly for such abuse. These are all firms, and their primary goal is profit not altruism. Just read the wistful words of former Fed Chairman and free-market icon Alan Greenspan as the economy spun out of control in 2008: "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own share- holders and their equity in the firms," said Greenspan as quoted by The Guardian in Oct. 2008. Abandoning the concept of net-neutrality is a mistake for many reasons, not merely basic principles. Google is among the most powerful, trusted companies in the world. This 180-degree shift is disturbing and likely to actually mean something, as the laws that govern the Web are essentially being written as we speak. President Barack Obama made a career as an academic and he certainly represents the inter- ests of the University and everyone involved in academia with his support of net-neutrality. Google has close ties to Ann Arbor and the University. Its co-founder attended college here and many Univer- sity graduates find work at Google, which has an office in Ann Arbor. The University trains the leaders and the best, often for jobs at Google, so it's about time we stepped u and made a difference while the book is still being writ- ten. Roger Sauerhaft is an LSA senior. 0 EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Aida Ali, Jordan Birnholtz, Adrianna Bojrab, Will Butler, Michelle DeWitt, Will Grundler, Jeremy Levy, Erika Mayer, Emily Orley, Harsha Panduranga, Tommaso Pavone, Leah Potkin, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith, Laura Veith