4 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
E-MAIL ELAINE AT EMORT@UMICH.EDU

4C iict igan f atiJ
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu

ELAINE MORTON

JACOB SMILOVITZ
EDITOR IN CHIEF

RACHEL VAN GILDER
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

MATT AARONSON
MANAGING EDITOR

iia
17\0 s

01

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.
Opening up options
University needs to provide more housing choices
T he University housing website boasts "varied" housing
options. But in reality, the actual residential hall housing
choices contradict those claims as they lack an accessible
gender-neutral housing option for students. Gender-neutral hous-
ing, proposed in 2009, would allow students to choose roommates
without the consideration of sex. organizations pushing for the
implementation of a gender-neutral option have recently opted to
use the term "open housing." But the quality of the idea and support
from the student body remains the same. Almost a year has passed
since the proposal was introduced, but there has been little prog-
ress. The University should uphold its responsibility to the student
body and implement open housing.

*I

Take a look at Detroit

Members of student organizations in sup-
port of the gender-neutral housing policy
came together earlier this month to consid-
er the future of the initiative, according to a
Daily article last week. In an effort to make
the idea sound more accessible, the groups
voted to change the name of the option to
"open housing." Representatives from the
participating student groups described the
name change as an opportunity to restore
and educate students on what this policy
means on campus. The groups are also
planning on presenting a report regarding
gender-neutral housing in November. If
approved, the option would take effect for
the fall of 2011.
Open housing would provide more
options for students who seek alternative
rooming assignments. Open housing would
allow students the ability to choose what
kind of living arrangement would best suit
their needs. And if an individual would like
to live with someone of the same sex, they
have the right to do so. Implementing an
open-housing option wouldn't impose on
anyone - it would be an opt-in policy - or
harm students. The University has an obli-
gation to provide students with alternatives
to traditional housing to help them be as
comfortable as possible.
Implementing this housing option would
also break down boundaries and elimi-
nate strict traditional gender definitions.
Students shouldn't be forced into a living

situation that they aren't comfortable with
because of the implementation of these
boundaries. Currently, many students in
the LGBT community don't have an appro-
priate housing option. For many of these
students, living with someone of the oppo-
site sex or with someone who doesn't sub-
scribe to traditional gender roles would be
the best arrangement. For these students,
open housing is an inclusive, more accept-
ing option.
The move to change the name of this ini-
tiative from "gender-neutral housing" to
"open housing" took place at a meeting of
the many organizations that support more
housing options. These groups range from
the Michigan Student Assembly to the Uni-
versity's Chapter of the College Democrats
and the Residence Halls Association. The
coalition of this diverse set of groups is a
testament to the campus support for the
initiative. And last year, the student body
proved that a majority of them agreed with
implementing the option - with 67 percent
of students voting in support of gender-neu-
tral housing in a survey from the Gender
Neutral Housing Coalition.
Open housing would create a comfort-
able living environment for all students.
Students have shown that they support it
by uniting to encourage its realization. The
University should recognize the strength
behind this initiative and implement open
housing in its residence halls.

t seems that one primary pur-
pose of our undergraduate
educations - or at least the
humanities dis-
tribution require-
ment within it
- is to reveal to
us that we're not
the centers of our
own universes (an
insight I should
attribute to David
Foster Wallace's'
commencement LIBBY.
speech at Kenyon
College). ASHTON
In looking back
on my last two
years at the University, I realized that
I haven't done the best job fulfilling
that purpose in a hands-on way. This
year, for the first time, I've been able
to see Ann Arbor from a perspective
that's not entirely my own, through
the eyes of the children I babysit and
the children I tutor at a local elemen-
tary school with the Ginsberg Center's
Project Community.
While the lenses I've been able to
borrow these last few weeks belong
to non-University students, they
don't belong to anyone whose experi-
ence of life - at least as far as I can
tell - is radically different from my
own. Rather than making me feel as
though my horizon has broadened,
these small tastes of non-collegiate
life in Michigan have shown me how
disengaged I've been from the world
outside my classroom walls, despite
the countless books read and papers
written about that world.
As students at this university, we
have an unparalleled resource avail-
able to us to integrate academia with
the reality upon which it's based. We
live 30 miles from a city and kind
of life that many of us study (and
many of us don't) but, for all practi-

cal purposes, know nothing about.
I've done myself a disservice by fail-
ing to explore Detroit: our next-door
neighbor with a wealth of history and
culture.
For any number of reasons, most
students create a path for themselves
that never leads them to Detroit. Oth-
ers couldn't imagine a University
experience without Detroit. I don't
believe the latter group is, as a whole,
inherently more outward-looking or of
a higher ethical order than the former.
Perhaps a combination of pre-existing
interests and inspiring professors who
made ita priority to educate their stu-
dents on the very real and proximal
presence of Detroit motivated those
students to incorporate the city into
their University lives.
Until this semester, Detroit was
never prominent on my radar - nei-
ther socially or academically. I'm
inclined to feel ashamed of myself to
admit that, especially because I con-.
sider myself to be particularly con-
scious of my duty to make my world
larger than myself. But I should feel
less shame than gratitude that my
friend's invitation to see the "Big
Bambu" exhibit at the Detroit Insti-
tute of Art and that my sociology class
has engaged me in a dialogue about
Detroit's public education system
came while I still have time to learn.
But what if the invitation had
never come or if I had chosen to take a
painting class instead of get involved
in Project Community? I could have
been swept up into another semes-
ter and allowed it to pass by without
awareness of my failure to do my job
as a student. Here's where my call to
action comes in: if you are someone
for whom imagining your life at the
University without Detroit is impos-
sible, do what you can to put Detroit
on the radars of your friends. If you
are a professor for whom Detroit is in

any way relevant to your curriculum,
talk about it in class. Some people
may jump at an opportunity to go to
the city at first mention. Others may
need to hear about it several times
before a desire to see for themselves
develops.
Students must
experience the 'U'
with Detroit.
It can be easy to pass through the
undergraduate vestibule with our
eyes still shut and our inborn self-
centeredness intact. But because
we're students who chose to attend
what is essentially the largest liberal
arts school (that looks deceivingly
like a research institution) in the
country, it shouldn't be so easy for
us. But a community of curious and
broadly thinking peers can only carry
the rest of us so far. Ultimately, the
responsibility to take our educational
duty to expand our minds seriously
lies with the individual.
We're afforded these four years
to open our eyes, look past our noses
and take a comprehensive look at
the world we're about to enter. We
are especially lucky, relative to the
majority of college students, that
we can so easily include a city like
Detroit in our gaze. To spend our
four lucky years here oblivious to
that real world is - as students and as
the generation that will befaced with
the job of fixing our society's broken
infrastructure - irresponsible and
inexcusable.
- Libby Ashton can be reached
at eashton@umich.edu.

*I

-Ihe
podium

At the Daily's opinion blog, you can get involved in the news.
Rachel Van Gilder wants to know what you would pitch
for MPowered's 1000 Pitches entrepreneurial competition.
Go to michigandaily.com/blogs/The Podium.

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.
The unique economic brew

JORDAN BIRNHOLTZ
State smoking ban alternative

Questions of the government's right to inter-
fere with the affairs of private businesses are
typically contentious. Michigan's smoking
ban, the Dr. Ron Davis Smoke-Free Air Law,
is no exception to this rule. This ban, which
prohibits smoking indoors in all public places
and eateries, with an exemption for casinos
and specialty smoke-shops, went into effect on
May 1 of this year.
Those opposed to the ban either consider it
an infringement on the rights of business own-
ers or think that it generates a negative economic
effect. Those in favor of the ban argue that it
yields a net positive effect on the economy or that
the effects of second-hand smoke are sufficiently
harmful as to justify the ban.
Neither side makes a particularly compelling
case, relative our other option, which is to sell
smoking licenses. Allowing businesses to buy
smoking licenses, under certain restrictions,
would both generate much needed revenue for
the state and curb second-hand smoke. The sale
of smoking permits represents an ideological and
economic compromise.
Those who make a case either for or against
the ban citing supposed economic outcomes do
so without strong quantitative or anecdotal evi-
dence. Which is to say that it's not obvious what
the ban is really doing for businesses, for better
or worse. There's virtually no data that support
any macroeconomic conclusions about the ban.
Even anecdotes about its supposed effects go
both ways.
A Detroit Free Press article from Aug. 19 cites
the case of the Perfect Pitcher Sports Pub. The
article says that the seven-waitress workforce
has diminished to one or two. The owner, Nata-
lie Samu, claims that business "'is down by over
50%."' On the other side of the argument, Steve
Seng, a restaurant owner quoted by The Muske-
gon Chronicle, says business is, on the whole, up,

despite a diminished nighttime patronage. But
neither of these stories, as thought provoking as
they might be, allows anyone to draw any mean-
ingful conclusions. Infact, thenameofthe article
that cites Seng is called, "Snuffing out business?
One month into smoking ban, Muskegon-area
bar and restaurant owners report mixed results."
I don't agree with a wholly libertarian con-
ception of government, but I'm also uncom-
fortable with a certain degree of government
social controls. Of all the products for personal
consumption one might ban, cigarettes are a
fairly sensible option. Smoking yields a ton of
negative effects, and on an admittedly visceral
level, sticking it to the cigarette companies,
which engage in many ethically questionable
practices, seems particularly appealing. But
emotion is a bad basis for good public policy,
and this degree of restriction is a level of
government reach that I can't in good faith
endorse, especially when we can negate some
of the effects and improve the state's financial
health by pursuing a different solution.
The consequences of second-hand smoke are
extremely serious and I don't take them light-
ly. Permits should be of appropriate expense.
There's room here for flexible policy. Permits
might be issued only to businesses that properly
designate and isolate their smoking sections. Or
perhaps the permits would be issued in a way
that limits smoking to late night, or only in bars
that allow for smoking in the entire place.
There's plenty of room for discussion of this
matter. We can even arrive, rigorously, at the
appropriate price to set for these permits.We can
determine whether or not to add time-restric-
tions to them. We have better choices than a ban,
speaking both ideologically and economically,
and we ought to pursue them.
Jordan Birnholtz is a LSA sophomore.

n March 11, 2009, the Michi-
gan House of Representa-
tives voted 61-42 on HB 4565,
an anti-consumer
bill that requires,
"retailers to attach
an identification
tag signed by the
buyer to kegs of
beer when they
are sold, and not
return the keg
deposit unless the -
tag is still on the ALEX
keg, subject to a
$500 fine for fail- BILES
ing to do either. A
non-retailer pos-
sessing a keg with-
out the tag would be subject to a $500
fine and 93 days in jail." The bill is
currently on the state Senate calen-
dar under general orders.
Other than making common peo-
ple criminals, the rationale behind
this bill is to deter underage drink-
ing by imposing liability on whoever
purchases the keg. It's bills like this,
which raise costs for everybody, dis-
couraging competition and providing
consumers and retailers with reduced
choices that threaten the creative
energies that fuel our economy.
Let me provide an example. Consid-
er all the people you know who drink
Natty Light, Keystone or some other
type of beer. You'd think at least one
person in the city would know how
to make beer. But they don't. In fact,
nobody in the world knows every skill
necessary to make beer.
To be able to make beer, one would
have to know how to grow barley and
hops. Not to mention make the fertil-
izer, sprinklers and tractors involved
with that process. To build these
tractors, this person would require
knowledge of steel refining and auto-
motive engineering. The sprinkling
system would involve the construc-
tion of an intricate irrigation system
of pipes and canals. This person would

have to know how to make glass and
paper for the bottles from sand and
timber, respectively. To manufacture
the metal caps or cans, some type of
ore would have to be mined. And some
method to transport the beer's ingre-
dients from place to place would be
necessary. This person would have to
know how to produce a truck or freight
train for all intents and purposes.
In short, the process involved with
manufacturing beer is so complex
that no one person could do it. If you
dared to attempt to acquire all of the
skills required to produce a bottle of
Bell's Two Hearted Ale, you would be
foolish. Not only would you die before
attaining a marked level of progress,
but it would also be incredibly ineffi-
cient to dedicate your time to the task
when there are so many other groups
of individuals who specialize in spe-
cific aspects and can make beer better
and faster than you.
I did not conceive this scenario. I
found the prompt for the complex-
ity of beer creation on Division of
Labour, an economics blog. Based on
"I, Pencil," a timeless essay written by
economist Leonard Read, it serves to
illustrate the concepts of spontaneous
order, specialization and division of
labor. These ideas were first pioneered
by economist Adam Smith and later
refinedby the mindsof individuals like
Nobel Laureate FriedrichHayek. They
are a reflection of the incomprehensi-
ble complexity of the human behavior
that defines our modern economy.
The millions of individuals involved
in making beer today come from all
corners of the world. Under most cir-
cumstances, they'd never interact.
Yet, these millions of people manage
to engage their human energies and
spontaneously cooperate in response
to a human desire for booze without
the presence of any governmental
body or mastermind.
This lesson reiterates the fact that
in this world, knowledge is dispersed.
Our brains possess a mere fraction of

the knowledge ofthe collective human
mind. And the freedom to pursue one's
self-interest unleashes levels of coop-
eration unmatched by any attempt at
central planning by the government.
While some government restric-
tions may provide us with more sani-
tary and humane work environments,
as well as protect our forests and
rivers, every regulation that is put
into place is at the expense of some
release of human creativity and a
waste of potential. In the vein of Kurt
Vonnegut's short story "Harrison
Bergeron," it's a weight on the prover-
bial head of humanity by the handi-
capper general.
No one in the
world knows how
to make beer.
Many times, regulations like HB
4565 that may seem beneficial produce
government-enforced monopolies that
hurt consumers and stifle progress
that could have been achieved other-
wise by allowing private individuals to
work with market incentives.
Legislation like HB 4565 is as like-
ly to curb underage drinking as me
penning a column urging my fellow
underage Wolverines to stay sober.
With heavy government regulation,
unleashing humanity's true creative
potential is severely compromised.
And that's something we should seri-
ously consider in an age during which
we are constantly enacting foolish,
freedom-killing laws. We often take
for granted the spontaneous order
that brings us goods in life as unique
and precious as beer. So drink up,
everybody.
- Alex Biles can be reached
at jabiles@umich.edu.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Aida Ali, Jordan Birnholtz, Adrianna Bojrab, Will Butler, Eaghan Davis, Michelle DeWitt,
Ashley Griesshammer, Will Grundler, Jeremy Levy, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley,
Harsha Panduranga, Tommaso Pavone, Leah Potkin, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith, Laura Veith