4A - Thursday, November 18, 2010 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com E-MAIL CAMERON AT CNEVEU(S@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 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. It's time to repeal DADT Obama and Congress should end archaic policy During his campaign, President Barack Obama said that overturning the military's ban on openly gay members would be a priority of his administration. But there has been no improvement since he took office. Obama has failed to take action and the U.S. Congress has been unable to pass legis- lation on the issue. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the ban could be enforced even while it's under scru- tiny by a federal appeals court. But the federal government needs to put a stop to this archaic ban. Congress should repeal the ban. In the meantime, Obama should issue an executive order to halt enforcement of the ban. Sf,9T 4 .,E '0CA y ML . oA THANC 1 TO-. In defense o tree huggers any history book will tell wet and has some chickens next to scientific concentrations, it's a moot you, the environmental move- it. Actually, that is the entire poem. point at best. (Note to English majors: ment has often been associ- It literally has - get this! - sixteen A good rhetorical way to refute your ated with fascism words, and he allegedly wrote it in opponents' arguments is to simply and is thought to five minutes. But it is a masterpiece, call all their points - or their faces - have caused our according to people that hold degrees "moot.") Simply put, PitE majors don't country's Great that you don't. Considering that it is need fancy mathematics to tackle Depression. But a masterpiece: (1) What does it say such issues as sustainability and glob- public perception about the human condition? (2) What al warming. People are wasteful, the of both the envi- does it say about the chicken condi- earth is heatingup. It's not that hard! ronment and envi- tion? (3) Which condition (human or ronmentalists is chicken) is more emotionally arrest- improving. ing? (Be sure to mention the wheel- Before I write WILL barrow at some point.)"espiew at you too much, though, GRUNDLER Needless to say, like many people D I should stress that who enjoy nature but have difficulty think, PitE isn't in today's column making life plans, I switched to PitE. we will absolute- Littledid I knowthatthe majorhas vir- just for hippies. ly not discuss whether the current tually the same reputation as English - global warming trend is man-made many non-PitE students just don't take or natural - is that what you were it seriously. So I'd like to correct some expecting? Good lord, if you don't of the false assumptions people have of course, cynics will jump on this think humanity is causing it, then about the concentration, starting with: and say, "So you'll be leavingrthe actual you better make sure you don't oper- "Don'tronly hippies major in PitE?" solving ofthe energy and climate crisis ate heavy machinery, serve on a jury This is absolutely false. PitE to engineers, physicists, etc., hmmm?" or reproduce for the rest of your life. attracts people from all walks of life - This is rather petty, but it deserves No, today's column is about the Pro- hippies, hipsters, artists, animal lov- a response. Consider this: until we gram in the Environment major - the ers, super-meta-ironic self-identifying solve the energy and climate crisis, only concentration that includes the anti-hipsters, people who enjoy recre- who will actively nag people to turn words "program in the" in its title for ation, people who enjoy recreational off lights? To recycle? To use reus- absolutely no reason. Anyway, despite marijuana and, of course, vegetarians. able water bottles? Reusable grocery the increasing amount of respect with To say that only hippies major in PitE bags? Certainly not engineers and which we treat the environment, or is to say that only scumbags become physicists, who often have less social with which we want to treat the envi- lawyers. Well, let's use a less conten- skills than a cactus. ronment but are just kind of lazy, or tious analogy: to say that only hippies Ultimately, the Program in the with which we would like to see our major in PitE is to say that only geeks Environment major isn't some use- public officials treat the environment major in engineering. It's simply not less degree to be frowned upon like if they weren't brainless gerbils, many true. Anyone can love and respect the English or Organizational Studies - students scoff at the PitE concentra- earth unless they're an asteroid. it's a dynamic, interesting alternative tion (pronounced "pity"). Another ignorant utterance is: to real degrees in biology or ecology, Ofcourse, I'm no stranger to people "I've heard there's no math involved degrees that require considerably scoffing at my major. I was going to in PitE and your individual 'program' more effort. However, it will still get concentrate in English for a long time can be laughably easy." This is a typi- you a job. At least I hope so. I don't and had to deal with a LOT of verbal cal response from students study- want to go back to being an English and physical abuse, mostly from my ing triple advanced biochemistry or major. If life is all about a red wheel- father. Also, I became tired of writ- honors theoretical particle physics barrow then we're all doomed, no ing papers that featured topics like: and it's often tinged with jealousy. matter what happens to the climate. "In William Carlos Williams's 'The While it's true that thyfiner points Red Wheelbarrow,' the speaker med- of calculus and physics and all that - Will Grundler is an assistant itates on the supreme importance of stuff aren't stressed in environment editorial page editor. He can be a reddish wheelbarrow that's a little classes as much as they are in other reached at wgru@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. Letters are edited for clarity, length and factual accuracy. All submissions become property of the Daily. We do not print anonymous letters. Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu. Regulation without restriction S To sidestep the Defense Department's ban on openly gay people serving in the military, President Bill Clinton created DADT in 1994. The executive order allows LGBT community members to serve in the military with the condition that they do not reveal their sexual orientation. On Nov. 12, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the military could continue to enforce DADT while a federal appeals court delib- erates on whether or not it will see a case determining its legality. The decision over- rules a California federal district judge. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision on Friday, The Washington Post published a summary of a report by a Pentagon study group that has not yet been released to the public. According to two anonymous indi- viduals "familiar" with the document, the report includes the results of a survey that indicated that most military personnel wouldn't object to serving alongside a mem- ber of the LGBT community'-'thouabout 40 percent of the Marine Corps expressed concern about lifting the ban. The report included a potential plan to end DADT's enforcement. According to a September Gallup poll, 69 percent of Americans are in favor of repealing DADT. The survey summarized in The Washington Post article suggests members of the military share this grow- ing acceptance. The results from these studies indicate that the repeal of DADT would not negatively affect the military's functioning. There is little reason to keep the draconian policy in place. Following the midterm election, the U.S. Congress has entered a lame-duck ses- sion. Currently, Congress has the power to reverse a discriminatory policy. Efforts to repeal the ban have stalled in the Senate in recent months, but now outgoing senators have nothing to lose. Now is the time to push legislation through and stop discrim- ination against members of the LGBT com- munity who want to serve their country in the armed forces. But Obama has the opportunity to reverse the policy as well. He ran on a promise to repeal DADT - and it's time for him to deliv- er. He should put pressure on Congress to pass legislation ending the ban. In the inter- im, he should enact an executive order that stalls enforcement of the ban completely. In the end, Congress must be the insti- tution to end this discriminatory policy. But just as Clinton initiated DADT with an executive order, Obama should issue an executive order that puts a hold on its enforcement until the ban is legislatively overturned. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Aida Ali, Jordan Birnholtz, Will Butler, Eaghan Davis, Michelle DeWitt, Ashley Griesshammer, Will Grundler, Jeremy Levy, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley, Harsha Panduranga,Teddy Papes, Tommaso Pavone, Leah Potkin, Roger Sauerhaft,Asa Smith, Julian Toles, Laura Veith, Andrew Weiner ACLU-UM I Revise DPS trespass policy p ' On Tuesday, the undergraduate chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sent a let- ter to University President Mary Sue Coleman and Department of Public Safety Chief Ken Magee regarding DPS's trespass policy. ACLU-UM believes thatthe policy is vaguely worded, which allows for too much discretion as to who is banned from campus. This places an immense and limitless amount of power in the hands of DPS officers. Furthermore, to appeal a trespass order, an individual must ask for a review of his or her case by the same people who issued the ban in the first place. To keep the policy from infring- ing upon First Amendment free speech and assembly rights, the policy must be more spe- cifically worded. It must specify when a tres- pass order is appropriate and further define the process through which it is issued. Addi- tionally, individuals must be able to appeal their trespass order to a body independent from DPS for review. Currently, DPS.Policy and Procedural Order on Trespass delegates the power to issue a tres- pass warning to DPS officers if, among other violations, an individual "disrupts the opera- tions and lawful functions of the University or... demonstrates a risk of physical harm or injury to others or property." This policy allows officers excessive discretion in deciding what is or is not "disruptive." Vagueness in the policy unneces- sarily creates room for a DPS officer to overstep his or her legal authority and restrict speech protected by the First Amendment. The policy also effectively dissuades individual free expres- sion for fear of receiving a trespass warning. Along with amending the conditions under which trespass warning may be issued, a revised policy must create an appeals process that includes an objective, independent review body. Current policy now states that an individ- ual may appeal the warning "by appointment with the Director of the Department of Public Safety." But an appeal to the same body that issued the punishment isn't enough protection for individuals who have been issued trespass orders. The appeals process must be reformed to give an individual a meaningful opportunity to challenge the validity of the punishment. DPS's trespass policy must not come with the risk of banning free speech on campus. As an academic community that encourages the free transfer of ideas, University policy must be tailored to avoid silencing protest or speech in any way. As members of the University com- munity, we understand that DPS must be able to effectively keep our campus safe. And we believe this objective can still be accomplished with a modified trespass policy. There may be instances in which the ban- ning of an individual from campus is necessary in order to ensure the safety of the community, but this type of action shouldn't be taken with- out due process. Everyone has the right to feel safe on campus and should be comfortable uti- lizing the systems that are in place to protect them, so long as they are fair and just. A new policy must maintain the necessity of student security while providing protection of the First Amendment. This viewpoint was written by Mallory Jones, Rebecca Egler and Bennett Stein on behalf of the University's undergraduate chapter of the ACLU. Lots of people in today's politi- cal climate make accusations that the government is too big and frequently intrudes on peo- ple's lives (see the midterm election). But these accu- sations are espe- cially prevalent in debates sur- rounding health regulations on consumer .prod- JEREMY ucts like tobacco LEVY and food. For instance, many have argued that the University was overstepping its boundaries when it went ahead with the campus-wide smoking ban, set to take effect in July 2011. Cities and states that contemplated a soda tax to curb obesity this past spring, such as New Mexico and Baltimore, received similar scrutiny. Every pro- posal of this nature is accompanied by a debate over the boundaries of government regulation, and these boundaries are being determined on a case-by-case basis.A new case came under scrutiny on Nov.10, as the Food and Drug Administration proposed 36 new graphic cigarette labels, nine of which will be required on cigarette packages by October 2012. Unlike the current warnings that are on cigarette labels, the new labels display disturbing images that are intended to remind consumers of the dangers of smoking. For example, one design has a picture of a man smok- ing out of a hole in his neck. Addition- ally, the proposed labels would take up half of the package and would be accompanied with phrases like "ciga- rettes cause fatal lung disease." I'm not worried about government overstepping its bounds in these cases. Under the assumption that a soda tax actually would be effective at reducing obesity, I would support it. But I think it would be particu- larly difficult in this case for anyone to argue that the government has no right to regulate cigarette labels. Many of the typical arguments against government regulations sim- ply don't apply in this situation. To explain why, I want to invoke a philosophy called "libertarian pater- nalism," coined by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, an economics pro- fessor and law professor respectively, in their 2008 book "Nudge." The main premise of this concept is that any program manager - from govern- ment officials to business owners - can attempt to influence a consumer's decisions without restricting that consumer's options. This is because humans all have natural psychologi- cal biases that frequently prevent us from acting in our long-term interests. For instance, a dining hall manager can utilize the information that indi- viduals are more likely to pick the first food item they see. If he seeks to influ- ence consumer health, the manager can arrange the healthiestitems in the front of the cafeteria. In this way, he influences consumers to make health- ier decisions without restricting the options of pizza and a burger. The logic behind the smoking labels is similar. People who smoke are likely aware of the health effects of smoking and many want to quit. But when a cigarette is actually accessible, it's easy for an individual to ignore that information - often because of addiction. The new smok- ing labels - which are much more difficult to ignore than current warn- ings - would serve as a reminder at every point in the smoking process. Consumers would see the warnings every time they buy a pack or pull out a cigarette. In a 2001 survey by the Canadian Cancer Society, 44 per- cent of smokers said that these types of labels, which were introduced in Canada in 2000, "increased their motivation to quit." But the labels don't restrict con- sumer options. They don't place increased financial burden on people who smoke like a tax would, and they don't limit where an individual can smoke, as would a public ban. New cigarette labels won't restrict consumer options. 0 0 Regardless, cigarette companies have objected to the changes on any grounds possible. In this case more than any other, it won't be very con- vincing for them to argue that these labels place undue burden on people who smoke. If you look at the reader comments for any news report about the pro- posed labels, you will see objections along the lines of, "What's to stop the government from putting dead body labels on cars and fast food?" To this, I argue that few would consider applying a similar policy to any other product. According to the Center for Disease Control, tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable deaths worldwide. It's for that reason that gruesome labels have been instituted for cigarettes, rather than any other product, in 39 different countries. When it comes to smoking, it's too easy for individuals to ignore infor- mation that would be beneficial in the long term. The new FDA labels seek to counteract such a trend, and they do so without restricting any consumer choices. They maybe grue- some, but if they're effective they could re-energize the fight against smoking in the U.S. - Jeremy Levy can be reached at jeremlev@umich.edu. lhe podium Thoughts from the Daily: Yesterday, the FDA said it was closing time for Four Loko and other alcoholic energy drinks. This Prohibition-esque decision goes too far. Go to michigandaily.com/blogs/The Podium.