4 -Tuesday, April12, 2011, The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com E-MAIL ELAINE AT EMORT@UMICH.EDU Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com MICHELLE DEWITT STEPHANIE STEINBERG and EMILY ORLEY KYLE SWANSON EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS 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. SF ROM .. Connecting communities North Campus needs to be more accessible If only there was a way to move North Campus farther south. That seemed to be the consensus of students who attended "The North Campus Rant: The Good, The Bad and The Dude!" last week at Pierpont Commons. About 15 stu- dents attended the event, and they voiced their concerns about everything from accessibility of transportation to social life on North Campus. Some even called it a "satellite campus." ELAINE MORTON RO n w h s-i Body image bluue " The consensus is clear - North Campus needs to be more linked to the rest of the Uni- versity. Many freshmen are assigned to live in North Campus residence halls, and they often struggle to feel connected with the rest of campus. While the buses run fairly frequently, students' reliance on them makes academic and social life difficult. Among the proposals discussed at the meeting was changes to trans- portation to and from North Campus. New transportation options, like a trolley system or even a Disney World-esque tram, should be considered to alleviate transportation woes. But accessibility involves more than just transportation. Currently, using computers, printers or even getting into certain buildings on North Campus is difficult for students who aren't in the College of Engineering, School of Art & Design, College of Architecture and Urban Planning or School of Music, Theater & Dance. Lack of access to resources is a sig- nificant reason for students' dissatisfaction with North Campus. The University needs to expand accessibility to resources on North Campus to all students, which will provide an incentive for students to use these facilities for schoolwork. Students are also bothered by the lack of social activities on North Campus. Most Uni- versity-sponsored social events, such as UMix and arts nights, take place on Central Campus. While North Campus does hold drive-in mov- ies at the North Campus Recreation Building, there need to be more social activities on North Campus so students who live there don't have to travel to Central Campus each time they want to attend a social event. Movie nights, art exhibits and University-sponsored events like UMix are great ways to make North Campus more inviting. Though North Campus feels like a "satel- lite campus," it's a part of the University. Only 15 people showed up to last week's meeting, which is indicative of the average student's attitude toward North Campus: apathy. Efforts to improve the North Campus commu- nity, however, would likely spark enthusiasm for students who either choose or are forced to live there. Many students go through their entire time at the University without having any reason to venture to North Campus. But if more students actually take part in these discussions, maybe North Campus doesn't have tobe a place that is avoided at all costs. Students need to voice their complaints and concerns about North Campus because the University is listening. This is a chance to turn North Campus into something that feels like a part of the University. Better accessibility and more social events on North Campus are just a start to reconcil- ing the estranged campus. The attitude and interest toward the campus has to change bo in order to revive its image. ast week, I was practicing a method of evasion typical for most college students: pro- crastination. For me this usually means I wind up on some health or food relat- ed website in the process of avoiding writ- MARY ing a paper. That night, I DEMERY ended up on Glamour's website. I was drawn to the headline "Shocking Body-Image News: 97% of Women Will Be Cruel to Their Bodies Today." Yikes. After conducting a survey of 300 women (all, according to the website, of varying sizes), Glamour found that 97 percent of the 300 did not like what they saw when they looked inthe mirror. Theyexpressed this distaste via thoughts like: "You're fat." "osh, those jeans are a bit too tight. Not doing great things for your pudgy thighs." "Ugh, I hate that band of fat that hangs over my jeans." "I look fat." These are the horrifying, damaging thoughts that 97 percent of those 300 women utter to themselves every day. How many of them would say those words to a friend? Worse still, this wasn't just a onetime occurrence. On the con- trary, most women thought negative thoughts about their body 13 times each day. After reading the survey results, I wondered briefly whether I was one of the 97 percent. Then I laughed. Of course I am. Though I'm often a fan of my body, I'm not yet a member of the coveted 3 percent who are actu- ally consistently kind to their bodies. For the next few days, Glamour's survey results bounced around in my head. I thought about them when I looked in the mirror as I got dressed. They were certainly on my mind when I readyet another shock- ing article about women and health a few days later. This one was on The New York Times Well blog, called "An Older Generation Falls Prey to Eating Disorders." Apparently more and more older women are seeking treatment for eating disorders like anorexia, bulimia and binge eat- ing disorder. The typical individual seeking treatment for an eating dis- order is a young woman. So what do the droves of older women seeking treatment reveal about our society? To me, they indicate that the pres- sure to be thin is pervasive no matter how old you are. Perhaps naively, I hadn't real- ized that this was the case. I always assumed that my occasional body image woes were a phase, some- thing I lived through as a teenager and young woman and would then discard, easily and effortlessly, when I entered adulthood. But The New York Times article proved other- wise. There's a very real possibility that I will still be bothered by my body when I'm 40 - that is, if I don't take action now. This all got me wondering: How can I start loving my body? Even as I write this it's hard not to roll my eyes - it sounds very hippie-dippy. But it shouldn't have to. Lately, I've realized that constructing your body image doesn't have to be a passive activity. You don't have to be as thin as the models iiVogue', nor dd you have to feel bad about your body if you're not that thin. But it does take some effort to remember this. In our society, unlessyou'reverythin, it's not really acceptable to love your body. Unless you're a size two, some would have you think that you shouldn't love your body - that you should only love it once you've whittled your frame down to a sample size. Even on Glamour's website, where the results of this survey also include ways to work against negative body image, there's a link to an article called "Exactly what to eat to lose weight." Where does it stop? Pressure to be thin persists at all ages. I'm learning that body image is something that can be avoided - much like homework. All it takes is a little initial procrastination. I've learned to avoid fashion websites. I've let my subscription to Vogue run out. I'm trying to push away those negative thoughts: "Don't think about that now," I repeat to myself. Sometimes, it works: I shake my head vigorously, or tell myself to stop. Other times, the thought slips in anyway. So what have I been doing the past few days? Practicing another method of evasion. I just don't think about it. When athought comes to mind, I push it out and move on. Have I joined that 3 per- cent? Not yet. But I'm getting there. -Mary Demery can be reached at mdemery@umich.edu. 0 AIDA AtlI Save our soldiers The winner of the 2010 Academy Award for Best Picture - "The Hurt Locker" - told audiences that "war is a drug" and can be addictive for soldiers. But war is also a drug that can numb the senses and impair mental capabilities. It impacts the human psyche in unusual ways, traumatizing anyone exposed to it, including our soldiers. On March 27, Rolling Stone magazine published an article about the "kill team" - a group of United States soldiers in Afghanistan engaged in killing innocent civilians, mutilating their corpses, taking photographs and videos with the corpses and, in one case, even cutting off and carrying the finger of a dead civilian as a memento. Disturbing, isn't it? How could these soldiers be so cold-hearted and ruth- less? Well, a soldier has to be ruthless in order to be an efficient mercenary. Corporal Jeremy Morlock and Private First Class Andrew Holmesbegan, soldiers in the military unit Bravo Company stationed near Kandahar Province in Afghanistan, left their team on one occasion "looking for someone to kill" after a dry spell of encounters with the enemy, the Taliban. They "picked" 15-year-old Gul Mudin for "execution," killing him and treating his corpse as a trophy, according to the article. Morlock told the judge in trial that he couldn't understand how he had lost his moral compass. Horrifying images and vid- eos of the killings have surfaced after being passed on from soldier to soldier, including a video showing soldiers attacking two Afghan men by an airstrike while listening to cello rock band Apocalyptica. While in many cases - including this one - the victims were actual enemies and not innocent civilians, soldiers enjoying such encounters and documenting them in photographs and videos is unethical and against army protocol. On the other hand, suicide rates among sol- diers are extremely high. And frequently the soldiers are not the only ones mourned. Time magazine published an article in its March issue discussing the story of Matthew Mag- dzas, a soldier who shot his pregnant wife, his 13-month-old daughter, the family's three dogs and then himself on Aug. 18, 2010. He was one of113 members of the National Guard who committed suicide in 2010, according to the article. Magdzas received insufficient mental health care since his return from Iraq in July 2007 after spending about a year there, despite being flagged as a high suicide risk case by the Department of Veteran Affairs. Furthermore, the military asked him to leave after an examination by a psychologist at Fort Knox diagnosed his chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. A soldier who went to Iraq with Magdzas described this as'the reaction of the army that believes it is "cheaper" to just get rid of soldiers who are "broken" rather than to rehabilitate them. To end the life of another being is undoubt- edly one of the most distressing human acts. That is, if you have a normal human con- science. A "guide" to political assassinations published by the CIA as part of training files during the U.S. coup in Guatemala in 1954 described murder as "not morally justifiable" and said it shouldn't be attempted by "mor- ally squeamish" persons. Committing mur- der scars a person for life. There is no escape other thanto switch off your moral conscious- ness, as the CIA so thoughtfully pointed out. So we have extremely traumatized soldiers who couldn't handle the cruel face of war and chose to end their lives along with their loved ones, or soldiers who pushed their morals so far away that it became difficult for them to understand the monstrosity of their acts. War is never good no matter where, for any reasons or using any methods. It is also not inevitable. But ifa war has to be fought, and soldiers have to be trained and sent out to fight in foreign lands, the least a country can do is understand the plight of these soldiers and have enough resources to take care of them after they are exposed to terrifying environ- ments. As we know from the case of Magd- zas and hundreds like him, there clearly isn't a strong enough support system for soldiers. And by involving ourselves in more wars we are increasing the number of individuals treated as mere weapons - used, damaged and discarded - in meaningless wars. The greatest cost of war that the world will continue to bear for at least an entire genera- tion after it ends is its effect on the human mind. For now, Corporal Morlock has been sentenced to 24 years in jail for killing three Afghan civilians, and Magdzas's family has joined the hundreds of other families resigned to move on from their loss. Writer Jose Narosky rightfully said, "In war, there are no unwounded soldiers." So why is it so difficult to recognize and help the wounded? Aida Ali is a senior editorial page editor. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Aida Ali, Will Butler, Michelle DeWitt, Ashley Griesshammer, Melanie Kruvelis, Patrick Maillet, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley, Harsha Panduranga, Teddy Papes, Timothy Rabb, Asa Smith, Seth Soderborg, Andrew Weiner JOSEPH VARILONE I EWTINT U should practice what it preaches The University of Michigan is proud to have one of the largest endowments of any university in the world. It's able to obtain this endowment through investments, mostly in stock. For example, the University may pur- chase $100,000 worth of stock in the corporation JP Morgan Chase, which entitles ittoa corresponding frac- tion of the profits, known as dividends. This is one of the primary ways the University sustains itself financially. However, the University's investments aren't always chosen with corporate social responsibility concerns in mind, and as students, this concerns us. For example, the Universityused to have investments in tobacco com- panies and corporations that profited off South African apartheid. In fact, these are the only cases in the Univer- sity's history in which the administration has chosen to divest, or sell our stock, due to concerns about socially irresponsible actions these corporations are engaging in. Unfortunately, the University is still invested in a number of socially irresponsible corporations. A cam- pus coalition, Practice What You Preach, has emerged to address these issues. We find these investments unacceptable and feel that it's inappropriate for a uni- versity that values and preaches social justice to be invested in socially irresponsible corporations. Last week, we introduced a resolution to the Michigan Student Assembly requesting the University to divest from four corporations: Monsanto, British Petroleum, HanesBrands Inc., and Northrop Grumman. These four corporations exhibit particularly irresponsible conduct, unbecoming of our university. However, these aren't the only corporations the University invests in that we feel act irresponsibly. Monsanto, a biotechnology corporation, is respon- sible for the manufacture of Agent Orange, the chemi- cal that led to thousands of deaths, birth defects and ecological destruction of thousands of acres of forests when it was dispersed by air during the Vietnam War. It is also responsible for massive leaks of toxic chemicals into local communities, in one case causing the govern- ment to order the evacuation of a city in Missouri. Addi- tionally, Monsanto has facilitated the development of genetically modified foods, which many scientists have become concerned about due to their unknown impact on human health and the environment. We don't think we need to say much about BP, which is responsible for the greatest environmental disaster in U.S. history that killed 11 people-and caused irreversible ecological damage. HanesBrands, a clothing manufacturer, is known for paying children in Bangladesh 6.5 cents per hour and forcing them to work 12 to 14 hours a day, often seven days a week, among other crimes. Northrop Grumman, one of the world's largest weap- ons developers and manufacturers has supplied military apparatuses accused of being used for war crimes bythe United Nations fact-findingmissions. An example of this is the Israeli military, which used Northrop Grumman parts for the Apache AH64D Longbow Helicopter, the radar system for F-16 combat jets and Longbow Hellfire II missiles. Israel's military has usedthese systems to kill thousands of civilians, has violated numerous U.N. Secu- rity Council resolutions and has been widely accused of having committed war crimes by an independent, U.N. fact-finding mission. There's no doubt that any mention of Israel trans- forms our resolution from a normal statement regarding social justice into a document of intense controversy. As stated in an article by members of J Street UMich (Invest in peace, 04/05/2011), some believe that merely men- tioning a corporation's military connections with Israel unfairly places the blame for violence in the region on Israel alone. However, one cannot represent the Israeli-Palestinian conflict asa relatively even match, since Israel is heavily funded and has one of the most powerful militaries in the world andthe biggest in the Middle East. In addition, there are no direct ties that the University has with those that make it possible for Palestinians to obtain weapons - and if there were, the connection would likely be weak. We don't approve of any violence in the Middle East, but there's no financial connection the University has with violence committed by Palestinians. If there were, we would believe in divestment in those companies as well. It's easy to dismiss this issue due to financial con- straints. But when a family member was killed by one of Northrop Grumman's weapons, or you lost your job on the Gulf Coast after the BP oil spill, it's suddenly not so easy to ignore. We feel that the University must acknowl- edge the faults of and divest from the irresponsible cor- 0 porations it invests in if its claims to social justice are to be taken seriously. Joseph Varilone is a School of Public Policy junior. He is a member of Practice What You Preach.