4 - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com 4 - Tuesday, September 27, 2011 The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com Elephants at the circus 0 f recent Republican presidential debates are any indicator, the state of our discourse has hit a STEPHANIE STEINBERG EDITOR IN CHIEF MICHELLE DEWITT and EMILY ORLEY EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS NICK SPAR MANAGING EDITOR new low. Now let's get something straight. Tele- vised presiden- tial debate has never been our country's strong suit. For decades these "debates" have been shams of real politi- cal discourse - DANIEL CHARDELL 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. The right to choose Partial-birth abortion is a personal decision Partial-birth abortion has been a morally controversial topic. With the passage of a new bill in the Michigan state legisla- ture, partial-birth abortions are now illegal by state law, on top of the federal ban already in place by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 passed by the U.S. Congress. If the state legislation is enacted, performing a partial-birth abortion would be a two-year felony. While partial-birth abortion is a difficult subject, the reality is that women should have the right to decide what to do with their bodies. The state ban is redundant given the federal ban already in place. But more importantly, the government shouldn't interfere in private, individual decisions. Partial-birth abortion is a complicated procedure that involves the death of a fetus after the second trimester. The procedure was performed in less than 2 percent of abor- tions, according to 1999 data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. While partial birth abortions are a complicated issue from a moral standpoint, the larger issue is the government's restriction of indi- vidual rights. The recent bill, which will head to Repub- lican Gov. Rick Snyder's desk after the confer- ence committee has reviewed it, models the federal law and makes the procedure punish- able under state law. Since the law was upheld in the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision Gon- zales v. Carhart, there's no reason to believe it will be repealed any time soon. Taking time to pass state legislation that reaffirms a federal law is an insult to Michi- gan citizens. Instead of focusing on bills to create jobs and help rebuild the state's econ- omy, the Legislature is focusing on prohib- iting an already banned procedure. If there was evidence that partial-birth abortions were performed in large numbers through- out the state this legislation would be some- what explicable, but partial-birth abortion procedures are rare. The state government is unnecessarily pushing a social issue, and it needs to focus its attention on Michigan's more pressing concerns. The legality of abortion indicates the con- stitutional support for a woman's right to choose. Partial-birth abortions is a conten- tious topic, but it's not up to the government to permit or prohibit the procedure. Women should speak with doctors and other health professionals to make an appropriate, per- sonal decision. By speaking with a doctor, they can educate themselves on the health implications of the procedure and make a responsible personal choice. The argument isn't about the moral impli- cations of abortion. Rather, it's about govern- ment intervention in personal decisions. A woman should have the right to make her own decisions about her body and an unborn child she may bare. In today's economic climate, Michigan doesn't have the luxury to spend time and resources on partisan, social poli- cies. Snyder should reaffirm his commitment to tackling the state's pressing issues and veto this bill. . more a chance for candidates of all political stripes to pander to their bases than engage one another in thoughtful debate. Republicans as well as Democrats are guilty of evading questions, botching facts and concerning themselves more with landing a zinger than formulat- ing a coherent argument. Butgiven a 24-hour media machine that thrives on simplistic sound bites, can you blame candidates for their unapolo- getic grandstanding? For their par- ticipation in the circus that is the televised, commercialized political debate? Yes, you can. But more on that later. For starters, let's brush up on his- tory. The first televised presiden- tial debate occurred in 1960 when a young, tan, poised John F. Kennedy outperformed a sickly, clammy, life- less Richard Nixon in the first of a four-part debate series. For those 70 million American viewers who tuned in to watch the debate unfold on television, Nixon, infamously sweating under the glaring studio lights, was visibly uncomfortable. According to the Museum of Broad- cast Communications, the TV audi- ence largely considered Kennedy the winner. The much smaller audience listening in on the radio, however, thought Nixon triumphant. Though the debate's impact on the election results is disputed (Kennedy went on to win the presidency), it set a precedent for the future of televised political debate. Appearance matters. That's an enduring lesson of the Kennedy- Nixon debates. Advances in tech- nology increasingly necessitate that our leaders be better publicists than public servants, better actors than thinkers. Public scrutiny has grown to the point where we care more about candidates' body lan- guage than their words. Now don't get me wrong - I want a confident commander in chief capable of pro- jecting strength and composure. We need an articulate voice in the White House, but problems arise when we're made to believe that the most attractive candidate is best suited for the job. Which brings me to the contempo- rary media. Superficial debates of the modern kind don't exist ina vacuum. They don't spontaneously occur. Far from it. They're carefully crafted productions where entertainment, ratings and artificial narratives take precedence over journalistic integ- rity. Looking at the gaudy sets of recent Republican debates, you'd think you were watching American Idol - except that even reality TV isn't this flashy. (In June, Jon Stewart aptly deemed the set of a CNN-spon- sored debate "America's most patri- otic game show.") Pageantry detracts from true deliberation. Everything but the bare minimum - modera- tor, candidates, pens and paper - is a distraction. This isn't debate. It's theater. Then there's the audience. Spectators at this month's Repub- lican debates seem to be making more headlines than the candidates themselves. During the Sept. 7 MSNBC/Politico debate, modera- tor Brian Williams directed a ques- tion toward Texas Gov. Rick Perry: "Your state," he began, "has exe- cuted 234 death rqw inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. Have you..." Before Williams could finish, the crowd erupted in prolonged applause. Perry, invigo- rated by his audience's apparent fervor for capital punishment, went on to assert (in stony coldness) that he has "never struggled" with that fact. That's particularly chilling when you consider that one of those executed was Cameron Willingham, who was put to death under Perry's watch even though, recent evidence affirmed his innocence. (Google it) I wonder if Perry's cheerleaders in the crowd knew that. Strike one against an audience willing to praise unprecedented 0 Political discourse has hit a new low. phen Hill, a United States service- man stationed in Iraq, fielded a question to Rick Santorum regard- ing the recent (and belated) repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. "In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was because I am a gay soldier and didn't want to lose my job," Hill said. Referring to DADT, he contin- ued, "Do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the mili- tary?" As the camera cut back to Santorum, audible boos were heard from the audience. No candidates on stage attempted to silence the jeers. No candidates thanked Hill for his service. Strike three. Call me crazy, but aren't the can- didatessupposed to answer theques- tions given-them? Aren't debates a time for us to hear what the candi- dates have to say? It's sad and a little scary when you stop and consider what's become of American political discourse. In today's debates, even Kennedy wouldn't stand a chance. - Daniel Chardell can be reached at chardelloumich.edu. state-inflicted death. Then, at the Sept. 12 CNN/Tea Party Express debate, Wolf Blitzer asked Rep. Ron Paul who should pay when an uninsured young man unexpectedly goes into a coma. After Paul danced around the ques- tion and threw out buzzwords like "freedom" and "responsibility" for the right-wingers to lap up, Blitzer (finally) got to the point: "But Con- gressman, are you saying that soci- ety should just let him die?" Paul had hardly spluttered out a weak "no..." when some in the crowd began shouting "Yeah!" Strike two. Finally, at the Fox News/Google debate held Thursday evening, Ste- 0 EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Aida Ali, Michelle DeWitt, Ashley Griesshammer, Patrick Maillet, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley, Teddy Papes, Timothy Rabb, Seth Soderborg, Andrew Weiner SARAH SMITH AND RICK STEPANOVIC I Welcome to Greek Life The post-racial facade 0 To the nearly 1,400 men and women who joined the University's Greek community this past weekend - first and foremost, we'd like to offer you our wholehearted congratula- tions. The decision to go Greek isn't an easy one, but we believe it might be the best one you'll make during your undergraduate years. As Panhel's vice president of public relations and Interfraternity Council's vice president of recruitment, we've had the most incredible journey in Greek Life and in our individual chapters, and we're so excited to share that journey with you. We want to encourage you to really make the most of being Greek. Much of your expe- rience with Greek Life thus far - outside of the recruitment process - has probably been social. It's certainly one of the most vis- ible elements of Greek Life, with hundreds of tailgaters dancing outside a fraternity on a Football Saturday or thousands of guests "attending" an open party on Facebook. More than likely, you've spent the weekend getting to know your new brothers or sisters at social events like these - and that's definitely not a bad thing. But while fraternities and sorori- ties are social by nature, there's a lot more to Greek Life than the social scene, and we think those aspects are what make the Greek experience truly excellent. In the-year ahead, you'll be presented with opportunities to serve your chapter, and we strongly encourage you to take them. Wheth- er it's something small like attending a semi- nar, volunteering to help plan an upcoming philanthropy eventor a big commitment like representing your chapter in Junior Panhel or JIFC, giving back to your chapter makes you more invested in its success. Between the two of us, we've served fraternity and soror- ity life in practically every capacity - ranging from holding board positions in our chap- ters, attending seminars put on by the Office of Greek Life as freshmen to planning them with our councils as seniors. We've attended a combined total of 16 leadership conferences, as near as the Michigan League and as far away as Athens, Greece. We've even turned our passion for Greek Life into professional opportunities - Sarah will be interning with her sorority this summer, while Rick just got a full-time offer to be a traveling consultant for his fraternity. So are we a little extreme when it comes to Greek leadership? Maybe. But when we joined our chapters three years ago, we were clueless - we were just open to getting involved. A focus on things like scholarship, ath- letics and philanthropy can enhance not only your experience in Greek Life, but your growth as a person as well. In addition to all the resources that are already available to you as a student, being Greek gives increased aca- demic support - including access to new net- works of study buddies in your class, advice from older brothers and sisters in your major and recognition through scholarship pro- grams. Participation in intramural sports, which has leagues exclusively for fraternities and sororities, will teach you how to work with your brothers and sisters as a team and will be helpful both on and off the playing field. And when Greeks come together to help others, we can accomplish some astounding things - our combined fundraising efforts rival that of any campus service group, and our hands-on work in the community helps our neighbors directly and makes us better men and women. But while we think it's important to give back to Greek Life, we also suggest that you take advantage of all its benefits - the most obvious one being brotherhood and sister- hood. In the next few years, you'll become closer to your pledge class than you could pos- sibly imagine now, and they'll stay with you for the rest of your life. They'll be there for you in the good times - like when Rick took a road trip to St. Louis with his brothers - and in the bad times, like when Sarah's mom was diagnosed with cancer last semester. These bonds are the true benefit of going Greek, and we urge you to develop them in every way possible during your time in college. With that in mind, we'd like to offer you our congratulations once again and our best wishes for the new member term ahead of you. We sincerely hope that you'll get as much out of your Greek experiences as we've gotten out of ours. Sarah Smith is an LSA senior. She is the Panhellenic Association's vice president of public relations. Rick Stepanovic is an LSA senior. He is the Interfraternity Council's vice president of recruitment. To get into the University, we all had to write an admis- sions essay explaining the importance of diversity in our lives. If you think back to that essay you wrote in high school, what's your opin- ion of it? Because - I'm willing to bet JEREMY that most of you LEVY would now con- sider your essay crap, hyperbole, cliche or all of the above. And if you're like me, it's not because you are opposed to diversi- ty. It's because diversity has become an empty buzzword that's too-often trumpeted. As a friend of mine put it, "If the University values diversity so much, why is everyone here white?" Indeed, in the U.S.- News and World Report Diversity index, the University scored a .43/1, with the highest-ranking school (Rutgers) scoring a.76. The "Diversity Matters at Michigan" page may boast about accepting students from 49 states, but information about the racial makeup of the University is limited. Think of the diversity question as a backdrop to the question discussed on The New York Times Room for Debate Blog last Wednesday, "Under Obama, is America 'Post-Racial?"' The academics on the blog seemed to agree that if "post-racial" is sup- posed to mean "racially equal," the answer is a clear no. Among other indicators, black and Latino unem- ployment rates are 16 and 11 per- cent respectively - well above the national average of 9.1 percent. But if the question is how the country's public actors, most nota- bly President Barack Obama, treat race issues, the term "post-racial" begins to make more sense. Obama and the University are similar in that they face huge political risks by promoting race-conscious policies. Rather, they advocate policies that are intended to help everyone in the hopes that disadvantaged minorities will also benefit. Economic stimulus is supposed to boost the economy for everyone, just as all students are supposed to benefit from a diverse campus. Unfortunately, as shown above, these policies don't benefit every- one equally. All indicators blatantly show that minorities are still at a severe disadvantage. Yet, signs of a "post-racial" mind- set pervade in many other ways. If you look at the primary issues covered by the political parties and media cycles, it's difficult to tell that there are even racial issues in the country. Take discrimination for example. This summer, I worked at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Washington D.C., a government agency with the mis- sion of ending employment discrimi- nation in the United States. When I told people about the job, many expressed the belief that employ- ment discrimination is no longer a major problem. One might reach the same con- clusion from seeing how the rest of Washington perceives the EEOC. My first red flag was that the EEOC offices are located in a building that was a warehouse no more than 15 years ago, far removed from the center of the city's activity. More importantly, as any EEOC staffer will tell you, Congress gives the agency very little enforcement power. EEOC is allowed to offer rec- ommendations on the employment practices of private companies and other government agencies but has no mechanism to make them oblige. Generally speaking, the prevail- ing view around the District was that anti-discrimination initiatives interfered with the presumably more important work of the rest of the agencies. While such signs might lead one to believe that discrimination hardly occurs anymore, racial minorities are likely to say that, on the contrary, the problem is still very prevalent. And research shows that there is a large opinion gap between racial groups on the issue. Diversity has become an empty buzzword.j In one recent study done through the Association for Psychologi- cal Science entitled "Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing," professors * Michael I. Norton and Samuel R. Sommers asked a nationwide sam- ple to rate the seriousness of black discrimination on a one to 10 scale for each decade between 1950 and the present. While most respon- dents agreed on a rating of nine or 10 for the 1950s, white respondents gave an average rating of 3.5 for the present. Black respondents, on the other hand, gave the present an average rating of 6. When it comes down to it, the term "post-racial" can really only apply to mindset and presentation. Even though many issues dispro- portionally affect minorities, public figures almost always handle these issues in race-neutral terms. And issues that only affect minorities tend to be forgotten altogether. To an average white citizen minimally invested in the news and political discourse, it may very well appear that racial problems in America have been solved for decades. - Jeremy Levy can be reached at jeremlev@umich.edu. p