i
4 - Friday, October 7, 2011
The Michigan Daily - michigandailv.com
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
SNEHA REDDY
E-MAIL SNEHA AT SNEHAR@UMICH.EDU
SNEHAREDDY E-MAIL SNEHAAT SNEHAR@UMICH.EDU
OUT..
OK:, SO SUAAA~f RoeMT#o lss&-
rMOtAow AfJD cS8etA LAS c.treT OWE
f4tPA'-- wAIT! E)Je LI~ti ESS-4 ALSO
Au7 tHKN .1&MAt. AND SUNA spUTOVoS
6t ~ t)4 t Sak'rAo sP. t4(z op,
0 -_
W 1.L, WtiAPDY5 4
eEbTntE- AT
L£'AS T Z 6 T
i O4!!N(1Ht
axH~
STEPHANIE STEINBERG
EDITOR IN CHIEF
MICHELLE DEWITT
and EMILY ORLEY
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
NICK SPAR
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.
FROM THE DAILY
Quagga quagmire
Protect the Great Lakes from invasive species
M ichigan's Great Lakes are threatened yet again by an inva-
sive species of mussels. While Asian carp have been a
recent concern, a new type of mussel, the quagga, is mul-
tiplying at an alarming rate. Since 2003, the mussels have taken over
the lakes and depleted the food source of many native fish. Not only
are they damaging the ecosystem of the lakes, but they are damaging
the livelihoods of fisherman who depend on the lakes for their income.
It is important that citizens and legislators take this invasive species
seriously and implement regulations to protect the state's lakes.
4
94L
I
Go beyond tolerance
4
Quaggas are related to zebra mussels, and
the species is currently thriving in four of
the five Great Lakes. There are 437 trillion
in Lake Michigan alone, according to a 2010
survey from the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration's Great Lakes Envi-
ronmental Research Laboratory.
This species of mussel hails from foreign
ports and attaches to boats that have gained
ballast water. These boats enter the lakes
through the St. Lawrence Seaway. Since
1994, the number of mussels has steadily
increased, with a spike in the population
occurring since 2003. The population of
quagga mussels in the lakes is extremely
high, at four times the number of all fish.
In Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, quag-
ga have preyed on shrimp, reducing them
to near extinction. Quagga mussels eat
almost 98 percent of their weight each day,
and much of what they eat is the same food
shrimp in the Great Lakes eat. These shrimp,
clleddp e-;serve as them 'rfrod source
for game fish like whitefish. Quaggas eat phy-
toplankton which diporeia feed upon, thus
reducing the diporeia population. The mus-
sels also create toxic algae which are respon-
sible for increasing illnesses in humans and
decreasing healthy algae populations.
The species is threatening the livelihood
of many Michigan residents. Anglers boats
that could bring in catches from 90 feet
below the water must now fish deeper, some-
times up to 150 feet. The species disrupts
the food chains of more than one species of
game fish that are necessary for the busi-
ness of countless Michigan anglers fishing
off the coast. While the mussels are decreas-
ing biodiversity in the Great Lakes, they are
also upsetting infrastructure by lining water
pipes and creating costly damage in water
treatment facilities.
With the longest freshwater coastline in
the nation of more than3,000miles, the Great
Lakes contain one-fifth of the world's fresh
water. In order to protect the state's natural
resources, biodiversity and industries reliant
on the Great Lakes, it is necessary regula-
tions are put in place that restrict the number
ofvessels that may carrythe invasive species.
There must be increased regulation of boats
entering the Great Lakes, especially those
that may have picked up ballast water from
ports inhabited by quagga mussels.
The other day, during a meet-
ing among student facilita-
tors for a class I'm taking,
we exchanged
tips and concerns
about prepar-
ing to facilitate
this week's sec-
tion discussion
about gender and
sexuality. We've
already noticed LIBBY
a trend among ASHTON
our students -
especially the
female students
- that they don't strongly identify
with their gender in a sociological
context. Many have said they don't
think gender is significant anymore
as an identifier. Some have said any
oppression women do face - insofar
as they are, by default, sexual objects
in a dominantly male society - isn't
really so bad. In fact, they think it's
kind of flattering.
Our roles as facilitators don't
authorize us to actively inform the
opinions and perceptions of our
students. Even though many of us
have had more experience working
through topics in sociology, we're
peers without classroom hierarchy.
Our conversations are often rooted
in worldviews and self-concepts, not
the more objective stuff of number
games and textual analysis. So, in the
event of a seriously off-putting com-
ment and in practice of tolerance,
maybe we should bite our tongues
and move on?
While walking through the Diag
this week, I saw the obscene affront
to the Universitythat was the larger-
than-life exhibit displaying several
photos of mutilated fetuses and geno-
cide victims, brought to campus by
organization Students for Life. I then
saw the handfuls of students sur-
rounding the display and engaging
in what looked like verbal hair pull-
ing withthe anti-abortion protesters.
Those students, it seemed, simply
couldn't pass by such an aggressively
offensive and absurd scene without
addressing the people responsible.
I overheard two Students for Life
members remarking on the fact that
pro-choice supporters didn't want to
see the truth, which is why they were
unwilling to look at the disturbing
photos. Those students, it seemed,
simply couldn't accept that so many
people were unwilling to understand
abortion as they understood it. So
they forced the images of abortion, as
they see it, onto the University com-
munity - whether we liked it or not.
The dynamic between the anti-
abortion protesters and the students
passing by wasn't so different from
the Diag preachers' regular routine
of religious proselytizing, which is
always met with students' counter-
arguments and, often times, ridicule.
The man screams and holds signs
condemning University students to
hell; the University students laugh
and diagnose insanity. Because of
our collectively prized right to free
speech, we've adapted to a campus
in which people say and do things we
think are ridiculous, and we either
respond with anger and ridicule, or
we remind ourselvesto be tolerant.
But I wonder if tolerance should
really be so valued. If I were to sim-
ply tolerate the opinion of a class-
mate, I'd be deeming her incapable
of thinking.deeply about her beliefs
when pressed. If I were to tolerate the
antics ofthe anti-abortion protesters,
it would be inherently condescend-
ing in that I'd regard their behavior
as so far out of the realm of what's
reasonable that I couldn't even bring
myself to engage. And when I pass
the Diag religious fanatic, I dismiss
him with my tolerance.
I'm not advocating for intoler-
ance either, as it's the flip side of a
duly unimpressive coin. I found the
anti-abortion protesters to exemplify
the worst of intolerance. Their com-
plete intolerance of the opposition
prompted them to visually assault
and offend hundreds of people dur-
ing their two-day exhibit. They
revealed a total lack of respect for
the minds of pro-choice supporters
and an unwillingness to engage in
productive conversation that might
have clarified their understanding of
the truth. Instead, they employed as
much force as they could muster to
effectively punch all of us in the face.
We shouldn't just
bite our tongues
and move on.
I think that if we made an effort to
treat others with respect rather than
to meet their words with tolerance,
we'd achieve a much greater under-
standing of one another and our-
selves. A friend of mine, who is (in my
opinion) amongthe most determined
and effective pro-life leaders of our
generation, understands the world in
a fundamentally different way than
I do. But because she respects me
enough to talk to me, rather than to
tolerate me, I actually believe that it's
possible for all of us to live without
the dissonance caused by plugged
ears and shouting mouths. I guesswe
might call that alternative harmony.
-Libby Ashton can be reached
at eashton@umich.edu.
6
6
6
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@MICHIGANDAILY.COM
a
Diag exhibit was necessary
to spark debate on abortion
TO THE DAILY:
In response to the outcry against the
Genocide Awareness Project, Students for
Life would like to explain our reasons for
bringing such a graphic display to the Diag
instead of "creating dialogue" in a more
peaceful manner.
Over the past few years, we've reached
out to pro-choice advocates on campus in an
attempt to engage in dialogue about the abor-
tion debate. Last spring, we even brought in a
pro-life apologist and invited myriad faculty
members in women's studies and philosophy to
represent the pro-choice side. We asked every
major pro-choice group on campus to come
debate us - heck, to come hold a forum with us
- but each group refused without even work-
ing with us to modify the event to something
which both our organizations could agree.
We've tabled. We've passed out flyers. We've
Keystone XL pipeline poses
serious risks to environment
brought in speakers. No one would listen, and
no one would talk about it - until Monday.
Sure, the display inconvenienced you on the
way to class,but it forced thousands ofstudents
to start thinking about, and even talking about
an issue so important to us that we'll tolerate
the hatred of 40,000 people.
Certainly we'd rather stop the 3,300 abor-
tions per day (a conservative number as report-
ed by the Guttmacher Institute) and keep our
friends through roundtable discussion, but
when we view each abortion as the death of
a unique human being, you can understand
the urgency of our message. No event held in
the Michigan League could have generated as
much talk about the subject as the Diag dis-
play, so we'll applaud ourselves for breaking
the silence, remind the student body of the
resource table we held for pregnant and post-
pregnant women and invite any group or any
individual out there to engage in some straight
talk and real discussion with us.
Carmen Allen
LSA junior and president of Students for Life
Sugiyama wrote it would be "ecologically
friendly to spend money on improving the oil
distribution system which in the long run will
cut down costs and emissions." Consider the
boreal forest that sits above these tar sands,
whose deforestation would displace thou-
sands of indigenous people in Alberta, Canada,
unleashing untold tons of carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere. Northern Alberta already
suffered a pipeline leak that spilled 4.5 mil-
lion liters into the Peace River watershed this
spring.
The 20,000 technical jobs created by Key-
stone XL will be for lawyers to defend Trans-
Canada, hazardous waste crews to clean up
spills, lawyers to remediate broken hunting
treaties with Native Americans, doctors to
treat those infected by contaminated drinking
water and scientists to study the delicate Sand
Hill species - an effected three mammals, five
birds, one amphibian, five reptiles, three fish
and two invertebrates - choking to death on
bitumen. Not jobs for the middle class.
"Just another 2,000 miles of pipes," Sugi-
yama?
Wolverines, voice your opinions to Congress-
man John Dingell (D- Mich.) at 202-225-4071.
Ryan Stock
Rackham student
NOEL GORDON VWPOINT
Value all sexual expression
TO THE DAILY:
Regarding Joe Sugiyama's recent column
(What's Another 2,000 Miles?, 10/4/2011) The
Domestic Jobs, Domestic Energy, and Deficit
Reduction Act of 2011, H. R.1287, is the legisla-
tion directing the Secretary of State to "expe-
dite the permit request for the Keystone XL
pipeline without considering greenhouse gas
impacts."
Sugiyamatrusts "the State Department isn't
secretly trying to destroy the Great Plains."
Michiganders, remember the Talmadge Creek
oil spill that leaked 877,000 gallons into the
Kalamazoo River last year, exceeding $585
million to clean up? As Louisianans can assure
you, the State Department doesn't like to getits
hands sticky.
Privately funding Keystone XL are the bil-
lionaire Koch brothers, who control 25 per-
cent of imported crude oil sands. They are the
largest single oil and gas donors to the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, attempting
to persuade lawmakers to pass bill H. R. 2401,
the TRAIN Act, to systematically dismantle
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Did you hookup last night? Well, shame on you. At
least, that's what I think Matt Green would say to you
based on arguments made in his most recent column
(Focus on relationships, 10/4/2011).
Apparently, Green believes those of us who choose to
forego committed relationships in favor of what he calls
"random hookups" are "blithely (engaging in) unhealthy
behavior." He says he would rather us all "(ask) one
another out on dates or actually (build) meaningful,
romantic relationships." Now to be clear: I don't have a
problem with Green taking an orthodox position on such
a controversial issue. Nor do I have a problem with the
goals he's trying to reach. What I take issue with is the
presumptuous and oftentimes judgmental way he frames
this debate.
All that being said, let's explore some of Green's argu-
ments just a bit more in-depth, shall we? First of all, I
don't think it's necessarily the case that hookups have to
be meaningless in the way Green implies. Last I checked,
it's quite possible for me to have a hookup with someone
and still remember his or her name the morning after. It's
equally possible for me to bond with my various sexual
partners and still not want to be in a committed relation-
ship. Isn't that the definition of the term "friend-with-
benefits?" But even if I wanted nothing more than to
hookup with someone simply because I found him or her
physically attractive, it'snot clear to me that I'm engaging
in some type of morally unacceptable behavior. As long as
the encounter is safe, consensual and enjoyable, I really
don't see the problem here. Green, however, is guilty of
a much bigger and more paternalistic sin - namely, the
projection of his normative ideas about sexuality onto
others.
He then proceeds to engage us in this rather interest-
ing, and at times borderline sexist, dialogue about the
ways in which gender roles impact our so-called "hookup
culture." He notes, for instance, that he "knows plenty of
men on campus who'd gladly forego the weekend hookup
ritual for something a little less fleeting, if only the oppor-
tunity arose." But even if that were true, I know just as
many guys (and girls) who enjoy that weekend hookup
ritual. Whether it's because of a busy schedule, a bad
dating history or something else entirely, many college
students just don't want to be in a committed relation-
ship duringthis tenuous point in their life. And I, for one,
think that's atotally acceptable position to take. I'd rather
people be honest with me about their intentions from the
beginning than waste my time trying to change them.
And as for his argument suggesting that "hookups only
exacerbate emotional solitude," there simplyisn't enough
evidence to substantiate such a claim. All we have are a
few short-term studies, including one from the Family
Institute at Florida State University which found, "hook-
ing up is not uniformly positive or negative in emerging
adulthood in regards to psychological distress."
Perhaps the most intriguing part of Green's piece,
though, is the call he makes for a "mass grassroots ini-
tiative to replace the hookup culture with a dating cul-
ture or at least a culture of respect." Now maybe it's just
me, but I think there are a lot bigger problems on cam-
pus than who's going home with who after Pride Night
at Necto. But that's beside the point. It's much more
important for people to realize that Green's argument is
indicative of the sexual hierarchy that currently exists ir
American society. His op-ed perpetuatesthe ideathatit's
ok to privilege some people because of the sexual choices
they make and not others. I, on the other hand, support a
system wherein all forms of sexual expression are treated
equally and respectfully - a system that recognizes that
the pursuit of sexual gratification can be an intrinsically
valuable thing in and of itself.
Sex doesn't require emotional attachments or monog-
amous commitments; though admittedly, these things
often do make the experience better. At the end of the
day, it's important for people to rememberthat we are all
independent agents capable of making our own sexual
decisions, and that hooking up is to one person what a
relationship may be to another.
Noel Gordon is an LSA senior.
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
a