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