The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
4A - Thursday, February 23, 20121
C iidiian Bat'*
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
ASHLEY GRIESSHAMMER
JOSEPH LICHTERMAN and ANDREW WEINER JOSH HEALY
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.
Imran Syed is the public editor. He can be reached at publiceditor@michigandaily.com.
Eliminate exclusions
U' childcaresubsidy should be available for all
2001 University study estimated that approximately 20
percent of graduate students and 2 percent of undergradu-
ate students are parents. Since 1994, the University has had
a childcare subsidy program in place to reduce the cost of licensed
childcare for graduate and undergraduate students with children.
Though the University has raised the dollar amount of the subsidy
through several negotiations with GEG in the last decade, parents
still want the program to be expanded. Some limitations - that a
student's spouse must be employed outside the home for 20 hours
per week - unfairly exclude some international couples as well as
students with spouses that are currently unemployed. On Tuesday,
the Central Student Government passed a resolution aimed at wid-
ening the scope of the program to provide more student-parents with
access to subsidies. The University should consider CSG's resolution
and widen eligibility considerations.
This means they burned our faith,
our honor and our lives:'
- Mohammed Asif, an Afghan citizen, said angrily in reaction to the burning
of multiple copies of the Koran at a NATO airbase in Afghanistan, according to Time.com.
Santorum's religious campaign
i
I
As the Michigan Republican
primary fast approaches,
national and local news-
papers -
including The
Michigan Daily
- have honed in
on the two can-
didates who have
emerged as the
frontrunners:
Mitt Romney and SARAH
Rick Santorum. ROHAN
Most recent
polls showRom-
ney and Santorum in a statistical
tie in the race for the Michigan pri-
mary. Romney, Detroit-born and
son of a former Michigan governor,
beat John McCain in the Michigan
primary four years ago. However,
four years and one very different
auto industry later, the sentiment of
many Michigan voters toward Rom-
ney has changed.
Speculative poll results for the
Michigan primary, combined with a
recent three-state sweep, merit Rick
Santorum a closer look. But the more
I see, the less I like -not because he
goes against my personal political
views (though that may have some-
thing to do with it), but because the
religious views he has expressed
throughout this campaign are ones
which no serious candidate for the
presidency should ever get away
with saying.
As a deeply religious candidate,
it's not surprising that religion plays
a prominent role in Santorum's cam-
paign, especially as he tries to secure
the evangelical and right-wing
vote. However, when discussing his
Christian faith, Santorum has made
claims that are utterly false.
In a 2011 campaign rally in South
Carolina, Santorum claimed, "The
idea that the Crusades and the fight
of Christendom against Islam is
somehow an aggression on our part
is absolutely anti-historical. And
that is what the perception is by the
American Left who hates Christen-
dom." According to the "Encyclope-
dia Britannica," the Crusades were
a series of "military expeditions"
whose "objectives were to check the
spread of Islam" - the Crusades as a
"fight of christendom against Islam"
is a historical truth, not a leftist lie.
Ifsa student at the University made
a claim identical to Santorum's in
an academic paper, he or she would
undoubtedly face consequences.
Such a reality implies that, as stu-
dents, we are held to a higher stan-
dardthanacandidate forpresidency.
Propelling Santorum's religious
campaign are claims that Obama's
administration has been an "assault
on all religion in America." In a
speech at Hope College in Holland,
Mich, this Monday, Santorum said,
"What the president is now seeming
to mold, in the image of other elitists
who think that they know best, is to
limit the role of faith in the public
square and your role to live that faith
out in your public and private lives."
This claim comes after a comment
Santorum made Saturday, calling
Obama's beliefs, "some phony ideal,
some phony theology. Oh, not a the-
ology based on the Bible, a different
theology, but no less a theology." If
anyone is making an assault on reli-
gion here, I would say it's Santorum.
Santorum asserts that his state-
ment was not really about Obama's
religion but rather "about his world
view, and the way he approaches
problems in this country. I think
they're different than how most
people do in America." Equating a
difference in approach to "the prob-
lems in this country" with a "phony
theology" is extreme. Furthermore,
as a citizen of a country whose gov-
ernment was established on the
premise of separation of church and
state, I take major issue with Santo-
rum criticizing Obama for making
decisions that aren't "based on the
Bible." When one religious ethos
begins to dictate America's actions,
the country ceases to be a democ-
racy. It's a theocracy.
America is a
democracy, not a
theocracy.
In a recent blog post on The New
York Times' website, Santorum's
campaign has been called one of
"religious supremacy." In light of his
recent statements on religion, that
sounds about right.
It isn't the first time in this cam-
paign that a candidate has made
offensive remarks (see: Rick Perry).
However, these statements speak
not only to Santorum's close-mind-
edness as a candidate, but show his
campaign to be one disproportion-
ately concerned with religion in this
country. As I said before, America is a
democracy, not a theocracy. If Santo-
rum's campaign gave half the atten-
tion to America's more imminent
problems - like healthcare and eco-
nomic reform - as it did to the faith
of its citizens, perhaps he could gain
a following composed of more than
just right-wing Christians.
- Sarah Rohan can be reached
at shrohan@umich.edu.
Though the program's set of eligibility
restrictions are reasonable, the work-study
provision hurts some candidates who truly
deserve a subsidy. In order to receive aid
from the office of Financial Aid, the student
must be a single parent. If married, the stu-
dent's spouse or partner must be in school
or employed outside the home for at least 20
hours a week. Obviously, any expectation
of the OFA that those who are unemployed
ought to take their child along on the job
search is impractical. The spouses of many
international students have student visas, or F
visas, which do not allow them to work out-
side of the University. The program eligibility
requirements also discriminate against those
students with spouses that work from home.
Increasing funding for any University
program is difficult. However, the Gradu-
ate Employees' Organization and CSG have
pledged significant monetary contributions
should the University choose to implement
Tuesday's resolution. GEO has already pledged
part of its salary increase to the childcare sub-
sidy funds. CSG has made a similar commit-
ment, offering $35,000 to the program. The
initiative may be able to make use of a sum
set aside for use at GEO's recommendations
for reform within the program - a memoran-
dum between the union and the University last
March established $75,000 for any future child
care subsidy program reforms.
The OFA needs to make international stu-
dents as well as those students whose spouses
maybe looking for work or telecommuting from
home eligible for the program. Though these
individuals do not comprise a significant por-
tion of student-parents, a number of deserving
candidates are still shut out from this benefi-
cial program. Regardless of size, any exclusion
is reason enough for reform. The University
needs to listen to CSG's proposal, work with
the demands of the GEO and take steps to close
any loopholes in eligibility requirements.
SARAH SKALUBA I
Less privacy, more profit
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Aida Ali, Laura Argintar, Kaan Avdan, Ashley Griesshammer, Nirbhay Jain, Jesse Klein,
Patrick Maillet, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Harsha Panduranga, Timothy Rabb, Adrienne Roberts, Vanessa
Rychlinski, Sarah Skaluba, Seth Soderborg, Caroline Syms, Andrew Weiner
Just (and) good busns
Don't be alarmed when you start receiving
coupons in the mail for products you're not
even aware you need yet. Recent consumer
research led by huge retail stores such as Tar-
get shows that companies are now able to ana-
lyze the routines and habits of their shoppers
to fully exploit their needs and wants. This
means companies can paste together your
demographic information, purchasing history
and frequently-visited websites to predict what
type of individual you are and what products
you may be interested in buying in the future.
Whether you are an obsessive beachgoer pur-
chasing new bikinis in April or a soon-to-be
mom, Target is able to analyze your regular
shopping routine to create customized, indi-
vidual ad booklets that will be personally
mailed to your address. Not only is this new
method of customer service alarmingly accu-
rate, but it's also an invasion of privacy and a
breach of personal liberty.
According to a Feb. 19 New York Times arti-
cle, Andrew Pole, who has a master's degree in
statistics and economics, was hired by Target
in 2002 to "analyze all 'cue-routine-reward'
loops among shoppers and figure out how to
exploit them." In other words, Pole was hired
to observe consumers as much as possible so
that Target customers would be able to receive
personalized coupon booklets in the mail per-
taining to their past purchasing history and
shopping routines. As helpful as this may ini-
tially sound, it's taking customer service to
a whole new level and opening doors which
many consumers believe lead down a danger-
ous path. Pole is able to strategically pick out
the pool goers and beach bums from the giant
Target database so that they receive coupons
for dieting books in the winter and sunscreen
in the summer. But his insight into consumers'
habits is much more powerful and personal
than that alone.
Since hiring Pole in 2002, Target's total rev-
enue has increased by more than $23 billion as
of 2010, thanks to his strategic habit analysis.
But the majority of this increase in profits is
due to Pole's pregnancy-prediction program,
which is a score customers receive based on
their purchasing history of 25 separate prod-
ucts, ranging from cotton balls to unscented
body lotion. No longer is Target simply ste-
reotyping mothers based on whether they
purchase diapers or pacifiers; they are now dig-
ging deeper into their personal lives than ever
before. Surprisingly, the prediction score turns
out to be extremely accurate.
A year after Pole's model was created, an
angry father stormed into a Minneapolis Tar-
get raging about why his daughter, who was
still in high school, received Target coupons
for maternity clothes and baby products in
the mail. The furious dad complained to the
manager and asked why Target was send-
ing an encouraging message to teenage girls
to become pregnant and have a baby at such
a young age. It turned out that after speak-
ing with his daughter later on, she was indeed
pregnant. By analyzing her shopping habits
and routine, Target was able to identify a young
expecting mother before her own father was
even aware of the situation. This new means
of customer service is invasive and much too
personal. Predicting a teenage boy's love of
video games is one thing, but analyzing a shop-
per's routine to decide if he or she is pregnant,
a recent divorcee or a new college graduate is a
completely different matter.
This intrusive method of increasing sales
is only the beginning of a long road that lies
ahead. "Just wait.We'llbe sendingyoucoupons
for things you want before you even know you
want them," Pole told The New York Times. In
reality, do customers actually feel completely
comfortable with huge corporations knowing
their personal business and digging up their
past history? My gut feeling suggests no. Even
after applying the pregnancy-prediction model
to just a small fraction of the Target database,
customers who received coupon booklets with
only baby products and maternity clothing felt
as though they'd been spied on, and they had
adverse reactions to the advertisements.
Last time I checked, Target wasn't code-
name for Big Brother, so why does the cor-
poration obsessively analyze and push into
customers' personal lives? No one wants to
feel like they're being spied on while casually
trying to run a few errands. Not only is this an
invasion of our personal privacy as shoppers,
but it also opens up a door to a scary future.
In that future, huge corporations and retailers
have complete access to our personal informa-
tion and background. Yes, companies should
work to achieve the best customer service pos-
sible, but taking it this far is a breach of indi-
vidual liberty and our independence.
Sarah Skaluba is an LSA sophomore.
et me just start with this: Iam
not a big fan of huge, for-prof-
it corpo-
rations.
There are
many reasons
why I feel this
way - and I
would love to
discuss these at
length with any
of you. Yes, even YONAH
you, College LEBERMN
Libertarians.
Don't get the
wrongidea. Iunderstand the benefits
of capitalism, especially in this tech-
nology-rich age. Capitalism incentiv-
izes new and better ideas. In turn,
those ideas improve our society in
major ways.
But frankly, anyone who doesn't
find fault with at least some aspects
of capitalism needs to step back and
look again.
To me, its main fault is that it's
a system where companies define
success entirely on their bottom
line - have they made more money
than their competition. This leads
to an approach where profits often
take priority over people.
But this column is not meant to
simply bash corporate greed. It is
meant to show how the system can
function morally.
With the rise of the Occupy Wall
Street movement, there has been a
heightened awareness of many of
the corporation's immoral actions.
As someone who both identifies
strongly with the Occupy move-
ment and has rallied against large
for-profit corporations for years,
this news is refreshing to me.
I recently came across an article
on the website wakeup-world.com
entitled, "Five Companies that Did
Something Positive for the World in
2011." Needless to say, I was skepti-
cal.
Most large corporations these
days have some sort of social initia-
tive or charity fund. While some may
argue that this reveals the true mor-
als of the leadership, I realistically
view these meaningless initiatives
simply as ways to win social capital
and improve their reputation.
And yet, I was impressed with
the article. Ice cream chain Ben and
Jerry's released a statement in sup-
port of the Occupy movement way
back in October. Outdoor outfitter
Patagonia introduced an anti-con-
sumerist campaign called "Don't
Buy This Jacket." The trendy cloth-
ing store H&M pledged to have all
of its cotton come from sustainable
sources by 2020. The computer
giant Hewlett-Packard has used its
power to lobby against the use of
conflict minerals in their products.
And Method Products has released
the greenest laundry detergent to
ever hit shelves.
These five companies are by no
means perfect. They are, however,
changing - or attemptingto change
- corporate America. I find hope in
the efforts in these companies.
It may seem obvious, but with the
exception of Patagonia, whose cam-
paign to literally not sell their prod-
ucts is either suicidal or incredibly
inspiring, these corporations are
only seen as "good" because their
competition is so damn bad.
For example, while HP paved
the way to advocate against conflict
minerals, major companies such
as Toshiba and Canon came in last
place according to the organization
Raise Hope for Congo.
I shed light on these initiatives not
because I am getting paid by them
(though, if you're listening Ben and
Jerry's, I would appreciate a few
cartons of Phish Food), but because
I want to do my part to shift the con-
versation around corporations.
As socially conscious consumers,
it's all too easy to spend all of our
time exposing immoral practices of
large corporations and screaming
about it. I doit all the time. Let's not
beat around the bush - there is a lot
to expose.
However, we cannot just criti-
cize bad policies, we must propose
an alternative. These five compa-
nies shed light onto the world as it
could be.
We must hold
corporations to
higher standards.
If we spend our time promoting
these great initiatives, large corpo-
rations will see this and - in their
own self-interest - begin to adopt
similar programs.
There is the danger of being co-
opted for our ideals. As I stated
earlier, most major corporations
already have social initiatives, albeit
meaningless ones. There is a fine line
between those and the truly produc-
tive ones highlighted in the article.
But if we stay educated and keep
the pressure on these companies,
we can ensure that programs and
initiatives have meaning.
Yes, we must hold corporations
to higher standards. We, their con-
sumers, hold all the cards. But we
must also be able to point to spe-
cific policies that these companies
should adopt.
We need to build up what we
seek to break down. Only then will
a just society exist.
- Yonah Lieberman can be reached
at yonahl@umich.edu. Follow him
on twitter at @YonahLieberman.
4