4A - Thursday, March 15, 2012
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
4A - Thursday, March 15, 2012 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
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.
A gift for the future
Dow Chemical's grant promotes sustainability
U niversity President Mary Sue Coleman and Andrew Liv-
eris, CEO of Dow Chemical Company, announced a new
sustainability fellowship on Monday that will be funded by
Dow Chemical to support sustainable research at the University. Dow
Chemical's gift of $10 million will be used over a period of six years to
bring a wide variety of academic leaders to our campus with the hopes
of creating solutions and promoting sustainability across the globe.
Though Dow Chemical has contributed to pollution in the past, the
Dow Sustainability Fellows Program will help to clean up our environ-
ment. More companies should take part in these types of programs as
our society continues to search for more green technology.
Uphold affirmative action
nFeb. 20,theSupreme Court
announced that it would
hear Fisherv. University of
Texas, the most
recent affirma-
tive action case
to be reviewed
by the Supreme
Court since the
2003 Grutter v.
Bollinger case
involving the SARAH
University. With ROHAN
conservative
Supreme Court
justices in the majority, it's likely that
the court will overrule the Grutter
decision, which affirmed the consti-
tutionality of considering race as a
factor in college admissions. Howev-
er, to do so would be a grave mistake
on the part of the court and would
undoubtedlydeprive schools, likeour
own, of the diverse environment that
attracts many of us to the institution
in the first place.
The 2003 Supreme Court ruling
involved two suits filed against the
University concerning its affirma-
tive action policies. In Grutter v. Bol-
linger, the plaintiff alleged that she
was excluded from the University's
Law School because of a policy that
considered race in admissions. The
second case, Gratz v. Bollinger, was a
class action lawsuit challenging the
University's undergraduate point
system, which assigned points in
favor of an applicant's racial minor-
ity status. Both cases contended
that the University's policies denied
equal protection of the law under
the 14th Amendment. The court,
in Gratz, ultimately found the Uni-
versity's point admission system
unconstitutional, but upheld the
constitutionality of the consider-
ation of race as an admissions factor
in Grutter.
As a Texas resident and former
prospective student of the Univer-
sity of Texas, I am personally famil-
iar not only with the admissions
policies of the school, but also with
the highly charged opinions regard-
ing those policies. Though I support
affirmative action, I disagree with
some of the admissions practices of
UT's undergraduate school.
As a race-neutral way of promot-
ing a diverse studentbody, the Texas
Legislature passed a "top 10 percent
rule" in 1997. The legislation man-
dated that every public university
in Texas automatically accept high-
school students who were in the
top 10 percent of their graduating
class, regardless of a school's overall
academic performance or of a stu-
dent's standardized test scores. (As
of 2011, the legislation was modified
to require the university to accept
only the top 8 percent automatically,
thereby freeing spots for students to
be admitted under the school's dis-
cretionary admissions.)
UT reserves 90 percent of its
spots for in-state students, 81 per-
cent of which were comprised of
students admitted as part of the top
10 percent rule in 2008. Though the
law increased minority presence on
campus, it did so only marginally.
In 2005, after the Grutter decision,
UT altered its admissions criteria
for the non-top 10 percent portion
of its class to include race as a fac-
tor in admissions.
In Fisher, the plaintiff did not
challenge the top 10 percent rule
- she contended that UT's consid-
eration of race among the non-top
10 percent applicants is unconstitu-
tional. Fisher attacked UT's discre-
tionary admissions program but not
the top 10 percent rule. In my view,
however, it is the top 10 percent rule
that needs to be revisited, while the
discretionary admissions policy
should be upheld.
Not only does the top 10 per-
cent rule discourage students from
attending competitive high schools
in favor of schools where they could
more likely land in the top 10 per-
cent, it also discourages students
from taking a challenging course
load which might lower their GPAs.
The policy also fails to achieve its
intended purpose of encouraging
diversity on campus.
The entering freshman class of
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
2004, prior to the addition of the
affirmative action component to
admissions in 2005, had only 275
African-American students and
1,024 Hispanic students ina class of
6,796 students. In 2008, three years
after UT renewed its Grutter-type
admissions policy, the enrollment
jumped to 335 African-American
students and 1,228 Hispanic stu-
dents in the entering freshman
class.
Race should be
able to play a role
in admissions.
The practice of admitting stu-
dents based solely on their high-
school rankings largely ignores the
student as an individual. UT's dis-
cretionary admissions process is one
that considers a student's entire aca-
demic profile, personality, practices,
background, and, yes, race.
In Fisher, the Supreme Court will
effectively be ruling on the constitu-
tionality of Grutter-type consider-
ation of race in college admissions.
If it invalidates such considerations,
racial diversity on this campus and
campuses nationwide will be severe-
ly impacted for the worse.
In Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's
majority opinion in Grutter, she
wrote, "We expect that 25 years
from now, the use of racial prefer-
ences will no longer be necessary
to further the interest approved
today." It's been only nine years
since Grutter, and if the minority-
population statistics at the UT at
Austin are any indication, we have
many years to go before achieving
meaningful racial diversity in high-
er education.
0
0
This fellowship will be focused on sustain-
ability issues ranging from climate change to
energy use, and will work toward proactive
solutions to truly make an impact. At Mon-
day's announcement, Liveris said fellows "will
be inspired to work together as they would in
the real world to develop concrete solutions,
actionable solutions to how we can all live
cleaner ... and greener." The Dow Sustainabil-
ity Fellows Program will not just focus on one
graduate program at the University but unite
many programs to work together.
Though this money is a small amount when
compared to funded University research as
a whole, Dow Chemical's gift of $10 million
will still support important research. Sustain-
able research in today's world is necessary and
meaningful, as issues such as climate change,
water resources, housing, transportation and
energy use plague our society. The need for
sustainable resources and a cleaner future can-
not be ignored, and with the money from Dow
Chemical, this greener future may become a
reality due to research at the University.
While Dow's gift provides great opportuni-
ties and hopeful solutions, the company should
continue to play an active role in the commu-
nity and take part in this movement by doing
more than just donating money. The company
has a sordid past of abusing the environment,
and it should pursue other ways of improving
its practices.
The Dow Sustainability Fellows Program
will also unite a diverse, scholarly group of stu-
dents from all disciplines. Graduate students in
the areas of public policy, chemistry, econom-
ics and law will all come together to solve the
long term problems our society faces. By bring-
ing together such a wide group of academic
leaders, success and sustainable energy solu-
tions are only imminent.
Respected universities, such as Carnegie
Mellon University and Harvard University,
already have funded sustainability fellowships
and are moving toward greener solutions. It's
about time the University starts playing a big-
ger role in this active movement toward a more
sustainable future as well. We are a leading
research institute with the talented students,
staff and funding to truly make an impact in
our society.
The Dow Sustainability Fellows Program
will not only unite a group of talented indi-
viduals from various disciplines and fields
of study, but will also make the University a
forerunner in the research and promotion of
sustainable energy. Through Dow Chemical's
$10 million gift, our University will be able
to make huge strides toward a greener, more
efficient future.
0
0
- Sarah Rohan can be reached
at shrohan@umich.edu.
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
Te other U4 election
S
VANESSA RYCHLINSKI I
An invisible band-aid
iat's an exciting time to be on
campus. The sun is shining,
the LSA Course Guide has been
Noticing my own privilege is important to
me. Unfortunately, due to those same privileg-
es, it's not something I do often. My problems
are first-world, and nightmares arise out of my
own imagination.
Pamela Reynolds, an ethnographer of chil-
dren in war and professor emeritus at Johns
Hopkins University, writes of the difficulties
of conveying the truth of war, especially when
children are involved. She questions the cred-
ibility of today's documentation of war; how
the history of war, "including children's role in
it, is written;" and finally, how "[war's] effects
on the young [is] measured and weighed."
Invisible Children's Kony 2012 video has
gone viral. In the beginning, it basically com-
pares itself to other banal bits of broadband,
such as videos of babies with kittens and medi-
cal miracles. Jason "my middle name is Radi-
cal" Russell, the narrator of the video and one
of the founders of Invisible Children, eases into
a meandering milieu of shallow topics in order
to soften the segue into the atrocities of the
developing world. In what seems like a home
movie reel of his blonde son, Russell finally
gets to the matter at hand, atrocities against
children, by inserting some slick graphics and
telling the viewer that "these kids are just like
Gavin." And so the infantilizing, cheap paral-
lels continue for 30 minutes, leaving me with
questions. Do people really need to be babied
into believing in the massive amounts of vio-
lence currently taking place? Do they need
comparisons with cute American kids in order
to care, shots of happy crowds shouting for jus-
tice in order to join the throng?
Invisible Children has come under fire for
everything from its use of funds to its choice
of friends. With more than $13 million in
donations, and about $9 million in expenses -
including salaries and production equipment
- the organization gave out only a fifth of this
to direct services. The policy journal Foreign
Affairs wrote that Invisible Children "manip-
ulates facts for strategic purposes." A March
8 article in The Telegraph has quoted Ugan-
dan journalists and bloggers calling the video
"highly irresponsible" and counterproductive
to effecting positive change in the region. An
opposing movement called Visible Children
publicized its counterpart's support of the
Ugandan government and the Sudan People's
Liberation Army, two entities with no small
amount of blood on their own hands.
The video had 75 million view in one week,
and viewers are getting the message and hope-
fully getting motivated. A March 13 article in
the New York Times praises the video for sum-
moning the heretofore "untapped power of
the viewer." But if this is true, then the world's
greatest tragedies must need to be handed to
us stylishly, in streamlined snippets that cut
apart anything resembling the true horror of
the situation.
Maybe it's the prerogative of a filmmaker to
convey material in the way that will evoke the
most emotion in the most people. But it must
be mentioned that donors to Invisible Children
receive a "Kony 2012 Action Kit" complete
with t-shirt, bracelet, posters, stickers and the
instructions to "decorate [themselves] and the
town." The organization basically directs its
audience to participate in a stylish marketing
campaign. It seems to me that this initiative
does not complete any action outside of easing
the conscience of the privileged.
Winston Kelly, a senior studying behavioral
psychology at the University, called the Kony
2012 awareness campaign "fighting a fire with
a super-soaker."
"Empirical studies have shown awareness
campaigns do not result in behavior change at
any statistically meaningful level," Kelly says.
"People consider the knowledge of the issue as
the first step, but so few people take step two or
step three."
Don't let Kony 2012 fool you. Despite its
not-for-profit status, Invisible Children is a
business like any other. If you give a compa-
ny a vote of confidence in the shape of a dollar
sign, it will most certainly want to keep up
the conversation.
The world needs to get going on its own
conversation. Violence against the defense-
less is one of the deepest evils. That being
said, taking advantage of kids on any level
through any means is wrong. Watching
Kony 2012 may force you to check your prem-
ises, shock you with a nightmarish truth and
cause you see the disturbingly expansive map
of your own privilege. All of these things are
unbelievably important. But donating money
to Invisible Children for the sake of "aware-
ness" doesn't seem to do much but provide
consumer satisfaction.
Vanessa Rychlinski is an LSA junior
and a senior editorial page editor.
uploaded and the
Central Student
Government
elections are
next week.
Every year
about this time,
I am bombarded
with quarter
sheets in the
Diag, flyers in
stairwells and
invites to Face-
YONAH
LIEBERMAN
book events to vote for so-and-so
party. In the past, it was a campaign
between just two parties.
But this year, there are six candi-
dates vying for president and vice
president. Six. This in and of itself is
a reason to pay attention more than
in past years. It's not just the increase
in political parties. The historical
moment we live in demands action,
and we, the student body, must
answer the call.
As someone who knows nearly
each of them personally, all of the
candidates are qualified for the posi-
tion, and I give them my respect. And
yet, next week, students will be faced
with a choice.
We can choose to pick a slate that
prioritizes fighting for social justice
and progressive change or one that
believes that student government
should remain a static institution and
pursue small goals that are promised
to students nearly every election.
There is only one truly progressive
slate that has proven that they know
how to and are committed to creat-
ing change: Kevin Mersol-Barg and
Amy Navvab with OurMichigan. As
student leaders within CSG and LSA
Student Government, as well as other
organizations, they have a broad
range of experiences and connec-
tions with student activism.
Trust me, student government
is the last thing I thought I would
care about when I got to college. My
experience with student govern-
ment before coming to Ann Arbor
was lackluster. Every year, the popu-
lar kids won, usually by promising
French fries and ice cream in the caf-
eteria and more time for lunch. And
every year, come lunchtime, I was
disappointed with their failure.
The issue boils down to the fact
that often times, what the adminis-
tration wants and what the student
body wants are in direct conflict. In
reality, high-school students have
limited power and can be easily con-
trolledby the administration because
they don't know better.
But, news flash: we are not in high
school anymore.
The power of students has been
repeatedly demonstrated on univer-
sity campuses. Students have a long
track record of fighting for social jus-
tice here at home and elsewhere. In
just the past two years, we've played
major roles in the Occupy movement
and the fight against massive govern-
ment cuts.
The fight is not over; in fact, it's
just beginning.
Over the past 10years, Lansing has
cut 29 percent of higher education
funding. As a result of these short-
sighted cuts as well as the admin-
istration's allocation of billions for
construction projects, the average
tuition for public state universities
has increased by 87 percent in the
past decade.As I wrote last month,
the diversity of this institution has
drastically dropped. For example,
while 14 percent of Michigan's resi-
dents are black, they make up only
4.4 percent of campus, down from
7.3 percent in 2006. But these are just
two of many other issues that our
administration needs to address.We
need a student government that will
make these social justice issues cen-
tral to its agenda. We need a student
government that's not afraid to stand
up to the administration when we,
the students, know it's in the wrong.
Mersol-Barg helped found the
Coalition for Tuition Equality, the
most exciting social justice initia-
tive on campus since I've been here.
With more than a dozen of the most
influential student organizations
involved, it's undergone a campaign
to achieve in-state tuition for quali-
fied undocumented immigrants.
Mersol-Barg has been at the fore-
front, planning actions and organiz-
ing long-term strategy.
OurMichigan is
the best choice
for 'U' students.
Navvab has her own coalition.
As chair of the Open Housing Ini-
tiative, she's working to allow
students to choose roommates
regardless of gender identity and
gender expression. This initiative,
the first broad-based campaign for
social justice I experienced on cam-
pus, has already been successful in
expanding the housing options for
all students and continues to work
with administration.
But look no further than the Uni-
versity Board of Regents meeting
today to see how they, in participat-
ing in the action planned by Coalition
for Tuiton Equality and eRACism,
are demonstrating for fair tuition
policies and a diverse campus.
For social change to be most suc-
cessful on this campus, we need
executives willing to stand and act
with us.
Next Wednesday and Thursday, I
urge you to vote for those who want
meaningful social change on this
campus. I urge you to vote for Kevin
Mersol-Barg, Amy Navaab and Our-
Michigan.
- Yonah Lieberman can be reached
at yonahl@umich.edu. Follow him
on twitter at @YonahLieberman.
0
FOLLOW DAILY OPINION ON TWITTER
Keep up with columnists, read Daily editorials, view cartoons and join in the debate.
Check out @michdailyoped to get updates on Daily opinion content throughout the day.
i
4
,:j
.