4A - Wednesday, January 11, 2012

The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com

4y 2ia.n Daiy mihian.....

C cMihiian at*y
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.
FR OOT HE AiY
Insect Infestation
'U' needs to uphold high sanitation standards
proper sanitation and good health are vital to our campus
community. Students expect the food being served in the
residence halls to be properly prepared in a clean and germ-
free environment, and they shouldn't have to worry about bugs or
other contaminants in the food preparation area. The recent cock-
roach infestation at Ciao Down Pizzeria, a small caf6 in South Quad
Residence Hall, is an alarming issue. The University must uphold
the best possible standards in all of its facilities and needs to convey
all relevant information to the community.

The size ofgovernment's role 0

As the caucuses and prima-
ries in various states get
underway for this year's
election season, the American
people are once
again remind-
ed - as they
are every elec-
tion year - of M
the differences
between Repub- >
licans and Dem-
ocrats. Perhaps DAR-WEI
the most funda-
mental differ- CHEN
ence between
the two parties
lies in what they believe the role of
government should be. The conven-
tional Beltway wisdom states that
the GOP generally wants to reduce
the presence of government while
the Democrats typically prefer the
government to have a larger role.
In America, debates about gov-
ernment often revolve around the
idea that smaller "government" is
inherently good because it increas-
es the freedom of citizens, imme-
diately putting Democrats on the
defensive with the burden of justi-
fying any expansion of government
- ostensibly because "big gov-
ernment," by definition, deprives
citizens of necessary freedoms.
The framework of these debates is
unsurprising because America was
founded on, among other beliefs,
skepticism of government control.
Therefore, trying to expand gov-
ernment is usually a losing battle.
But the aforementioned debate
presents American citizens with
a false choice - less government
and more freedom, or more gov-
ernment and less freedom. Rarely
do Democrats make the case that a
larger government can actually lib-
erate citizens. For example, more
stringent environmental regulation
from the Environmental Protection
Agency can lead to cleaner air and
water for everyone. If the kids want
to go outside and play in the nearby
river, parents can worry less about
whether the air and water is being

contaminated by the disposal of fac-
tory waste upstream and more about
spending quality time with fam-
ily. Likewise, raising food inspec-
tion standards allows people to buy
whatever they want at the super-
market without having to worry
about health hazards every time
they purchase meat. I would argue
that expansion of government in
these two areas helps freedom flour-
ish because Americans are freed
from unnecessary burdens.
Of course, arguments can be
made about how these regulations
affect a corporation that might own
the upstream factory. The common
conservative perception of regula-
tions is that they are, unequivocally,
shackles on economic production.
Republicans trumpet this line
almost as reliably as Lucy pulls the
football away from Charlie Brown.
However, data from the recent past
says otherwise. According to a Har-
vard economics study as reported
in The Guardian in Nov. 2011, the
Clean Air Act of 1970 was directly
responsible for a 1.5% increase in
the U.S.'s 2010 gross domestic prod-
uct. The article goes on to say that
the GDP increase is likely because
healthier children grow to be more
productive as adult workers -
makes too much sense, right?
But even if the GOP has its own
data to implicate environmental
regulations as economic hindranc-
es, what's undeniable is that large
corporations have been earning
record profits in recent history -
even in President Barack Obama's
"socialist" America - according
to the operating earnings of S&P
500 companies (Interesting Note:
Record profits are not translating
much to increased hiring ... remind
me how supply-side economics
works again?). Furthermore, help-
ing out cash-laden corporations at
the expense of struggling common
folk doesn't convey a very populist
message, a message that Republi-
cans have been claiming to repre-
sent forever.
Can regulations be good for the

general public, as well as the econ-
omy and corporations? This ques-
tion is definitely a tough realization
for conservatives to swallow, and
the facts apply to other situations
too. Armed with the knowledge
that healthier people are more pro-
ductive, universal healthcare - a
monstrous enlargement of govern-
ment - seems like a good idea, eco-
nomically and otherwise. Perhaps
people can live more freely when
they don't have to worry about an
injury or disease bankrupting their
family with medical bills. On Wall
Street, government regulations and
oversight - like the new Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau -
enable average people to live with a
certain peace of mind because they
are protected from abusive and
fraudulent bank practices.
Some federal
restrictions are
good for citizens.
No one in either party wants a
tyrannical government that runs
roughshod over its citizens. But
how much better off are everyday
people if banks and corporations
are the ones doing the trampling?
One of government's basic jobs is to
protect citizens from threats of all
varieties. Preventing the govern-
ment from doing this job exposes
citizens to free market cruelties
that are not in the interest of the
general public. For example, preda-
tory lending by banks or insurance
companies that drop customers
once they need expensive treat-
ment. An effective government is
clearly vital to freedom. If "effec-
tive" necessitates "larger," so be it.
-Dar-Wei Chen can be reached
at chendw@umich.edu. Follow him
on twitter at @DWChenMDaily.

Ciao Down Pizzeria closed on Dec. 15
because of a cockroach infestation. The
caf6 is now open again to students. Univer-
sity Housing spokesman Peter Logan told the
Daily that the cafe would close permanently
if the cockroaches continued to be a problem.
This cockroach mishap never should have
happened. Between serving snacks and
meals, University dining facilities have an
obligation to students to remain clean and
sanitary. Typically, the University maintains
high standards in all of its food dining halls.
But, the recent cockroach infestation does
not abide by this standard and is unaccept-
able for a public eatery.
It is a serious matter that exterminators
were needed to kill the bugs in the food prep-
aration areas. Cockroaches are very difficult
to kill. While the extermination was safe, it's
a challenge to get rid of cockroaches without
using severe methods. The problem at Ciao
Down must be addressed as soon as possible.
Though the cafe has officially re-opened,
University Housing must be completely
certain this won't be a recurring problem.
Students who live in the residence halls
shouldn't be subject to potentially harmful

situations.
It's not only unacceptable that cockroach-
es were discovered in a popular campus
eatery. Students have every right to know
exactly what's happening when it comes to
their health and University housing. Not all
employees of Ciao Down were informed of
reasons for the closure. There is a serious
breach of trust when students don't know
about potentially hazardous situations in
University residence halls.
Last month, The Michigan Daily reported
the University's Freedom of Information
Office was charging high - and in some
cases, potentially illegal - fees for FOIA
requests. In combination with the Ciao Down
closure and failure to quickly notify students
of a sexual assault in East Quad Residence
Hall in November, it's not difficult to see a
potentially dangerous pattern. The Univer-
sity has an obligation to keep students well
informed, not pick and choose which infor-
mation should be made public.
The University must continue to uphold
its usually high standards of sanitation, and
make students aware of any problems it
encounters and of any intended remedies.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Aida Ali, Kaan Avdan, Michelle DeWitt, Ashley Griesshammer, Nirbhay Jain, Jesse Klein,
Patrick Maillet, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley, Timothy Rabb, Adrienne Roberts,
Vanessa Rychlinski, Sarah Skaluba, Seth Soderborg, Caroline Syms, Andrew Weiner
TIMOTHY RABB I
Politically correct in class

CONTRIBUTE TO THE COVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and viewpoints. Letters should be fewer
than 300 words while viewpoints should be 550-850 words. Both must include the writer's full
name and University affiliation. Send submissions to tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Te Big Tree's bigthree

hether cynics choose
to believe it or not, the
North American Inter-

Last week I had the privilege of attending
my first class taught by a local celebrity, English
Prof. Ralph Williams. As expected, the lecture
- an introduction to the works of Auschwitz
survivor Primo Levi - was riveting from start
to finish.
Williams introduced the lecture by skirt-
ing a direct reference to what students gener-
ally call the Holocaust and deeming it instead
"a series of happenings." He explained he was
taking extra care with his wordage, since the
term "Holocaust" carried a potentially offen-
sive implication. Before World War II, the
word was used in a strictly religious context to
denote a burnt offering to God, ostensibly given
up to atone for one's sins. Williams used this
example to emphasize the importance of the
words we use and the implications they carry,
whether intended or not.
Until then, I'd never realized that I'd been
abusing a term that certain audiences would
find deeply offensive, and I don't intend to use
it again.
Compare this to another experience from
my college years. During my sophomore year,
I was asked to lead a discussion section for
an American Culture class focused on the
struggles of Native Americans. Before I began,
I turned to my GSI and posed a question that
would help me segue into the discussion, "Isn't
it true that much of Native American culture
used to relyon 'word of mouth' ororal tradition
to pass stories and traditions from generation
to generation?"
I thought the question perfectly harmless,
so I was surprised when my GSI refused to
answer it. She told me, in so many words, that I
was being presumptuous and borderline offen-
sive, adding that in her class the students were
expected to be politically correct. Basically, my
entire opener was dead on arrival, and I spent
the rest of the section trying to salvage my
grade by walking on eggshells for the remain-
der of the presentation, proctoring what was
probably the driest, blandest discussion of my
college tenure.
The reason I bring this up is that it highlights
an issue that permeates every level of academic
thought. While the basic goal of political cor-
rectness is legitimate, the ways in which many
professors, GSIs and students try to maintain a
politically correct learning environment often
seem misguided.

My main problem with politically correct
education is its tendency to repress the same
qualities of open-mindedness and free speech
that liberalism is supposed to foster. Imagine
for a moment that a racist/sexist/otherwise
bigoted student expresses his views in class -
perhaps they use a derogatory slur, or verbalize
a belief about a certain group that's blatantly
ignorant and offensive. In a typical academic
setting, I have no doubt that such a student
would be either shouted down or ordered to
leave the class, and most of his peers would rel-
ish watching him cringe.
While professors in these situations are
probably trying to avoid the shouting match
and potential lawsuit that could result from
their students' offensive opinions, they're also
completely throwing out the same cultural
theories espoused by their own humanities
department. Psychology 101 tells us that many
of the beliefs and opinions held by an individ-
ual are the result of his or her upbringing and
education, rather than some inborn tendency
to be tolerant or bigoted. So why do universi-
ties try so hard to sanitize the environment of
their classrooms?
If personality is formed through experi-
ence, then we can't hold a bigoted student
entirely responsible for believing what they
believe. Their ethical tapestry was knit
together with the same threads as that of the
student activist - with threads of parental
guidance, education, peer influence and the
like. It follows that both the racist and the
activist deserve to have their views heard and
(if need be) corrected, especially in an envi-
ronment tailored by an institution they've
paid to teach them how to think.
Simply put, you don't clean a stained floor by
throwing a rug on top of the stain. You clean
it directly and gently, taking care not to dam-
age the surface while you scrub away the dirt.
In the same manner, Williams showed me the
hazards of a word I'd always thought to be
acceptable by explaining its historical context
and the intentions of the man who first used it
before ISeven had the chance to utter it myself.
I hope that in the future, professors and lectur-
ers follow Williams' example by doing their
jobs and teaching all their students, not just the
ones whose opinions they find most agreeable.
Timothy Rabb is a senior editorial page editor.

national Auto
Show in Detroit
remains one of
the top automo-
tive events of the
year. The Detroit
show's relevance
has waned and
waxed over the
past five years
while the future
of the Detroit
Three automak-

ANDREW
WEINER

ers - General Motors, Ford Motor
Co. and Chrysler Group - remained
unclear. Increasingly large auto
shows in Los Angeles and New York
seemed poised to leave NAIAS a
relic of Detroit's glory days.
After bailouts, plenty of layoffs,
corporate reorganizations and a
steady stream of good product, Ford,
GM and Chrysler are no longer the
butt of the automotive industry's
jokes. If it was whispered in 2011,
this year the Detroit show is a shout
- Detroit is back. Nearly every
automaker with U.S. operations set
up multi-million dollar displays in
Cobo Center this year. Nearly 30
production and concept cars were
shown off, ranging from realistic
models to pure fantasies. Here are
my top three debuts:
" 2013 Ford Fusion, Fusion Hybrid
and Fusion Energi: This one really
goes without saying. Though an iPad
application malfunction leaked a
picture of Ford's new volume sedan
several days ago. Now that we can
see the entire Fusion, all I have to
say is, "Wow."
The new Fusion is the largest
fruition of Ford's "One Ford" global
design strategy, joining the smaller
and equally attractive Fiesta and
Focus. The 2010 Fusion won sev-
eral major awards - including
Motor Trend's Car of the Year - and
enjoyed sustained high sales. I was
never a fan of the three-bar grills of
Ford's Red, White and Bold design
theme. The new design draws from
several Ford EVOS concepts, paired

with the elegant Kinetic theme Ford
has employed in its European opera-
tions for years.
The resulting sedan is stunning.
Design-wise, only the Korean Kia
Optima and Hyundai Sonata siblings
come close. It's almost an insult to
Ford's new Dearborn design studios
to mention Fusion in the same sen-
tence as the Honda Accord, Toyota
Camry or Chevrolet Malibu. The
Chrysler 200 abomination should
probably be in another paragraph.
The conventional model is offered
only in V-4 flavors, two of which uti-
lize Ford's lauded EcoBoost engine.
Statistics regarding the hybrid mod-
el's efficiency aren't final, but Ford
claims it beats out Toyota and Hyun-
dai hybrid sedans in efficiency.
Most interesting is the Energi
electric model - though I'm not sure
why incorrect spelling is in style. It
claims 100 miles per gallon equiva-
lent, and its design doesn't differ-
entiate it from the conventionally
powered Fusions. Part of the prob-
lem with electric models, like the
Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf, has
been their polarizing styling. It'll be
interesting to see if Fusion Energi
sales prove my theory that Ameri-
cans do want to buy electric, they
just don't want everyone to know
they're driving an eco-mobile.
" 2013 Dodge Dart: Chrysler has
had as many marriages and messy
divorces as Newt Gingrich. The
most recent partnership with Ital-
ian conglomerate Fiat has produced
its first lovechild, the Dart - based
on, but heavily differentiated from,
the Alfa Romeo Giulietta. Aggres-
sive Dodge features work well on
this sedan, though family resem-
blance to the Charger and Challeng-
er is minimal aside from the long,
horizontal backlight.
The Dart comes late in the game
to fill Chrysler's C-segment hole.
Since the much-loved Neon was
replaced by the much-hated Cali-
ber in 2005, the Auburn Hills-based
automaker hasn't had a competitive
small car. Though Japanese com-
petitors have lost steam, the Hyun-
dai Elantra, Chevrolet Cruze and

Ford Focus have raised the small-car
bar. Ultimately, the Dart will serve
as a test to the sustainability of the
Chrysler-Fiat relationship. To put it
bluntly: The Dart has to be good -
really good.
The Auto Show
has regained its
former glory.
" Cadillac ATS: Right now, Cadil-
lac is a one trick pony - that pony
being the CTS sedan. The new ATS,
along withthe larger XTS, are poised
to continue Cadillac's renaissance
and establish it as a direct competi-
tor to Audi, BMW and Mercedes.
The German automakers all have
small, medium and large sedans, and
the ATS is Cadillac's first real vehi-
cle that can compete. Specifications
are suspiciously close to the BMW
3-series, but it's no accident. The ATS
is the first American car in decades
to directly take on the 3-series, Audi
A4 and Mercedes C-class. The next
CTS will grow to take on the BMW
5-series and Audi A6.
The ATS's design is almost iden-
tical to the CTS. From a distance,
most won't be able to tell the differ-
ence. That's not a bad thing - it's a
handsome sedan. Cadillac, however,
could have taken a bigger risk and
evolved its Art and Science theme
further. Inside, however, Cadillac's
new CUE user interface should be
simpler to use than BMW's i-drive.
In the class the ATS will compete
in, performance isvital. Two smaller
engines will be offered, but the 320
horsepower V-6 is the engine that
the Germans should fear. No doubt
we'll see an ATS-V to take on the
BMW M3 with a year.
- Andrew Weiner is the editorial
page editor. He can be reached at
anweiner@umich.edu. Follow him
on twitter at @andrewweiner.


4&4