4A- Thursday, October 18, 2012 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com 4A- Thursday, October 18, 2012 The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom bffidiigan &il Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com TIMOTHY RABB JOSEPH LICHTERMAN and ADRIENNE ROBERTS ANDREW WEINER 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 solelythe views of their authors. iling security Open communication with regents is crucial n September, the University announced heightened security measures would be implemented for Board of Regents meet- ings. Those attending the public meetings are now required to pass through metal detectors and bag checks before entering the room. A rope surrounds the regents' table, separating the elected officials from attendees. While ensuring the safety of all in the University's community is important, these measures distance the regents from the public, both physically and metaphorically. Open communication between the regents and the public - especially stu- dents - is crucial to the development of the University, and should be fostered in the regents' monthly meetings. Smart uses for smartphones t's a typical classroom scene. Your professor is lecturing without the help of Power- Point slides on a deep topic while you diligently take notes. He or she passes out your homework assignment, and you find the syl- labus to check when it's due. HEMA The date of the KARUNA- next exam is KARAM announced, so you open your calendar to add a reminder about it. You're staying on top of every- thing - but the professor and your classmates still shoot you annoyed glances. Why? Because you've been on your phone the entire time. There's no doubt that smart- phones have vastly affected the way we function every day. As of 2012, nearly half of all American adults use smartphones, and the share is even greater among col- lege students - 54 percent. Their infiltration into our daily functions is apparent everywhere: people no longer carry notepads, plan- ners, MP3 players, cameras and, with apps like Square, sometimes even cash and credit cards. How- ever, even with (or perhaps because of) their convenience, there's still a stigma associated with using phones in certain settings. The advent and growth of tex- ting over the past decade or so - for many of us, our entire teenage and college years - created immedi- ate access to instant communica- tion literally at our fingertips. But it was almost too good to be true, and it didn't take long for texting to be prohibited in places like class- rooms, offices and dinner tables. So, of course, we all mastered stealthily hiding phones under desks, looking down towards our fingers tapping away while also looking up occa- sionally, feigning interest in what we should have been doing - the classic looking-like-I'm-not-tex- ting-even-though-I-really-am pose. In college, using phones during class isn't a punishable offense, but it's still frowned upon. Even during casual social interactions, we get annoyed when our friends whip out their phones, choosing technology to supposedly communicate with friends who are elsewhere instead of talking to those physically present. But would we be as annoyed if they had instead pulled out a pento scrib- ble down an address, or asked some- one what day of the week Halloween was this year? Phones are used for so much more than just calling or texting, but the social acceptance of phone usage hasn't quite caught up. Of course, people who are on their phones at perceived bad times might not actually be doing any- thing of use. After all, we've all seen people playing Angry Birds or Scramble with Friends dur- ing class. We've seen people hold lengthy text conversations while eating dinner instead of talking with those in front of them. Occa- sionally, we've even seen that girl in class who couldn't keep herself from pulling out her phone to take a picture through the curtain of her hair of that guy wearing the weird shorts. The association of using phones with not paying attention or being rude is justified by real situa- tions such as these. But it's impor- tant to recognize that not all phone use is necessarily useless or unpro- ductive - many times, it serves an important purpose. For me, my iPhone is about more than just convenience - it's also part of my personal sustainability goal for the year to use less paper and electricity. I've optimized my phone to handle many functions that formerly required paper - the Google Drive app is a godsend - and I use it every day not only in lieu of notebooks, but also, when possible, computers. In fact, even this column was written on my phone. The digi- tal revolution has made it easier for everyone to take baby steps toward being more environmentally friend- ly, but our social norms might be preventing it from truly transform- ing our lives. Social norms are preventing productive use of our best tools. a Our generation needn't be pushed to take greater advantage of technology. We're often already at the top of the curve when it comes to advancements, especially with smartphones. But while it's impor- tant to be tasteful in what we use our smartphones for, it's equally important to recognize that many others are also using their phones tastefully. To my professors: Maybe I am playing Temple Run during your lecture. But maybe I'm tak- ing notes, looking up information I don't understand, scheduling time for study sessions - things you would look favorably upon. And a message to everyone, give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to using smartphones. As cliche as it seems, there really is a world of information at our finger- tips, and some of us just want to make the most of it. -Hema Karunakaram can be reached at khema@umich.edu. The Board of Regents is responsible for managing the University's budget, as well as major academic and property decisions. This power directly affects students. Whether the debate is over academics or athletics, stu- dents should be able to voice their concerns directly to the regents. At each meeting, time is set aside for public comment, but several speaking restrictions are in place and indi- vidual regents generally don't respond to the comments at the meeting. This, along with placing a rope around the regents, creates an atmosphere of separation instead of one that promotes interactions between the students and those who in effect govern them. The regents should represent students, but these high-security measures suggest they aren't making an effort to reach out. The heightened securitymeasures appear to reflect growing concerns over safety in public forums. These procedural changes are "part of our ongoing effort to enhance safety on campus," according to a Universi- ty press release. Yet these measures haven't been extended to any other part of campus aside from monthly meetings with high- ranking officials. Other publicly elected boards, like city councils, haven't set up this many barriers to public interaction. If Detroit's city council can host public meet- ings without a rope separating leaders from the public, the University's regents should be able to do the same. Ensuring safety is important, but so is keeping the regents accountable. Despite their responsibilities, the regents are not any more important than the University's students and faculty. The regents should be approachable and willing to listen to the people who are directly affected by their decisions. These meetings should serve as a means to increase dialogue between the pub- lic and the regents - placing the board on a pedestal won't facilitate this. For the 2012-2013 academic year the Uni- versity has a budget of more than $6 billion. Though others may give input on how this money is spent, ultimately, the regents have final say on the budget. The University should make it a priority to allocate these funds properly and effectively, and in order to do that, the voices of students, faculty and gen- eral public should be heard. And if the Uni- versity doesn't feel these security measures should be toned down, then its commitment to its constituents should be questioned. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS Kaan Avdan, Sharik Bashir, Eli Cahan, Nirbhay Jain, Jesse Klein, Melanie Kruvelis,Patrick Maillet, Harsha Nahata, Timothy Rabb, Adrienne Roberts, Vanessa Rychlinski, Paul Sherman, Sarah Skaluba, Michael Spaeth, Gus Turner INTERESTED IN CAMPUS ISSUES? POLITICS? SEX, DRUGS AND ROCK'N'ROLL? Check out The Michigan Daily's editorial board meetings. Every Monday and Thursday at 6pm, the Daily's opinion staff meets to discuss both University and national affairs and write editorials. E-mail opinioneditors@michigandaily.com to join in the debate. a a * * * ISSUES 2012 * * * Energy and the Environment PHIL BRENZ AND BRENT GOODMAN I ANNIKA DONER VIPI Time to.tap into coal and oil Environmentally committed a President Barack Obama's energy plan is disas- trous for the country. In January 2008, then-presi- dential candidate Obama stated, "Under my plan of acap-and-tradesystem, electricityrateswould nec- essarily skyrocket." Higher electricity prices mean the cost of everything will "necessarily" increase, from the price of heat to the price of gas at the pump. Neither college students nor other Ameri- cans can afford this. An increase in electricity costs will undoubtedly result in increased college operat- ing costs, necessitating another increase in tuition. President Obama also opposes the planned Key- stone XL oil pipeline, despite the boon this pipe- line would bring to the United States. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu discussed the administration's energy plan: Keep fossil fuel prices high in order to make "alternative" options artificially more appealing. He stated, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Although Mr. Chu later recanted this statement, the failure of the administration to take any action to lower gas prices has discredited this change of heart. The administration used stimulus funding to subsidize about 25 alternative energy companies, three of which later failed. After the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, President Obama also approved a moratorium on oceanic oil exploration, which prevents companies from accessing key off- shore oil reserves. This shrinks the supply of oil, which raises prices. Obama's energy plan hurts the U.S. economy and unnecessarily spends billions of taxpayer dollars. By contrast, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's plan provides an energy solution thathelpsthe economyinstead ofhinderingit. Rom- ney supports the completion of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the United States. This will create thousands of jobs for American work- ers - engineers, architects, etc. - and provide cheaper energy for Americans. Romney opposes the current policies that aim to increase elec- tricity prices. He supports using America's coal reserves to provide energy security and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. According to the Department of Energy, the United States contains one-quarter of the world's known coal reserves - utilizing this coal will decrease the cost of energy. Romney's plan aims to eliminate restrictive regu- lations put in place by Presi- dent Obama that This will strangle the is part one coal industry and by the Colleg prevent the pri- vate sector from College Repu being able to con- tinue research at important is into making coal more efficient Elect and environmen- tally friendly. Romney opposes President Obama's subsidies to alterna- tive energy companies - companies that may soon collapse and leave taxpayers with a finan- cial loss. Romney will allow the private sector to decrease the price of energy from oil and coal through market competition. Unlike the energy policy of President Obama, Romney's plan will result in less expensive energy and a stronger economy. This was written on behalf of the University's chapter of College Republicans by Phil Brenz and Brent Goodman. in e D bli( isu tiol As young America's getting ready to live in a world rapidly and irreversibly changing, much is at stake in the upcoming election - espe- cially our environment and energy. We need a president who's looking out for the planet we'll inhabit for years to come. That president is Barack Obama. President Obamaunderstands the importance of environmental protection - and knows it can contribute to much-needed job growth. In an April interview with Rolling Stone Obama a five-part series said, "We're going to have )emocrats and to take further steps to deal cans that looks with climate change in a seri- es leading up to ous way. There's a way to do it 'n Day. that is entirely compatible with strong econom- ic growth and job creation." Obama will take these steps if re-elected. Even in the midst of a dysfunctional Congress, the President's administration took unprecedented action to reduce climate change, dependence on foreign oil and pollution. The American Recov- ery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated more than $80 billion to clean energy proj- ects, and under Obama, the amount of electric- ity generated by renewable sources has almost doubled. Fuel efficiency standards for cars rose not once, but twice. We're now on track to see cars averaging 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. He has also pushed Congress to end the enormous $4-billion-per-year tax breaks to oil companies. Energy independence is a critical issue for our generation, a generation that will be vulnerable i to energy crises and defense issues if we don't decrease our current rates of dependence on foreign oil. Obama understands this. Our depen- dence on foreign oil has decreased everyyear that Obama has been in office. The Obama adminis- tration has also taken aggressive steps to reform offshore oil drilling, ensuring that our offshore energy sources are developed responsibly. In this election, we must choose a candidate who will protect the environment. While Obama has shown his dedication to protecting our plan- et, his opponent is unwilling to do the same. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has championed coal and oil fuels as the future of American energy; these sources cause great harm to our environment and are quickly depleting without the possibility of renewal. He has even denied the human impact on climate change. To be fair, Romney has said that he is "not in this race to slow the rise of the oceans or to heal the 4 planet," so our expectations for his environmen- tal policies shouldn't be too high. This November, our decision is clear. When we look at both sides, Obama's commitment to clean energy and the protection of the environ- ment far surpass his opponent's positions. A vote for Obama and the Democratic Party represents a commitment to the future of our world and its natural resources. Like the energy he champions, Obama's term in office must be renewed to sus- tain our environment for the future. This was written on behalf of the University's chapter of College Democrats by Annika Doner.