4A - Thursday, Novernber 1, 2012 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.cam 4A - Thursday, November 1, 2012 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com 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 solely the views of their authors. System of a down Polarized politics limit democratic process T he 2012 election is a time of big money and small sound bites - two parties and a single choice. Though our world is grow- ing ever more complex, the way we think and talk in public arena is, increasingly crass and simple. Nuance has been replaced by talking points, subtlety by catchphrases. Our democracy is broken. It has been broken by a system of polarizing campaigns from two major parties satisfied w ith winning elections rather than push- ing our nation forward. NOTABLE QUOTABLE I had to go to the wine cellar and find a good bottle of wine and drink it before it goes bad." -Murry Stegelmann, founder of investment-management firm Kilimanjaro Advisors LLC, after he lost power in Darien, Conn. due to Hurricane Sandy. It's how good you look I I Historically, candidates have had two main routes to successfully win an election: money and incumbency. Over the last decade, more than 80 percent of Senate races and more than 90 percent of House seats were won by the candidate who spent the most money campaigning, according to website Opensecrets.org. Combined with the fact that in 50 years, the re-election rate for the House has yet to dip below 85 percent for an election cycle and the average rate for Senate during the same period exceeds 80 percent, one can understand it's difficult to hear for new voices and new ideas to be heard. It's a self-sustaining cycle in which candi- dates get themselves elected with expensive initial campaigns, fueling re-elections with incumbency and money from larger donors interested in investing in the winningest candidates, to advocate their interests. More money is being spent to see the same people do the same things over and over. Neither of the two major parties have a significant problem with this current situ- ation, as it benefits each. As a result of only addressing one another in debates, speeches and platforms, the two parties marginalize third parties, further increasing their own odds of winning. From a candidate's per- spective it's better to share 50/50 odds with a single opponent than admit there may be more than two choices. Dividing issues into two answers forces the public to take one of two sides - us against them - which only propagates further divisions. Our parties have become the teams we root for, rather than the ideals to which we aspire. There's no conspiracy forcing our system to be this way. It's the stability of the low- est common denominator. Candidates want the populace to believe there are only two choices. It's a cycle that needs to change, because if politicians can get us talking about only two strict platforms, they do so at the expense of all the other issues we face. This explains why every major campaign is con- tent to focus merely on the topic of the day in a series of pivot-point discussion. Big Bird and empty chairs shouldn't even mat- ter in a world of endless wars and indefinite detention, of Arab Springs and falling dicta- tors. In a world where rights are limited by sexual orientation and pay is discriminated by gender, we need more than tired, duel- ing slogans. We need a system that encour- ages input from a greater variety of sources. Disagreeing with both major candidates is a legitimate position to hold and it is about time we respected that. t's almost the end of freshman year, and I'm treating myself to a complimentary coffee in the back of the lecture hall'fol- lowing a gruel- ing presentation. While stirring in my sugar, I feel a hand on the small of my back - a place I wouldn't nor- HEMA mally expect KARUNA- to feel one. KARAM Startled, I turn around. My glance falls to the Cartier watch, the perfectly polished shoes, the well-tailored suit and twin- kling eyes, all belonging to the most attractive guy in the class. "Good job on your presentation," he says with a wink, his face a little too close to mine. All the hallmarks of a Class-A creep, but instead of feeling uncom- fortable, I'm elated. All our lives we're told that appearance shouldn'tmatter.We still remember the singsong voices of our elementary school teachers remind- ing us "it's what's inside that counts." But somehow, the more we experi- ence "the real world," the more this notion falls apart. A borderline creep has been noted as nothing more than a charm- ing classmate in my book because I've got a weakness for his chiseled jawline and perfect teeth. Physical attractiveness shouldn't, in theory, affect our perceptions of others, but it's a glaring fact that it does. In fact, the effect of attractiveness on social perception also extends into the political arena. Opponents of the women's suffrage movement in the early 20th century claimed that women, incapable of educating them- selves on important issues, would simply vote for the more attractive candidate. Even today, jokes and memes have sprung up across the Internet commenting on the attrac- tiveness of the 2012 Republican ticket andthe influence itmayhave. Politics may be dirty at times, but is there anything wrong with unintention- ally appealing to an inherent human desire for physical attractiveness? This bias isn't limited to men. A 2011 study showed that women who wore makeup appeared more com- petent than those who didn't. Con- versely, attractiveness may also be perceived as a negative trait, espe- cially for women. As anengineer, I've certainly heard that female students who appear to spend more time car- ing abouthow theylook are probably less intelligent as a result. Whether positive or negative, the evidence of these instinctual judgments we all make is everywhere. But should its prevalence make it OK? Furthermore, should it affect our actions one way or another? As men- tioned previously, the bias swings both ways for women - making yourself appear more attractive may help, or it may harm. And while some men may reap professional benefits from an attractive face or body, the reverse holds true for them too. After all, aren't the most attractive guys at any college party assumed to be the biggest d-bags? Regardless of what we've been taught, it's a fact in the real world that looks do matter. But it seems that changing how we look for others won't always produce the intended result. So the fear of other people's judg- ment shouldn't make a difference in how we present ourselves, fine. But we learned that in kindergarten. That can't be nearly nuanced enough of an answer for us today. Many of us feel our self-worth judged by our appearance - wheth- er positively or negatively - for the first time while we're in college. No kind of appeal will make people stop judging physical appearance. And while we may reprimand those who speak out about the appear- ance of others, we can't control people's inward thoughts. To some degree, bias associated with attrac- tiveness is simply human instinct, and it shouldn't be seen as some- thing wrong. So perhaps the best we can do is recognize that this bias exists, and simply strive to remem- ber that underneath everyone's skin is a real person. Appearance matters in the real world. 4 Sure, maybe you think Rep. Paul Ryan is more attractive than Vice Presidential Joe Biden. And as long as you don't forget about their poli- cies, that's okay. Maybe a touch of lipstick will make your interviewer take you-more seriously - or maybe they'll judge you more. Just remem- ber that it could go either way, and strike a balance. And finally, perhaps we should all take things a little less seriously. To that guy in my freshmen class: Your musky cologne may have sent me reeling into over-analysis, won- dering how I would have reacted if that had been anyone else in our class. But in all honesty, you could have been just genuinely trying to be nice. So for now, hey - I'll just take the compliment. - Hema Karunakaram can be reached at Khema@umich.edu. Follow her @HemaKarunakaram. 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, Sarah Skaluba, Michael Spaeth, Gus Turner LET TER T THE EDITOR SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@MICHIGANDAILY.COM 'U'must promoteprivacy and political e-mail lists - deserved privacy. After the new MCommunity directory made TO THE DAILY: this problem more visible, it took the Univer- The Michigan Daily article "Accidental sity's IT department months to acknowledge grade leak a breach of federal law" failed to and fix the problem. When I contacted the IT mention a little-known but key fact about department July 2011, I met a wall of intransi- these regulations. It also provides an impor- gence, and only after significant pressure from tant opportunity to consider the University of the faculty senate were improvements made. Michigan's failure to establish a culture that Worse yet, these problems had been known for values student privacy. almost a decade. The Family Educational Rights and Pri- A second example of the University's fac- vacy Act, which governs the privacy of edu- ile attitude to student privacy occurred when cational records, is a largely toothless piece it released GSI evaluations under a FOIA of legislation. If a university violates FERPA, request from the Daily in winter 2011. The it's up to the Department of Education to university had an obligation to protect the ensure the university modifies its behavior. privacy of its graduate student instructors, It can do so only by threatening to remove whose teaching often forms a crucial part of federal funding, which it can do only if the their education as future professors. university refuses to comply. Many of these evaluations should have been What are the chances the federal govern- protected from an FOIA request by FERPA, ment is going to deprive a university of funding since they constituted educational records for for biomedical research and student financial those who teach as part of their educational aid over a privacy violation? According to the program. When I contacted the University's Student Press Law Center, there hasn't been a legal counsel about this last year, they admitted single case of a university losingsuch funding. that they failed to screen for this. Had FERPA Courts have ruled that students whose privacy been stronger - if, for example, the University rights have been violated have no right to sue would have been liable to lawsuits from GSIs their educational institutions. This removes - or, more importantly, if the University had a the University's strongest incentive to ensure culture that truly respected privacy, these mis- privacy rights are protected - liability. takes might not have been made. We already live in an educational system A slightly stronger FERPA might help mat- too encumbered by bureaucracy and fears of ters more than it hurts, but universities like liability. To add to this would be dangerous. Michigan should hold themselves to a higher This isolated accidental disclosure of students' standard than the federal regulations any- grades in a single course, while unfortunate, way. We don't need more red tape or more shouldn't lead to hundreds of lawsuits against antagonism between the various members of the University. But the weakness of these laws the community. does encourage a perfunctory and often cava- Rather, we need a culture where all parts lier attitude to privacy, as two other recent of the university work together to uphold the incidents show. University's core values, values that must For many years, the University's online include privacy along with academic freedom, directory publicly revealed students' mem- education and the pursuit of knowledge. berships in e-mail lists. While some list mem- berships were relatively innocuous, others Rafe Kinsey - such as memberships in LGBT, religious Ph.D. student LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be fewer than 300 words and must include the writer's full name and University affiliation. We do not print anonymous letters. Send letters to tothedaily@michigandaily.com. CHECK US OUT ONLINE Keep up with columnists, read Daily editorials, view cartoons and join in the debate. Check out @michdailyoped and Facebook.com/MichiganDaily to get updates on Daily opinion content throughout the day. BRAD FINGEROOT I VIEWPOINT S 'no' to Prop a A On Nov. 6, Michigan residents will vote on a constitutional mandate requiring electric utilities to provide a quarter of our states'electric power from renewable sources by 2025. This seemingly progressive amend- ment appears to be a noble pursuit, but appeals to thoughtless pathos and would place an insolventburden on the backs of Michiganders. Contrary to the arguments set forth by special interest groups poised to financially gain by its passage, Proposal 3 is anything but a rational, forward-thinking policy. If approved, this proposal would mandate that Michigan's energy providers meet the 25-per- cent standard, regardless of cost, changes in technology or energy needs. It would require the imple- mentation of roughly 3,100 new wind turbines across half a million acres of land to meet this standard. And that doesn't take into account the $12-billion cost, directly hit- ting Michigan residents and Michigan-based businesses, nor the steep expected increase in our energy bills, estimated at roughly 25 percent. The proponents of Proposal 3 have advanced this cause and tar- geted our wallets, yet they don't have a plan with which to imple- ment their irresponsible policy. Michigan already has a compre- hensive energy policy, and studies show that our air and water are the cleanest they've been in more than two generations. Energy providers in our state are on target to meet the 10-percent renewable goal by 2015. In fact, Consumer Energy plans to spend $600 million in harvesting renewable technology in the next five years, while DTE Energy will invest $1.5 billion dur- ing this time span. A "yes" vote on Proposal 3 not only threatens Michigan's sus- tainable energy outlook, but puts the competitiveness of our state economy in jeopardy. After Repub- lican Gov. Rick Snyder ushered in the replacement of the job-killing Michigan Business Tax with a flat, 6-percent corporate income tax, Bloomberg Economic Evalu- ation of States rated Michigan's economic health growth as sec- ond best in the nation. Our state is moving toward once again being the epicenter of the global econ- omy, as we were at the height of the auto industry's strength. Pas- sage of Proposal 3 would stop this forward momentum in its tracks. According to the Mackinac Cen- ter for Public Policy, a free market think tank, the "25x25" mandate will cost our state 10,540 jobs. As of September 2012, Michigan's unemployment"rate is 9.3 percent. This isn't the time to dampen our state's already fragile recovery. On the surface, Proposal 3 may seem like a positive step for our statebutit's awolfinsheep's cloth- ing. There's a reason that none of the other 49 states set their ener- gy policy through constitutional mandates - it's a dangerous abuse of constitutional law. Proposal 3 would tie our own hands behind our backs, limiting the state's abil- ity to pursue practical solutions in an ever-changing technologi- cal world. This is reckless policy that's bad for our energy future and bad for everyday Michigan- ders. Tell the out-of-state special interest groups funding this pro- posal that our constitution is not for sale. I strongly urge voters to reject this proposal and vote "no" on Proposal 3. Brad Fingeroot is an LSA freshman.