4A - Friday, November 16, 2012

The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com

4A - Friday, November 16, 2012 The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom


}&mihigan al
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.
F RO0M T HE D AIL Y
Ban overturned
Affirmative action no longer prohibited in Mich.
n Thursday, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals declared
Michigan's ban on the use of affirmative action unconsti-
tutional. The, ban was a result of Proposal 2, a 2006 bal-
lot initiative. The court's majority opinion wrote that the ban on
affirmative action violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protec-
tion Clause, arguing that there are ample opportunities for white
students to get legacy preferences when it comes to admissions, an
opportunity that isn't as prevalent for minority students. Michigan
Attorney General Bill Schuette said he would appeal the court's-
decision. Though the system of affirmative action needs revision in
order to truly champion equal opportunity, this decision will give
the state universities the means to do so.

Facebook and the Gaza conflict

iles and miles away,
bombs are falling on the
border that runs between
the Gaza Strip
and the state of
Israel. Not on
just one side of
that border, but
onboth sides.
But you might
never know N
that violence
is happening YONAH
on both sides. LIEBERMAN
Starting early in
the afternoon,
my Facebook newsfeed was full of
posts supporting Israel's barrage of
the Gaza Strip. Granted, I went to
a Jewish day school my entire life,
so a sizable number of my friends
on Facebook are ,part of the Jewish
community, meaning the vast major-
ity of the posts on my feed were pro-
Israel. But for others who grew up
with different backgrounds, I know
many of their feeds were pro-Pal-
estine. Clearly, support for only one
side is an issue that pervades both
sides of the solitical spectrum.
On Wednesday, a precisely aimed
missile from Israel killed Ahmed
al-Jabari. He was the military com-
mander of Hamas, the militant orga-
nization that controls the GazaStrip.
Israelis claim he has played a crucial
role in supporting terrorist attacks.
and capturing famous prisoner of
war, Gilad Shalit. Others including
Aluf Benn, editor in chief of Haaretz
- an Israeli Daily newspaper - note
that Jabari was a crucial contact
within the Hamas establishment
who helped maintain cease-fires
between the two.
Since the assassination, more
than 240 low-tech rockets have
been sent toward southern Israel (of
which 145 have been intercepted by

the Iron Dome System) and more
than 100 different sites in the Gaza
Strip have been targeted. Three
Israeli citizens have been killed and
another three Israeli soldiers have
been injured. On the other side, more
than 16 Palestinians have been killed
and more than 115 injured.
As I scrolled down and read sta-
tus after status, my issue was not the
support for Israel - my issue was the
blatant one-sidedness of each post.
Let me provide the oft-repeated post:
"When you hear the news later
today about Israel attacking Gaza
and killing the head terrorist please
keep in mind that 12,000 rockets
were launched at civilian towns
from Gaza since Israel withdrew
from Gaza Strip a few years ago,
about 1,000 this year, and over 130 in
the last 3 days. You will not see that
on TV... Please share."
Those facts are all true. And the
plight of the nearly 1million people in
southern Israel who are under threat
from rocket fire from the Gaza Strip
is real. I've been to those towns. I've
met those people ready to hide in
bomb shelters at a moment's notice.
I've never been to the Gaza Strip.
I've never met the people who've
been affected by the nearly 20 sepa-
rate air strikes. I've never been to the
land that the 16 dead and more than
150 wounded called home. But just
because I've never beenthere doesn't
mean that the suffering in Gaza does
not exist. It doesn't mean I can't
empathize with the families who've
lost loved ones or the 1.7 million
Gazans living in fear of being the next
one targeted by the Israeli Air Force.
Another Facebook status that is
reposted in times like these: "Wher-
ever I stand, I stand with Israel."
This, even more so than the previous
post, is frustrating. It's empty of con-
tent and accusatory to all those who

don't post it, as if I'm not pro-Israel
unless I post it as well.
Social media
only tells one
side of the story.

0

What's most infuriating about
those one-sided and simplistic posts
is that they don't actually create any-
thing except a narrative of blame. I
understand the desperate urge to
take action,yet I fear negative action
is worse than no action at all. I fear
that perpetuating the narrative that
only one side is to blame will only
draw out this conflict even longer.
Maybe we, in America, can afford
a never-ending conflict. We're miles
and miles away from the bombs
exploding in the Middle East right
now. We've never felt the way the
Israelis and Palestinians feel right
now. Not knowing if another major
escalation is at hand. Not having to
dealwith the consequencesfirsthand.
As a community of smart, active
leaders on this campus, we have a
responsibility to be better than this.
We should break the cycle of blame
and enter one of hope. Just as inno-.
cent Israelis are suffering, innocent
Gazans are suffering. So, instead of
simply supporting one side or the
other, let us come together and sup-
port two states for two peoples. That
will make a real and lasting change.
That will ensure that the people we
care about are safe.
-Yonah Lieberman can be
reached at yonahl@umich.edu.

The ever-contentious issue of affirmative
action has been prevalent in the news as of late,
as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argu-
ments in Fisher v. University of Texas in Octo-
ber which could impact precedent set by the
2003 Supreme Court cases involving the Uni-
versity that affirmed the legality of race-based
admissions. On Thursday, the court ruled that
the ban on affirmative action was unconstitu-
tional. The use of "preferential treatment" in
state decisions regarding university admis-
sions or employment on the basis of race, sex,
color, ethnicity or national origin, outlawed
by Proposal 2, has been reinstated. While it is
quite possible that the U.S. Supreme Court will
set a national precedent when it announces
a decision in the Fisher case this spring, the
6th Circuit Court's decision is a symbolic rul-
ing that acknowledges that some people have
inherent disadvantages and the current system
does not adequately support them.
The use of affirmative action in college
admission should be ultimately oriented
toward the eventual achievement of a "critical
mass" of diversity - a point at which minority
students no longer feel isolated in their cam-

pus environment. One of the crucial disagree-
ments during the Fisher arguments was the
exact definition of critical mass. Consequent-
ly, the University should see the 6th Circuit
Court's decision as an opportunity to create
an exit strategy for an affirmative action pro-
gram and thereby justify its use in the college
admissions process.
However, regardless of how one defines
critical mass, the banning of affirmative
action in Michigan severely hindered the
University's efforts to achieve such a mass -
minority enrollment dropped from 10 percent
a decade ago to 5 percent more recently.
Furthermore, the use of race in the college
admissions process should be only one factor
in determining whether to prefer a student for
admission. Separate socioeconomic factors
also contribute to the diversity of a campus
and should be considered in conjunction with
race. Thursday's decision is a good first step
toward achieving equal opportunity in the
college admissions process, but more must be
done to define the ultimate goals of affirma-
tive action in Michigan and at the University
before its use can be adequately justified.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Kaan Avdan, Sharik Bashir, Barry Belmont, Eli Cahan, Nirbhay Jain, Jesse Klein, Melanie Kruvelis,
Patrick Maillet, Jasmine McNenny, Harsha Nahata, Timothy Rabb, Adrienne Roberts,
Vanessa Rychlinski, Sarah Skaluba, Michael Spaeth, Gus Turner, Derek Wolfe
ASAD PASOON VIEWPOINT
What about Afghanistan?

~6

Food for thought

Welcome to the United States of
America. We've held the gold
medal for "fattest" country in the
developed world for quite
some time now, yet have -
unfortunately made very
few genuine efforts to
remove ourselves from the
not-so-coveted distinction.
In a country where
Mickey D's is located a
mere 10 feet from yourS
local Whole Foods Market, SARAH
a rather remarkable juxta- SKALUBA
position of food cultures
exists. We have the gra-
nola people - those of us who covet locally-
grown, organic meals free of pesticides and
Genetically Modified Organisms - on one
side, and, on the other, we have the consum-
er-driven, mass-produced food culture of big
America - big corporations, big government
and even bigger consequences for the consum-
ers. So is there a happy medium outthere? Can
our nation be health conscious but not overly
regulated by the federal government?
The presidential elections have come and
gone. President Barack Obama was re-elected,
Mitt Romney conceded and things are slowly
returning to a state of everyday blandness - no
more campaigns bombarding us, no more stu-
dents in Angell Hall pestering us to vote and
no more drunken, ideological conversations
with friends about who should be running our
nation. OK, that's old news - I get it. But did
anything else of major significance occur this
past election? Yes. As a matter of fact, some-
thing did happen. The American people finally
spoke up abouttheir health and well-being. So
let's cheer to that, shall we?
But in all seriousness, it was a pleasant
surprise to find so many health-conscious
proposals on the ballots this election cycle.
Though they didn't all pass by popular vote,
at least we know the American people are
starting to take a greater interest in their
health and exactly what they're putting
into their bodies. On Election Day, propos-
als across the nation ranged from whether
or not marijuana has reasonable medicinal
uses to whether certain food labels should be
required in the state of California.
The latter raises an important question
about what we, as consumers, have the right
to know about the food we're eating on a
daily basis. GMOs are used in more than
three-fourths of the processed foods we've

come to know and love. Even raw produce
and soy products are being genetically engi-
neered. Yet here in the ever-savvy United
States, we don't require food companies to
label products containing GMOs, which have
been continuously linked to health concerns
and environmental damage - every granola
lover's worst nightmares.
Nutritional labeling
on food and produce
should be more
comprehensive.
So why am I blabbering on about food
labels and genetically engineered produce?
One: because eating is clearly one my favorite
hobbies. And two: because this actually poses
a serious problem for all of us. I mean, if the
entire European Union, for that matter, Rus-
sia, China and Japan have all imposed strict
GMO policies and required food companies to
label these products, then why is the United
States not following suit? If one state were to
set an example for the rest of the United States,
it would've been California. California's Pro-
posal 37 would've required the entire food
industry to inform consumers as to whether or
not their products contain GMOs by labeling
food packaging.
But unfortunately, this proposal didn't
pass on Election Day. Only 47 percent of Cali-
fornians supported the idea, giving the food
industry the OK to carry out their big profit,
low nutrition mentality. So yes, that may have
been a bust in the realm of public health con-
sciousness and well-being, but let's just be
thankful our nation is starting to move - or
at least crawl - in a healthier direction.
On a more positive note, North Dakota did
ban smoking in public places, making three-
fifths of our nation officially smoke-free. So at
least we'll be able to enjoy our GMO-packed
meals without suffering from secondhand
smoke the next time we go out to dinner. It
may be slow, but it's progress nonetheless.
-Sarah Skaluba can be reached
at sskalubaoumich.edu.

During the third round of presi-
dential debate, President Barack
Obama reiterated his strategy for
Afghanistan - withdraw com-
bat troops by end of 2014. Part of.
the strategy involves reaching a
peace agreement with the Taliban
before the withdrawal to ensure a
smooth transition of power to the
Afghani government. The prospect
of reaching such a deal, however, is
bleak.
But, the U.S. government is still
determined. As Vice President Joe
Biden said during the vice presi-
dential debate, "We are leaving
Afghanistan in 2014. Period." The
reasoning behind the decision
is twofold: the United States has
accomplished its goals of eliminat-
ing al-Qaida network in Afghani-
stan and there is an increasinglevel
of frustration with the Afghani
administration.
The urgent pressure on the
United States to withdraw has
been heightened by the failure of
President Karzai to curb corrup-
tion within the Afghani govern-
ment. The increase in the number
of insider attacks on Allied forces
by the very Afghan security forces
they've trained has only added to
this pressure. Given the costs the
United States has incurred both in
funds and human lives, these are
understandable concerns on the
part of the American people and
the government.
Rampant corruption is some-
thing that significantly impacts
local Afghans as well. Corruption
has led many Afghans to lose con-
fidence in their government. The
scope of the corruption isn't just
limited to bribes offered to public
servants. Instead, at higher lev-
els, the Karzai administration has
made money from the bidding on
lucrative government procurement
contracts.
One would be amazed to see the
outrageously expensive armored

vehicles traveling Kabul's bumpy
roads. The number of large multi-
storied houses built during the past
few years has also increased. All of
this is happening in a nation where
the average annual income is still
only $425 per person.
Needless to say, much of the tax-
payer money spent by the U.S. in
Afghanistan is misused by the well
connected. To add to the problem,
none of well-known corrupt pub-
lic officials have been indicted for
their fraud.
What's more, recruitment based
on nepotism and favoritism rather
than merit is also a source of disap-
pointment for many Afghans. The
disappointment increases as both
the international community and
the Afghan citizens see that there's
no political will, on the part of the
Karzai government to fix the current
situation.
Despite the international out-
rage in 2009, President Karzai
chose most of the former warlords
and Mujahideen commanders -
some of whom are categorized by
the Human Rights Watch as repeat
offenders - to serve appointed
positions in his cabinet. Even some
of the Western-educated Afghan
technocrats who received Ph.D.s
from the best U.S. universities
and are currently leading Afghan
governmental institutions have
increasingly proved corrupt and
failed to fix the system.
Given this background, any ratio-
nal person should be asking, "If the
elite and well educated superinten-
dents in charge of Afghani govern-
ment institutions are corrupt, then
who can be counted on as a reliable
partner?" That is the very position
that the United States and its allies
currently find themselves in. The
United States has to face a formi-
dable opponent in the Taliban and
the corrupt Afghani government.
And this is largely the reason for
the Obama administration's stub-

born insistence on a 2014 exit strat-
egy, regardless of what may happen
in Afghanistan after the United
States leaves.
Knowing the 2014 deadline,
former warlords have recently
called for a regrouping to defend
the country after the Allied forces
withdraw, which may take the
country back to where it was before
the original 2001 invasion. With
that, the gains of the last decade
that cost billions of dollars and tens
of thousands of U.S. and Afghan
lives will be lost.
The United States is facing
a multidimensional problem in
Afghanistan - be it resurgence of
the Taliban, the corrupt Afghani
administration, the failed economy,
the regrouping of former warlords
after 2014 or the collapse of Kabul
government. Abandoning Afghani-
stan after 2014 is not an option.
The right course of action would
be to withdraw U.S. forces accord-
ing to predetermined schedule and
provide support to the Afghan secu-
rity forces in form of logistics, train-
ing and air support if necessary.
The United States should also
increase or maintain the level of
developmental aid to the country
- at least in the short term. To deal
with the corruption,however,the aid
should be conditional upon meeting
certain benchmarks, such as elimi-
nating corruption in the Afghan
government or bringing fraudulent
high-level officials to trial.
In addition, the United States
along with international communi-
ties - in collaboration with Pakistan
- should force the Taliban to accept
the Afghan Constitution. Finally, if
a peace deal is reached, the United
States should avoid any agreement
with the Taliban that could come at
the cost oftaking awaythe individu-
al freedoms of the Afghan citizens,
particularly women.
Asad Pasoon is a Rackham student.

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. Send
the writer's full name and University affiliation. to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

0