4A - Thursday, January 24, 2013 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com C I - 4e Michioan:43at'6,19 l An activist's appeal Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com MELANIE KRUVELIS and ADRIENNE ROBERTS MATT SLOVIN EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS MANAGING EDITOR ANDREW WEINER EDITOR IN CHIEF 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. Upe in (firearm Gun ownership should stay public information n Wednesday morning, a bill passed through the Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee that would make certain guns manufactured in the state exempt from existing federal fire- arms regulations. In addition to eliminating some licensing require- ments for federal firearms dealers, the package would prevent handgun registration records from being publicly available under the Freedom of Information Act. This measure to limit public records is considered a response to a map published in New York newspaper The Journal News, which listed information about registered gun owners in their area. Despite controversy surrounding the paper's decision to publish the map, the Michigan bill shouldn't move forward with this legisla- tion. Michigan residents deserve to have access to these public records. his one's for the activists against injustice means standing up and for those who want to against all injustice - big or small. be activists. Ann Arbor is I beg to differ on this point. The quite the lib- fact of the matter is that not all eral community, injustices are created equal. often referred The problem isn't that you to as a progres- shouldn't fight for something you sive's utopia. It's believe in. The problem is that if a place of many you call yourself a feminist but people who feel spend time fighting for a woman's strongly about right to open her own door, you're an issue and HARSHA going to trivialize the larger issues want to change NAHATA at play. It's hard to have a seri- something in ous conversation about women's the world. After rights and cultural undertones all, the early inception of the Peace that impact how woman are seen Corps is our claim to fame. in society if the conversation keeps Over the years, I've found that hinging on whether or not a woman here you can find a place for pretty should take offense to someone much everything and everyone. holding the door open for her. This The list of student organizations is conversation isn't likely to win never-ending, and there's an entire someone over to your side or create subset of organizations dedicated awareness about the larger issue of to spreading awareness about social gender norms, it's simply going to justice or political issues. elicit stereotyping statements like From feeding the squirrels to "feminists are angry women that more serious causes such as sus- hate everything." tainability, tuition equality, raising Latching onto a small issue awareness about sexual assault or instead of tackling the larger issue writing letters to urge the stop of at hand alienates the very people human rights abuses around the you are trying to convince: those world - most of the time it's breath- who oppose your cause to begin taking to see the passion and deter- with. They're then are able to write mination students have to change it off as something trivial. the world. -.There's merit to the argument But I've also noticed that some-. that it's the bigger injustice that times it's easy to get lost in all of the influences these smaller daily causes. Sometimes with the mindset actions and that we should raise of being an activist comes this ten- awareness at every possible oppor- dency - need, even - to challenge- tunity. But there's a problem when everything. Across campus, there's we expect to change people's minds this idea that you can't simply be an about bigger issues by focusing on activist for one cause; to stand up smaller problems. In reality, we should be changing their minds about the larger matters first and the smaller things will follow. Even if we change small things - if we get everyone to recycle plastic bottles, or not use "guys" to describe a group of people or to hold doors open for anyone, we're only chang- ing one small aspect of their behav- ior. The mindset remains the same. This isn't in any way to devalue the impact of these small changes, but alone they aren't enough. It's not enough to get people to do some- thing if they don't understand why ' they're doing it. In reality, not all injustices are created equal. There are many ways to be an activist. We don't always have to feel the need to fight against the world to do so. Social change isn't something that can be imposed upon people. Just telling people to change their behavior doesn't always do justice to your cause. More often than not, it's impor- tant to change people's mindsets, to give them more information that will change how they view an issue instead of forcing them to change how they live. - Harsha Nahata can be reached at hnahata@umich.edu. Proponents of such legislation argue that it prevents gun owners from being unfairly targeted by malicious or defamatory use of this information. Although inflammatory and controversial in light of increasing national debate over gun laws, publishing publicly available information about the holders of firearms permits was within the purview of the journalists. In an era of increasing acces- sibility to personal information, a perceived breach of privacy rights isn't addressed most efficiently by reacting to this particular map. If the journalists' actions are to be challenged in light of this specific incident, it should be part of a wider conversation about access to personal information, not as justification to promote the special interests of some. Michigan's current laws regulating the privacy of gun ownership information aren't uniformly and comprehensively defined. Although Michigan law already exempts holders of concealed pistol permits from being disclosed under the Freedom of Infor- mation Act, records of purchase permits provided by local law enforcement are still available to the public. In lieu of a thorough legislative process, the proposed bills are strictly reactionary and fail to examine the structure and motivations for gun control laws in the state. Firearm permits are issued to vet poten- tial gun owners, introducing a measure of accountability to the use of guns. Statistics from the FBI show that nearly 67 percent of homicides in the United States are commit- ted with firearms. As with other products that may pose a threat to public safety, guns are federally and state-regulated devices. FOIA was created to provide accountability and transparency of legally regulated activi- ties and to ensure that the safety, security and rights of the public aren't outweighed by the interests of policymakers or special interest groups. Michigan should uphold the example set by federal legislation and promote public and government accountability. The bill being considered by the state legislature is a reac- tionary response to an isolated incident and doesn't address the issue at the heart of the gun control debate.. If a conversation about gun rights occurs at the legislative level, the state government needs to set a precedent that makes accountability a priority and the disclosure of gun ownership part of the rule, not the exception. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS Kaan Avdan, Sharik Bashir, Barry Belmont, James Brennan, Eli Cahan, Jesse Klein, Melanie Kruvelis, Patrick Maillet, Jasmine McNenny, Harsha Nahata, Adrienne Roberts, Vanessa Rychlinski, Paul Sherman, Sarah Skaluba, Michael Spaeth, Derek Wolfe Practice practical optimism. 1 IAN ROBINSON AND BONNIE HALLORAN I Protect Michigan's unions As the University community commemo- rates the accomplishments of Martin Luther King Jr. this week, we should remember his opposition to right-to-work laws, such as the one rushed through the lame-duck ses- sion of the Michigan legislature in Dec. 2012. Here are King's words from a 1961 speech - words that members of University Lecturers' Employee Organization are posting on their doors: "We must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as right-to-work. It's a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We demand this fraud be stopped." What are right-to-work laws? Right-to- work laws allow employees to opt out of union dues, even though American labor law requires collective agreements to cover all employees in a bargaining unit. Doingso is like letting people consume government services and then decide whether they want to pay any taxes. Right-to-work laws first became a legal possibility when the federal Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 outlawed collective agreements requiring union membership as a condition of getting a job, and permitted states to pass right-to-work statutes to encourage free-rid- ing. The earliest states to pass right-to-work laws were all in the south, but they gradually spread out of their regional stronghold. In December, Michigan became the 24th state to pass right-to-work legislation. King understood that Taft-Hartley - and with it, right-to-work-was motivated atleast as much by anti-black as by anti-union ani- mus. He knew that the collapse of organized labor's drive to organize the south - which was intended by Taft-Hartley - was a huge blow, not just to unions but to the civil rights movement as well. Today, right-to-work is still an anti-union and an anti-worker measure. So what is the University, while celebrating King, doing to reduce the negative impact of right-to-work on working people and minorities in this state? So far, very little. There are nine unions at the University. On the Ann Arbor campus, seven of these unions have a direct impact on students: American Federation of State, Coun- ty and Municipal Employees, Slpilled Trades, Operating Engineers; Police Officers Asso- ciation of Michigan; the Nurses' Union; the Lecturers' Employee Organization; and the Graduate Employee's Organization. The first five unions represent employees who are often invisible to students: the cus- todial staff, campus mail handlers, operators of the heating and coolingsystems, the nurses who work in the University's health system and campus safety officers. However, the first four play a critical role in making the campus function smoothly, and, of those, the police officers and the nurses might save your life in that rare moment of crisis. You do see the teachers in LEO and GEO every day. Togeth- er, we account for about half of all University undergraduate teaching (measured as "stu- dent credit hours"). We should ask ourselves: What can the Uni- versity do? A lot. University administrators can sit down with unions that represent about half of the workers on this campus and offer to substantially lengthen their collective bar- gaining agreements. Michigan's right-to-work legislation does not come into effect until late March 2013. If the University and the unions agree to long extensions before that deadline, it would give the unions many years of pro- tection against right-to-work. LEO is the first union to negotiate a new contract under the threat of right-to-work, and the administra- tion could start by committing to complete the bargaining process by early March. So far, however, they've dragged their feet. Last Friday, they offered a proposal that would deny the union the ability to collec- tive bargaining benefits. Such a proposal is antithetical to LEO's existence as a union, and creates a major roadblock for reaching an agreement in time to safeguard the union from the negative impact of right-to-work. If you believe in King's dream, and you understand the critical importance of revital- izing both the civil rights and the labor move- ment, and if that dream is to be realized, then stand up and be counted. You can support LEO by signing an online petition. You also can e-mail University President Mary Sue Coleman, University Provost Phil Hanlon and the regents to let them know you think that the University should stand with King and agree to negotiate contract extensions with all University unions before the right-to-work law takes effect. Ian Robinson is a Political Science and Sociology lecturer. Bonnie Halloran is an Anthropology lecturer. nglish teacher John Keating tells his students in "Dead Poets Society," "This is a battle - a war - and the casu- alties could be your hearts and souls." The same could be said for the battle that4 many college students endure as they struggle MICHAEL to figure out SPAETH where their lives are headed. On one side, we have the idealists. They're the doe-eyed optimists who are absolutely convinced that they'll change the world for the better. They follow the advice of older adults who urge college students to do what they love in life no matter what negative consequences result from that deci- sion. They aren't concerned about money and are certain that every- thing will work out in the end. On the other side, we have the cynics. They've become hardened after enduring many disappoint- ments over the years. They listen to older adults and pundits who continuously reinforce the notion that some things cannot be done or that other things "just don't work that way." They claim to know what "reality" is and relentlessly mock idealists as naive people who just don't understand the "real world." Although we may fluctuate from time to time, we usually identify with one side or the other. We rare- ly consider the possibility that there might be a fertile middle ground between these two sides. In this middle ground, we have the prac- tical optimists. They're the people who set their sights on an end goal, however improbable it may be, and stubbornly pursue that goal until they succeed - while also remain- ing keenly aware of the realities of the environment in which they're working. Many of the great figures in our history have been practical opti- mists. For example, Steven Spiel- berg's latest film "Lincoln" shows how the 16th president managed to gather enough votes to get the 13th Amendment passed, despite howls of protest from the cynics around him. Lincoln was absolutely com- mitted to the lofty ideal of abolish- ing slavery forever, but he had the political acumen to figure out how to actually get it done. It's understandable that many college students are cynical these days, particularly in an incredibly polarized political environment and with uncertain job prospects in the aftermath of the Great Reces- sion. In August, a student writ- ing for The Rice Standard at Rice University praised cynicism: "It takes courage to accept things for the way they are, however bad (or even good) they might be. Cynically accepting things for the way they are is perhaps the only way to truly appreciate them." I don't dispute the idea that we should accept things for the way they are, but I firmly reject the notion that this acceptance must last forever. The current realities of the world can't be the end point - they have to be the starting point. We need a very clear understanding of how things are so we can intel- ligently figure out what concrete actions to take so we can change the world for the better. This is how we become practical optimists. The question isn't whether we can cre- ate positive changes in the world. Instead, the question is how we cre- ate those changes. It's easy to mock idealism, but while the realities of the world will bruise many idealists, cynicism is completely self-destructive. If we instantly dismiss something that could improve society for the better as "unrealistic," then we're conced- ing defeat before we've even fought the battle in the first place. That isn't courage at all. It's easy to mock idealism, but cynicism is self-destructive. Reality might limit our options right now, but we can at least get started in making our vision for a better world a reality. Or better yet, we can think of innovative options that no one else has considered, which could change the status quo altogether. We are a new generation that grew up with the Internet. We are more accepting of diversity than past generations and have tremen- dous potential. Surely we can come up with something that will change the world for the better - even if that change isn't instantaneous. We have to try every option at our disposal. As President Franklin Roosevelt once said, "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try some- thing." We can't stop until we suc- ceed. And we can't let the cynics get in our way. - Michael Spaeth can be reached at micspa@umich.edu. SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@MICHIGANDAILY.COM 40 years later, Roe still controversial TO THE DAILY: On Jan. 23, the Daily published' "40 years later, still fighting" about the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.While I disagree with Manes's view, Ihad a bigger problem with her rhetoric. She uses terms like "reproductive justice," "need- less waiting" and "the rightto decide when and if to have children" to avoid discussing the most important manizing." Manes assumes that all moral questions surrounding abor- restrictions are "dehumanizing," tion: Is the fetus human and does it but clarification here is necessary. have the right to life? Manes sets up She surely can't hold the view that a straw man by switching the topic to restricting sex-selective, third-tri- rights versus restrictions and choice mester or partial-birth abortions are versus coercion. The opposing forces more dehumanizing than abortion that she presents don't want abor- itself. To not object to these practic- tion to be restricted in order to sub- es is fine, but it's shallow to say that jugate women as she claims. Rather, people who don't object are actually those of us in the "opposition" want dehumanizing those who choose to to affirm the fetus's right to live. have an abortion. What I found mostinsulting,how- ever, was Manes's description of all Jonathan Lesnau restrictions on abortion as "dehu- LSA sophomore i a 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.