4 - Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Tine Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
4 - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom
CJbe 1Midigan 1ailv
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
I have big heels to fill."
- Secretary of State John Kerry remarked after his first day in office. He was recently confirmed to
take over for Hillary Clinton as the head of the U.S. State Department.
ules of communication
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.
Branded for life
Sex offenders need rehabilitation, not public shaming
The Michigan state Senate unanimously passed a bill on Jan.
2q that would expand the online registry of sex offenders
to include more crimes involving minors. The current law,
overhauled in 2011 to comply with federal regulations, categoriz-
es criminals under three tiers. It requires the names of offenders
who've committed Tier 2 and 3 crimes - including rape and child
pornography - be posted publicly online. Though protecting chil-
dren from the heinous acts of sex offenders must be of paramount
importance, this bill is misguided. As a society we must stop sham-
ing criminals indefinitely, and this bill would only serve to stigma-
tize past offenders and distract from reintegration.
The current registry system is arbitrary. The
rationale used to distinguish between Tier 2
and Tier 3 crimes is ambiguous, which creates
room for abuse. From punishing public urina-
tion for life to labeling high-school couples as
"sex offenders," there's ample evidence that
these abuses are far too common. The proposed
bill does little to alleviate the actual problem
of sexual violence and instead gives courts the
power to hand down the same lifetime registra-
tion sentences to perpetrators of felonies and
misdemeanors alike.
The purpose of laws is to mete out punish-
ments for societal transgressions. When these
lifelong punishments exceed the harm of the
initial crime, our system makes the re-entry
process into normal life excessively difficult.
If criminals have served out their sentences,
paid their debts and wish to reintegrate into
society, then this proposed legislation will bar
them from acclimating back into society - an
injustice in itself.
According to University researcher J.J.
Prescott, public notification requirements have
been shown to actually increase the incidence
of re-offending. This trend has been attributed
to a nothing-left-to-lose mentality that stems
from the psychological and social costs pub-
lic shaming imposes on previous offenders,
making the possibility of living a crime-free
life seem less feasible. Embittering criminals
against society is no way to prevent them from
committing future crimes.
Acceptance of these laws ultimately stands
as a testament to the protection of children.
Crimes perpetrated against young people are
appalling, and offenders deserve to be justly
punished. But the punishment should end at
the final sentencing date; it shouldn't continue
for life. Instead, extend prison terms or set con-
ditions on required rehabilitation programs for
sex offenders.
If this legislation is put into effect, some
crimes that don't even merit fines greater
than $2,000 will now be accompanied with a
public branding for life - sex offender. This
is truly unjust. The Michigan legislature
shouldn't perpetuate the harmful impacts of
the current sex offender registry, and must
not pass this bill.
t has become somewhat of a
commonplace to say that the
Internet has corrupted the
ways we com-
municate - that
people don't
conventionally
date anymore
because a booty
call over text
("whatsup")
will more than
suffice. My gut JENNIFER
response to XU
such a reduc-
tive argument:
Shouldn't the Internet, with all its
portals of communication - text,
e-mail, voice, Skype, etc. - do the
opposite? Shouldn't we be able to
communicate more precisely now
that the modes through which we
can say things are so diverse? Or do
we hold on to the Paleolithic idea
that the only form of communica-
tion that "counts" is the one we
experience face-to-face?
In hindsight, my interpretation is
likely just as reductive. To say that
the Internet has freed up the ways
we communicate is nothing but a
pipe dream. There are so many rules
attached to the websites we frequent;
rules we've created, passed down
and molded into our consciousness.
Below is a sampling of the proto-
cols governing our oft-used commu-
nication tools. If they have anything
in common, it's what happens in
the silences, the time we put into
observing how others utilize these
same tools and negotiating what we
do with that information. The Inter-
net, for all its speed, has ironically
allowed us more time to construct
what we want to say and supplies us
with the "screen courage" to do so.
But a faux pas can lead to devas-
tating repercussions, since screen
text doesn't immediately dissolve
upon transmission as sound waves
do. The result is that the Inter-
net becomes a mutual exchange of
silences, not unlike those experi-
enced in real life.
Facebook: The hall of reflecting
mirrors, Facebook serves as a place
where the things everybody says
to everybody else are registered in
comprehensively organized boxes.
A place to mindlessly scan through
pictures you've already flicked back
and forth 1000-plus times, periodi-
cally untag yourself in unflattering
poses, react in mock-horror when
you find out that the cute guy in your
anthropology class has been stalk-
ing you and blush with embarrass-
ment when you accidentally blurt
out the information that you know
your crush didn't know you knew
because you saw him in a Facebook
photo with Girl X. One picture with
an arm looped around the shoulder
says they're, hooking up; a comment
like "haha, fun times" says they're
'semi-public; a winky face says
they're full-public. You've memo-
rized the slight tilt of the baseball
hat. You know which pair of glasses
looksbest onhim. Unfriendingis the
worst form of punishment.
Twitter: A combination of navel-
gazing and self-indulgence (why
would anybody care what brand of
shower gel you bought from CVS?)
with a smidge of voyeurism (the
answer: everyone). Followers and
RTs serve as something of a curren-
cy. The more followers you have, the
more time you spend agonizing over
your allotted 140 characters..
Tumblr: Curated, aesthetic pieces
of self where taste divisions become
most evident. No followers, unless
you're a cult sensation who posts cute
pictures of babies in hats, although
it's a no-no to reveal just how many
followers you have. Anonymity is
the rule rather than the exception,
which acts as both a positive (you can
show your "true" personality!) and a
negative (the "Ask me anything" box
where haters gonnahate).
Pinterest: See above, but nix
the anonymity and add an excess of
hair tutorials, recipes and inspira-
tional quotes.
The Internet gives us
the 'screen courage'
to say what we can't
say face-to-face.
Gmail: Truly your own per-
sonal space - it's not for anyone's
eyes but yours - but it's also the
most devoid of any personality. You
check your e-mail like a drug habit.
Though the "You've got mail!" ping
is long defunct, the Pavlovian sen-
timent remains. Most messages in
your inbox are sent by machines
- advertisements with J. Crew
"FINAL SALE" urgency sitting
alongside office hours notifications
from CTools.
Most of us have weaned ourselves
away from our childhood usernames
and exclamation point ridden signa-
tures. Our Google profiles consist of
our real-life names (maybe a period
or number separating the first and
last names because there's just too
many of you in the world) and a head
and shoulders profile picture, usu-
ally just slightly better looking than
your actual face. The biggest deci-
sion we make when writing e-mails
is whether to use "best" or "thanks"
following a sign-off. The unread
messages in your inbox serve as
the constant deferral of what might
come, and also the promise that
there's always someone out there
who wants to speak to you.
Google+: Um; what's this for
again?
- Jennifer Xu can be reached
at jennifxu@umich.edu.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Kaan Avdan, Sharik Bashir, Barry Belmont, Eli Cahan, Nirbhay Jain,
Jesse Klein, Melanie Kruvelis, Patrick Maillet, Megan McDonald, Jasmine McNenny,
Harsha Nahata, Timothy Rabb, Adrienne Roberts, Vanessa Rychlinski,Sarah Skaluba,
Michael Spaeth, Gus Turner, Luchen Wang, Derek Wolfe
JOHN D'ADAMO, YONAH LIEBERMAN, LUZ MEZA AND DANIEL MORALES|
Ensure tuition equality
a
a
Cap climate change
On Feb. 1, University President Mary Sue
Coleman finally broke her silence on the
issue of tuition equality. As a coalition repre-
senting nearly 30 student organizations, we
thank her for this. We've been asking for a
public statement from Coleman for months so
that we can finally start talking to each other,
rather than past each other, about the issues
at hand.
Unfortunately, the message she delivered
was not one that we - or the 29,000 undoc-
umented students in the state of Michigan
- wanted to hear. Instead of embracing the
moment and leading on the issue,,she has
come out and said, "Let's wait and see."
Undocumented students who want to join
the class of 2017 don't have time to wait.
They've studied, worked incredibly hard and
were accepted to the University, but cannot
afford to pay the high out-of-state or interna-
tional tuition rates. The average undocument-
ed family has an annual income of around
$25,000 and without a nine-digit social secu-
rity number cannot receive federal or state
financial aid. By denying them their right to
in-state tuition, the University is effectively
barring them from enrolling as a student.
This is an act of deliberate discrimination by
our University against every single undocu-
mented student in the state of Michigan.
President Coleman said, "I am very encour-
aged with the discussion thatis going on at the
federal level because I don't think this should
be solved piecemeal." Let's translate that.
What she means is that she's happy to wait
for federal government to act rather than
doing everything within her power to help
the undocumented population in our state.
The "discussion" happening at the federal
level is far from progressive and likely will
not pass before the end of the year if it passes
at all, considering the high levels of partisan-
ship in Washington. Further, the effect it will
have on undocumented youth is hazy at best.
The mysterious "piecemeal" change isntuition
equality, which Coleman glosses over in favor
of sexier immigration talking points.
She clearly does not understand the core
issue at stake. She said, "I care deeply about
the students who come here from other coun-
tries and get an advanced degree and have to
go back." The 29,000 undocumented students
didn't come here to get an advanced degree;
they came here - often through no fault of
their own - at young ages so that their fami-
lies could be successful. None of them come to
the state of Michigan simply to go to college.
Almost wistfully, she said, "I would love
to have the same circumstances (as Califor-
nia) here, but we don't." She's referring to the
fact that the California legislature passed a
bill legalizing tuition equality. What Cole-
man fails to mention is that the University is
constitutionally autonomous, meaning that
we have grounds to interpret federal law and
act. In referencing California and advocat-
ing for "state provisions," Coleman is clearly
passing the buck and shirking responsibility
away from her administration. The question
then becomes not how we can act, but when.
When will you stand up to our creed as "the
leaders and best?" When will you stand up and
take the lead on this issue as you did for affirma-
tive action? When will you demonstrate your
support for undocumented students through
actions rather than words alone?
The Latina/o Studies Program within the
Department of American Culture recently
wrote a letter to Coleman. They urged our
University to lead on tuition equality: "Insti-
tutions of higher education throughout the
U.S. have taken brave positions on this issue
because they realize what is at stake: if immi-
grants are barred from real access to higher
education they will undoubtedly become a
permanent underclass." If our University
does not act soon, we will play a key role in the
creation and subjugation of that underclass.
The shift in rhetoric around immigration
at the federal and state level is promising and
a sign for hope. But hope alone will not affect
change. We have no idea how long it will be
before the proposed changes are enacted or
what those changes will mean for Michi-
gan's 29,000 undocumented students. What
we do know is that we can act now. What we
do know is that we can change our residency
requirements - as 12 states have already done
- to allow undocumented students to pay in-
state tuition. We must seize this opportunity.
John D'Adamo is an LSA junior. Yonah
Lieberman and Luz Meza are LSA seniors.
Daniel Morales is an LSA sophomore.
As a native of the Pacific
Northwest, I've always
enjoyed the stunning scen-
ery the region
has to offer.
From the Cas-
cade Mountains
and Mount
Rainier to Olym-
pic National
Park, I find it
hard to leave
when I have to PAUL
return to Michi- SHERMAN
gan - even with
the beauty of the
Great Lakes and Upper Peninsula.
However, I'm increasingly worried
about the disastrous effects that
changes in the climate could have
on these national treasures. There's
one solution that would provide the
best bang for our buck: a cap-and-
trade system.
The idea of cap-and-trade has
been around for a while; however,
Americans have never taken it seri-
ously. This system would require
all manufacturers to purchase the
right to emit pollution in a market-
place and allow them to buy and
sell those rights. However, cur-
rent legislation does not consider
the effects of many chemicals. For
future legislation, Americans can-
not focus only on carbon dioxide
emissions. Companies and legisla-
tors must implement a cap-and-
trade system that will attempt to
reduce many harmful chemical
emissions, including carbon diox-
ide, sulfur dioxide and methane.
A cap-and-trade system would
actually be a better financial move
than people may expect. Three
years ago, President Barack Obama
announced a cap-and-trade plan
that would raise $645 billion in
revenue from the government-
run emissions auctions over eight
years. In January 2012, California
Gov. Jerry Brown predicted that
the state would earn a projected $1
billion through cap-and-trade auc-
tions. Those companies that have
already reduced their emissions
would not have a need for those
credits, so they would sell them to
other companies. This would pro-
vide additional revenues for those
companies and possibly help revi-
talize struggling industries.
Along with the economic benefits
of the system, electricity costs will be
driven down. Since 2009, a coalition
of Northeastern states has imposed a
cap-and-trade system on the electric
utility sector. In that time, electricity
bills in those states reducedby a total
of $1.3 billion. Additionally, a study
conducted by the Analysis Group
said there'd be an overall reduc-
tion in energy costs of $1.1 billion
by charging electricity companies
for their carbon dioxide emissions,
meaning "average savings of $25 for
residential consumers, $181 for com-
mercial consumers and $2,493 for
industrial consumers." Over time, a
cap-and-trade system will reallocate
energy production to different types
of alternative energy, encouraging
more production from these sources
and eventually increased energy
production.
More importantly, the envi-
ronmental benefits from cap-and-
trade will be substantial. If climate
change continues at the same rate,
the Brookings Institute estimates
that greenhouse gas emissions will
cause roughly $100 billion worth
of damage over the next decade
and about $1.3 trillion dollars by
2050, according to 2010 emissions
figures. In the same article, the
think tank estimates that by levy-
ing a cap-and-trade system, ,the
costs would be lowered substan-
tially. If legislation is enacted now,
the total global benefit will add up
to between $1.5 trillion and $1.7
trillion by 2050, according to 2010
emissions figures.
State governments, including
California's, are already starting to
enact these policies. According to
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Ini-
tiative, carbon dioxide emissions
from power plants in nine East
Coast states that have enacted cap-
and-trade policies fell on average by
about 23 percent over a three-year
period. Lowering carbon dioxide
emissions will reduce the chanceofa
warmer planet, which could prevent
more environmental catastrophes
and higher costs from storm dam-
age. A cap-and-trade system will be
able to harness the power of markets
to find the lowest possible cost to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The cap-and-trade
system will combat
global warming;
but only if we let it.
However, other chemicals, such
as methane, have been left out of
the conversation even though they
may have an even greater impact
on climate change. According to
an Aug. 2010 The New York Times
article, climate experts have said
that a chemical known as 1IFC-
23 "has the potential to trap about
12,000 times as much heat asa mol-
ecule of CO2" when it's released
into the atmosphere. Going for-
ward, these types of emissions need
to be focused on, too - their impact
on our environment could be much
greater than that of carbon dioxide.
This issue is going to become
unavoidable as climate conditions
worsen. Anericans must imple-
ment a cap-and-trade system now
as opposed to creating reactionary
measures that will only serve as
Band-Aids. Covering up the future
environmental challenges will cost
Americans and the planet much
more in the long term. Hopefully,
I'll still be able to enjoy the beauti-
ful natural environments that I've
grown to know and love, whether
in Washington state, Michigan or
elsewhere on earth.
- Paul Sherman can be reached
at pausherm@umich.edu.
0
0
At
A