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