4 - Tuesday, March 26, 2013 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com cp Midhiian Bal Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com MELANIE KRUVELIS ANDREW WEINER and ADRIENNE ROBERTS MATT SLOVIN 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 R OM T hE DA ILY Communicating safety Federal law didn't serve students best in stopping crime naApril 2011, the U.S. Department of Education mandated that Juniversities investigate all cases of on-campus sexual miscon- duct involving students. At the University of Michigan, the Office of Institutional Equity handles these allegations, with "high- ly trained investigators" interviewing those involved and any pos- sible witnesses. Between September 2012 and February 2013, there were three cases of sexual assault involving the same alleged perpe- trator at Zaragon Place, an off-campus apartment building on East University Street. However, the OIE only reported the first inci- dent in September and failed to report the second incident - which occurred later that month - only doing so after the third attack five months later in February. Although federal laws don't force the OIE to report off-campus investigations to the University of Michigan Police Department, here the minimum obligations weren't suffi- cient in identifying a pattern that may have prevented a third inci- dent of sexual assault. The University should implement a consistent reporting process to protect its students on and off-campus. Equality overdue This really shouldn't be an issue anymore. Freedom isn't a privilege. It's a right, and it doesn't make any difference how many ref- erendums deny the LGBTQ com- munity their constitutional entitlement to ANDREW marriage - it doesn't make ECKHOUS those laws legal. I'm tired of the bullshit arguments about how "redefining" marriage will somehow render it less valuable. Even with millennia of marriage history and tradition, somehow marriage's death will come at the hands of two men or two women and their decision to put some shiny rocks on each other's fin- gers and sign a few legal documents. Faulty logic lurks behind every piece of pseudo-science and pseu- do-psychology that the anti-equal- ity folks offer up. No one can prove either way whether growing up with a mother and a father holds more or less value than growing up with a homosexual set of parents because the abstract concepts of good and bad lie outside of science - thanks Biology 109! As an Ameri- can - nay, a human - you have the right to believe any crazy thought you want. You can believe that one loving set of parents is worth more than another, but just because you put your science pants on and say something like there are "unique advantages to a parenting struc- ture consisting of both a mother and a father, political interests notwithstanding," doesn't validate your arguments. You look ugly when you lie, and it would be refreshing for you free- wheeling bigots just to admit it: You don't think anyone in the LGBTQ community deserves the same "equality" that fills your red, white and blue arteries. Sure, we're all created equal, but aren't some of us more equal than others? And stop it with the "(I'm) for equal rights for all Americans, but no one has the right to redefine marriage" garbage. Maybe you fell asleep during civics class or were busy praying in school, but there exists a separation between church and state. Religious arguments have no place in legal debates, and since marriage rights inhabit the legal arena in this context, please don't use your religious text as exhibit A. Picket as many gay marriages as you want, and feel free to tell the newly- weds they have an eternity of exper- imental short films waiting for them in hell, but kindly get the fuck out of the way of the court's decision. When the Supreme Court makes a long-awaited decision on two cases on same-sex marriage this week, anything less than a full endorse- ment of marriage equality for all will signify that our "precious" rights are more valuable than the actual people that use them. Leave it up to the states, you say? If we had left slavery up to the states, would that dark chapter have ever been completely abolished? If we had left women's suffrage up to the states, would my mother, sister or grandmother have the right to vote today? I don't know, but the odds seem bleak to me. Gay marriage represents more than two people getting hitched and having a 50-percent chance of get- ting unhitched. Gay marriage rep- resents the ideals that we claim to stand for. Life, liberty and the pur- suit of happiness - unless you're gay -that's gross. In his famous obituary for Rich- ard Nixon, Hunter S. Thompson wrote "some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism - which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House." Today's situation is no different. Unless we stop look- ing at gay marriage objectively, big- oted laws and hateful statutes will continue slithering into law books nationwide. Framing gay marriage as a blitzkrieg assault on state's rights conveniently circumvents the larger issue of equality, and, by extension, asserts that the voting public can use its democratic rights to decide that gays - or any other group of people - don't deserve the same liberties that it does. "Never mind that the anti-gay marriage rhetoric directly mirrors the anti- interracial marriage rhetoric," anti- equality troglodytes will say, "this time it's different! Marriage really is under threat!" Framing gay marriage as a state right masks the bigger issue. In the 1960s, the American government knew that without direct intervention, the scourge of legal discrimination would not end. Everything changed with the advent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even if it wasn't overnight, and our country will never go back to the way it used to be. If we want to continue down that path to the idealized vision of "equality" that every politician espouses, we have no choice but to legalize same-sex marriage. And if you disagree with me, you're wrong. - Andrew Eckhous can be reached at aeckhous@umich.edu. In September 2012, the OIE was informed of an incident involving the sexual assault of a student living in a Zaragon apartment. Though the survivor didn't want to file a police report, the OIE informed University Police of the inci- dent. During their investigation of this first allegation, an investigator in the OIE learned of a second incident involvingthe same alleged graduate student later that month. While the second survivor also declined to file a formal police report, this time the OIE declined to report the allegation to University Police, leav- ing the incident unreported on campus. Five months later, a third assault was reported in the same apartment building with the same perpetrator. After the survivor of the third case filed a report with the Ann Arbor Police Department, OIE investigators discovered that all three allegations of sexual misconduct implicated the same suspect. As a result of the OIE's inconsistent crime reporting, both Zara- gon residents and students alike were unaware of the possible threat. With the development of the third case, the under-reporting of the sec- ond allegation can be seen as a missed opportu- nity in preventing additionalcrime. Under current law, the University is required to disclose crimes that occur in campus facili- ties, as well as other specified areas like Greek Life housing. The Clery Act, passed in 1990, pulls federal funding from universities that fail to report campus crimes. In 2011, the Depart- ment of Education expanded colleges' roles in crime reporting, threatening to withhold funding from schools that don't investigate sexual assaults that occur on campus. While the OIE's failure to report the second incident doesn'ttechnicallyviolate federal law since the incident took place off campus, the University shouldn't prioritize the safety of students living on campus over those off. The University has a responsibility to protect all students - regard- less of where they live - even if current law doesn't explicitly require it. In the absence of federal law, the OIE needs to set clear standards when investigating off- campus crime. Consistency and communica- tion between the OIE and University police are critical in promoting a safe campus and pre- venting crime on and off campus. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS Kaan Avdan, Sharik Bashir, Barry Belmont, Eli Cahan, Eric Ferguson, Jesse Klein, Melanie Kruvelis, Maura Levine, Patrick Maillet, Aarica Marsh, Megan McDonald, Jasmine McNenny, Harsha Nahata, Adrienne Roberts, Paul Sherman, Sarah Skaluba, Michael Spaeth, Daniel Wang, Luchen Wang, Derek Wolfe Show m#0e the money ELI CAHAN I A lesson from Jeb This weekend's Wall Street Journal con- tained the gems of a commentary given at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday by Jeb Bush. Yeah, that Jeb Bush - W.'s brother and former governor of Florida - who left much of his legacy in the form of the large- ly disputed "recount" in 2000. Appropriately enough, his speech on Friday touched on the contemporary role of capitalism. It redefines the American dream in a 21st century con- text - a context of Obamacare and welfare. It addressed the need to accept failure as a com- ponent of social mobility - talk about irony. But I digress. Putting aside prior biases, we realize that Bush makes some remarkable observations. His perception of the political prerogative to preserve the American dream is extremely rel- evant: the idea is "restoring the right to rise." The government's responsibility is not to prop up individuals, but to set them loose. And the mobility of the individual is sparked by the movement of this country. The ability to rise as a country relies on tim- ing. Favorable circumstances cause positive shocks to the economy, boosting GDP. It's basic Keynesian economics - for those who aren't well versed in the joys of Economics 102: A country benefits most from things it can't con- trol. Well, the time for the United States to rise is now. Unemployment is at 7.4 percent - the lowestit'sbeen since the recession -while con- sumer sentiment is the highest it has been. The housing market is back. Natural gas is booming. The Dow set a new - unadjusted - record last week. These are all extremely positive signs that we should be getting back on track as a nation and as individuals. So, in the wake of all of this momentum, what is the government's responsibility? Bush argues that the principle of the American dream is founded in the free market, on a sense of social Darwinism and on a form of capital- ism where winners are actually beating some- one. This sense of achievement is an important motivator. And the "position" gives the indi- vidual feedback on where he stands, relative to where he wants to be. The argument is against the kind of capitalism that parallels little league haseball - where win or lose, we're going to get donut holes. Bush makes a valuable argument for a sys- tem that permits failure. It's not a top-i-percent argument that he's making - "too big to fail" applies up there too. Rather, he holds both par- ties accountable. Bush's argument says that the government should be your guardian angel, not your tooth fairy. It's not about getting gifts when you're sleeping, but about having your back when you're climbing. Bush also sparks a discussion about promot- ingexcellencethrough risk-taking.Theconcept of social mobility is at the crux of the American spirit. I think the distinction of the American spirit from the American dream is an important one. There's an active sentiment involved. The spirit isthe expression of our dreams - dreams don'tbecome real until we make them so. Thus, as the movement of our great nation catalyzes our rise, we are obliged to move with it. Dream- ing probably won't do the trick. America's about "living the dream," not just loving it. Again, what's our government's relation to all of this? How can the massive body of legislature move the bodies of the masses? I submit the role of government is rooted in empowerment through inspiration. That's not to say that the White House shouldn't provide public goods for the public good. I agree that the "government should fill pot- holes." But I think it's more important that the administration gives the individuals the tools to "fill the holes in the human heart." That means improving education so kids are cultivated to rise. That means fixing the econ- omy so businesses are encouraged to strive. That means opening the doors so immigrants are embraced and able to thrive. Political endorsements aside, Bush creates a compelling case for the individual in Ameri- can society. While the American dream can be propped up en mass on billboards and stim- uli, the American spirit is found in its people. Before babies learn how to walk,.they tumble. They fall. They fail. We could, as caring par- ents, pick them up every time and put them on our feet. Or, we could wait patiently until that magical day when they learn to support them- selves on their own two feet. Consider the last five years an American tumble. But also think of it as a rebirth. Let's learn how to walk again, and let's fail along the way. Eli Cahan is a Business sophomore. t doesn't seem too long ago that former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Al Gore were bat- tling for Florida and the United States presi- dency. At the time, citizens all over the country were amazed by the amount PAUL of money that SHERMAN had been raised - more than $300 million. I don't think most people realized how much campaign finance could change over the span of 10 years. During the 2012 presidential election, President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney raised record amounts of money for their cam- paign war chests: $1.072 billion and $992.5 million dollars, respectively. These numbers don't include the amount of money that so-called super political action committees spent to campaign for and against each candidate. Today, this spend- ing is out of control and must be reined in. After the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court case, election finance changed tremendously. The Justices in a 5-4 decision decided that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not prevent corporations or unions from spending money to support or oppose individual can- didates. This has allowed super PACs and qualified non-profit corporations to fund campaigns. Meanwhile, according to Harvard Law Prof. Lawrence Lessig, as of 2012, ".26 percent of Americans give more than $200 in a congres- sional campaign; .05 percent give the maximum amount to any con- gressional candidate; and .01 per- cent - the 1 percent of the 1 percent - give more than $10,000 in an election cycle." One major problem with current campaign finance reform isthatcan- didates have become more focused on fundraisingthan legislating. Now more so than ever, instead of trying to gain the support of the American people, political candidates have to focus on appealing to the donors who will provide the largest con- tributions. As a result, Americans have a government that is, accord- ing to Lessig, "not dependent upon the People alone, but that is also dependent upon the Funders." This dependency on donors also pre- vents strong third-party candidates from having their voices heard on a national stage. Additionally, candidates don't have to disclose their donors or their expenses. Peter Schweiz- er, president of the Government Accountability Institute, said in an article in USA Today that can- didates don't have to disclose the names of their 'bundlers,' or those who collect donations from mul- tiple donors. Currently, lobby- ing groups and organizations can obtain money without having to worry about revealing their donors, which makes it easier for these groups to gain government con- tracts, loans and jobs. Despite these glaring problems, Congress has been slow to pass any significant legislation. Last sum- mer, Washington tried to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would have "required groups making more than $10,000 in campaign-related expenditures to disclose contribu- tors who had donated more than $10,000." However, Congress failed to pass the bill, after a Republican filibuster. While this bill would have been an important step in the right direction, it wouldn't com- pletely solve the problem at hand, since groups wouldn't be forced to disclose all of their donors. After the DISCLOSE Act, there has not been a significant push to pass legislation related to this important issue. Even though Congress has been slow, there are potential solutions that could level the playing field for candidates. Overturning Citi- zens United would be an obvious solution but is unlikely given the current composition of the Court. Beyond that, if Congress can come to an agreement, full disclosure should be employed along with harsher restrictions on the amount super PACs can spend. Candidates would have to be more careful about their fundraising sources. At the same time, they would be able to focus on the important issues and appeal to their constituents more. Furthermore, since candi- dates are running for public office, Americans have the right to know their donors. We should know the source of campaign funds. Another alternative would require that ordinary Americans insist their members of Congress pass legislation that requires dis- closure and spending limits. This would help set up a possible chal- lenge to Citizens United once the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court changes. Adding public pres- sure to the equation may force Congress to get this done. Clearly, there's interest in getting legislation passed, but there needs tobe a push and the public could be just that. Campaign finance has been one of many issues that Congress has continued to put on the back burn- er. The longer we putoff reform, the more it will hurt our government. In the near future, I hope we can get back to allowing candidates to focus on the important issues of the day as opposed to fundraising all over the country for several years. - Paul Sherman can be reached at pausherm@umich.edu A A a A .