4A - Monday, October 21, 2013
;
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
4A - Monday, October 21, 2013 The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom
& }t id~pan 4atimy
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 RO0M T HE D A ILY
Survey says...
Athletic Department should seek student input proactively
n Wednesday, the Central Student Government released a survey
of student responses to the general admission seating policy for
football. The survey contained appropriate and straightforward
questions such as, "were you supportive of the new seating policy at the
time of its announcement?" and "after 4 games, are you supportive of the
new policy?" The results seemed representative of the current campus
attitude about the changes, as the majority of responses are unfavorable.
While it's much appreciated that CSG is taking the initiative to communi-
cate the student body's opinions to the Athletic Department, the Athletic
Department is, once again, not doing very much to reach out to a substan-
tial part of their customer base - students.
Why investing in women helps all
ast week, Nobel Peace Prize
nominee Malala Yousafzai
got some Facebook fame as
the video of her
interview with
Jon Stewart
circulated. For
those of you who
missed it, Malala
is a 16-year-old
Pakistani girl
who has become LISSA
a key activist KRYSKA
promoting edu-
cation, especial-
ly for women and, girls. She's from
the Swat Valley region of Pakistan,
where the Taliban come in and out
of power and have, at times, banned
girls from school. In response to her
outspoken support for girls' edu-
cation, Taliban members shot her
in the head in a 2012 assassination
attempt. Luckily, she survived.
After the government shutdown
and run-up to the debt ceiling, I
thought it would be nice to write
about a cause that everyone can
get behind - education, especially
for girls. The benefits when girls
are educated are vast and improve
conditions not only for women, but
for everyone. That's why women's
education around the world is a
priority not just for non-govern-
mental organizations, but for the
World Bank as well.
Girls and women around the
world are disproportionately more
likely to be uneducated. According
to United Nations Educational, Sci-
entific and Cultural Organization,
"almost two-thirds of the world's
972 million illiterate adults are
women." And according to She's
The First, a nonprofit that sponsors
girls' educations internationally,
only 20 percent of girls in develop-
ing countries finish primary school.
Women who are educated tend
to have fewer children with lower Summers once said, "investment
mortality rates. The women them- in girls' education may well be the
selves are more likely to survive highest return investment available
childbirth, as they tend to get mar- in the developing world," it's esti-
ried and have children at an older mated that not even two cents of
age than their uneducated coun- every dollar spent on development
terparts. They are more success- goes toward girls' education. The
ful in protecting themselves and United States spends around $37
their children against HIV and billion on foreign assistance each
AIDS, and they are also more likely year - about 1 percent of the federal
to make sure that their children budget. Much of that money is spent
receive an education. on military -aid to other countries,
In addition to the health ben- especially in the Middle East. And
efits for women and their children, while security is definitely impor-
women who go to school are more tant, I think that a higher invest-
likely to be able to work. When ment in education, especially for
more women enter the labor force, girls, is the best tool that we have to
the economy is rewarded. Educated fight extremism over the long-term.
women earn higher wages: Forbes Malala, who goes to school and who
estimates that "an extra year of pri- received an education in politics
mary school increases girls' wages and activism from her father, has
by 10 percent to 20 percent, and brought the issue of the Taliban
an extra year of secondary school in Pakistan into the international
increases them by 15 percent to 25 spotlight far more effectively than
percent." This any UN official
allows them to ever could.
better support What it
themselves and W hen more girls comes down
their families to is that when
and is especially are educated, more girls are
important for educated, we
single moth- We all win. all win. And
ers. Educating that's why it's
women increases important to
economic growth support girls
for the whole country: According to like Malala in attaining an educa-
the Council on Foreign Relations, tion as well as advocating for a uni-
"a study of South Asia and Sub- versal right to education.
Saharan Africa found that from It's a stressful time of year, with
1960 to 1992, more equal education midterms and projects piling up.
between men and women could I'm glad that there are people like
have led to nearly 1 percent higher Malala out there to remind me
annual per capita GDP growth." that the education I'm receiving
This means that educating girls is a huge privilege, and while that
is a strong strategy for promoting doesn't make studying for mid-
national economic development. terms any more fun, it does put
But while there seems to be broad things into perspective:
consent that, as former U.S. Secre-
tary of the Treasury and chief econ- - Lissa Kryska can be reached
omist for the World Bank Lawrence at Ikkryska@umich.edu.
I
Michigan adopted first come, first served
seating this year, and many schools in the
country have similar systems. The Athletic
Department wanted the student section to
be full earlier on in the games, as students
previously have been able to show up late
in the past without losing their seats. While
thatgoal is understandable, the student body,
however, is less than happy with its applica-
tion. Upperclassmen in particular are feel-
ing shorted as they now have to stand in line
for long periods of time to get their desired
seats. Furthermore, season ticket prices
were raised from $205 to $295 - 23.08 per-
cent per home game.
The Athletic Department claims that
they'll be reviewing ticketing policies with
consideration of student feedback before the
2014 football season. But why was the survey
- which has prompted the dialogue - a proj-
ect of CSG? While CSG should act as a bridge
between students and the University, it isn't
necessarily their job to get feedback for the
Athletic Department.
With the basketball season approaching,
student discontent of the policy will only
transfer over to the new similar system for
basketball. Again, the Athletic Department
announced a change in student ticketing
policies long after students purchased tick-
ets; student input was barely present. Stu-
dents who paid for what they expected to be
the same game day experience they've had in
the past were cut short of just that. Basket-
ball tickets were oversold by 33 percent, forc-
ing students to show their "commitment" as
fans by coming to games in order to hold their
spots in the stands for future games. Again,
even if this change was made with an honest
goal of a higher-spirited game atmosphere,
students shouldn't have bought tickets under
false pretenses.
While the recent CSG survey gives us
insight to student ticketing preferences, sub-
sequent surveys may be most helpful before
athletic policies are set. Maybe students
should receive a survey now concerning their
opinions on the basketball ticketing system,
rather than halfway through the season, so
that feedback can be addressed before prob-
lems even occur. And maybe it should come
from the Athletic Department itself - the
ones who are actually responsible for the
changes.
YEAH, WE'VE GOT A TWITTER
Keep up with columnists, read Daily editorials, view cartoons and join in the debate.
Check out @michigandaily and Facebook.com/MichiganDaily to get updates on Daily opinion content.
CARLY MANES| VIEWPOINT
How we stop abortion stigma
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Kaan Avdan, Shank Bashir, Barry Belmont, James Brennan, Eli Cahan,
Eric Ferguson, Jordyn Kay, Jesse Klein, Melanie Kruvelis, Maura Levine,
Aarica Marsh, Megan McDonald, Victoria Noble, Adrienne Roberts,
Paul Sherman, Daniel Wang, Derek Wolfe
KRISTIN MANDRINK| VIEWPI
SNAP should stay
On Sept. 19 the U.S. House of Representa-
tives approved legislation that will cut fund-
ing for the food stamp program and send
millions of Americans deeper into poverty.
The Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity
Act proposes cuts of $39 billion over the next
10 years. The steep cuts will affect 47-million
Americans, and just under half of those are
children. Because of the high rates of pover-
ty, food insecurity and child hunger, serious
action needs to be taken to change the course
of this legislation.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program - commonly called food stamps -
is a federal aid program that supports low-
income individuals and families by providing
financial assistance for the purchase of food.
According to the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, which runs the program, more than 15
percent of the country receives food assis-
tance with 83 percent of recipients consisting
of children, seniors and disabled individuals.
Currently, more than 80 percent of SNAP
households live in poverty. In Michigan,
one in six residents receives SNAP benefits
and will see the per-person-per-meal dollar
amount cut to $1.40.
The SNAP program has been beneficial
for many reasons. In the face of historically
high levels of unemployment during the
2008 recession, the program has been cred-
ited with keeping many people out of severe
levels of food insecurity and poverty. The
SNAP program lifted more than four-million
Americans above the poverty line in 2012. In
addition to direct effects, research has shown
that children who have early exposure to the
program have better outcomes metabolically,
economically and educationally.
Cutting billions of dollars of funding from
a major program appears to save money on
the surface, but there are many hidden con-
sequences. Giving participants less money to
spend results in slowing economic growth, as
a result of cutting consumption. In addition
to slow economic growth, experts believe
jobs will be affected. A study from the Uni-
versity of Massachusetts estimates that for
each $1-billion reduction, 13,718 jobs will be
eliminated. Lastly, projections show that as
the economy recovers, program spending will
decrease and, by 2019, will return to levels -
as a share of GDP - that it was at during 1995.
SNAP is necessary for our country, but I'm
not blind to its shortcomings. Currently, there
are no nutritional standards on the types of
food recipients are to purchase. Because the
amount per person is so low, many families
can only purchase cheap and unhealthy foods,
which ultimately can contribute to disease
and illness putting more strain on the system.
The Institute of Medicine and the National
Research Council released a report suggesting
ways in which the USDA should define adequa-
cy goals and ways to reach them.
Another issue commonly referred to
is fraud, such as when SNAP benefits are
exchanged for cash. Though it does exist,
there have been extensive efforts by the
USDA to control fraud, with statistics show-
ing one cent per dollar is trafficked. The
USDA investigates and disqualifies retail-
ers if they don't adhere to requirements. In
addition, many states are working in con-
junction with the USDA to implement anti-
fraud initiatives.
It's easy to look at and hear about a system
with a stereotype of abuse and dismiss the
latest cuts. But I challenge you' to research
the benefits of the SNAP program and the
millions of people it provides for. Influencing
Congress to protect SNAP is not only favor-
able for the poor, the elderly and the disabled,
but also for the rest of the people in this coun-
try who will benefit from a growing economy
and a failsafe should they ever find them-
selves in economic hardship.
Kristin Mandrink is a graduate
student in the School of Social Work.
One in three women will have an
abortion in her lifetime. For all of
the talk about abortion in U.S. poli-
tics, we never seem to talk about
the fact that abortion is a com-
mon experience among American
women. But we don't just talk about
abortion in America - we legislate
it; regulate it, define what it is and
isn't, and what it should and should
not mean. So, if abortion is so com-
mon in the United States, and we
are talking about it all of the time,
how come no one knows how preva-
lent it is?
As record numbers of legislation
regulating abortion procedures,
providers and facilities, conversa-
tions about abortion as a political
tool overshadow the fact that hav-
ing an abortion is a common and
personal experience, thus decon-
textualizing abortion from the cir-
cumstances that make it necessary.
When you hear about abortion,
you often hear about Texas, Ohio,
Kansas and the multitude of other
state legislatures that are regulat-
ing abortion care. Anti-abortion
legislation has flooded our federal
and state legislatures in record
numbers in the past several years.
According to the Guttmacher Insti-
tute, in 2011 alone, more than 92
anti-abortion laws were passed in
24 states. It often seems as if Con-
gress cares more about outlawing
abortion than it does balancing the
national budget or creating jobs.
The current conversation about
abortion in the United States
revolves around Rick Santorum
sound bites and fetal-pain theories.
The national conversations that
politicians are having about abor-
tion are very different from the
conversations we are -or too often,
aren't - having with our friends,,
our families and our communities.
For the past several years - and
ever since the legalization of abor-
tion in 1973 really - abortion hasn't
been about our experiences and the
role abortion plays in our everyday
lives; it has been about political ide-
ologies and re-election campaigns.
So, if you didn't know that one in
three women will have an abortion
in her lifetime, don't be surprised..
Our national rhetoric around abor-
tion access has nothing to do with
the stories of the individuals hav-
ing abortions and everything to do
with politicians who are committed
to legislating it.
Now, we're not pointing fingers,
and we're not placing blame. This
isn't about labels or "taking sides" on
the issue of abortion. Abortion and
our feelings about abortion don't fit
into two categories, and neither do
our experiences. The 1 in 3 Campaign
Week of Action revolves around
sharing abortion stories and work-
ing to change the conversation and
culture in the United States around
abortion. The policies our represen-
tatives are making, as well as the
media representation of this highly
politicized issue, fail to accurately
reflect our experiences.
One in three women will have an
abortion in her lifetime.
These are real peoples' lives.
These are women in our commu-
nity. One in three isn't just a sta-
tistic - it's a representation of all
the women in your life who have
had abortions but have not been
given the opportunity to talk about
it. Every time an anti-abortion law
is brought to the floor, every time
a group of anti-abortion activists
stands in front of a clinic entrance
with signs that shame individuals
who have abortions, we are failing
one-third of our nation's women.
We are effectively telling women
who have had abortions, and
women who are going to have abor-
tions - outlawing abortion doesn't
stop abortions from happening -
that their experience is shameful,
andthatthe choicetheymade about
their pregnancy is wrong. This is
the stigma, and whenwe stigmatize
abortion in this way, we are silenc-
ing a whole lot of people.
That's why, starting today, with
the 1 in 3 Campaign Week of Action,
we are changing the conversation.
The 1 in 3 Campaign is about letting
individuals who have had abortions
.tell their stories without-the shame
and stigma that currently surrounds
the abortion conversation. We are
reclaiming our voices, and telling
our stories so that woman around the
nation can tell theirs too. Not only do
we hope that the sharing of personal
abortion stories finally puts an end
to the stigmatization of abortion and
women who have abortions, but we
hope it mobilizes abortion support-
ers to advocate for safe, legal and
affordable abortion care.
This Thursday at 8 p.m. in the
Pendleton Room of the Michigan
Union, Students for Choice will be
holding its first annual 1 in 3 Abor-
tion Speak Out. The 1 in 3 Abortion
Speak Out is an opportunity for
individuals in the campus com-
munity who have had abortions to
share their experience in a safe,
empowering and supportive space.
Although everyone is welcome and
encouraged to join us, only individ-
uals who have had abortions will
have the opportunity to speak.
Now that you know one in three
women in, America will have an
abortion in her lifetime, it's time we
stop the shame and stigma.
Carly Manes is a
Public Policy junior.
9
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
66"
The deterioration of the bus system is not
the drivers' fault. We are going beyond the
duty required of us. I want to let
(passengers) know it's not our fault.
- Fred Westbrook, president of Detroit's Amalgamated Transit Union Local 26 told the Associated Press.
Detroit's public buses service is canceled Monday, citing a "sick-out" protest from unionized drivers.
0
0
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
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.