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.