3A - Thursday, March 27, 2014
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
it idt1igan Bi
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
MEGAN MCDONALD
PETER SHAHIN and DANIEL WANG KATIE BURKE
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.
FR()M THE DAILY
An ethical investment
The 'U'must monitor the moral consequences of its financial commitments
ed by the Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, the
movement for the University of Michigan to investigate its
financial investments has received significant and well-deserved
attention on campus. In the last few weeks, SAFE has raised legitimate
concerns about the University's ethical standards for investment, calling
attention to alleged human rights violations by companies the University
has invested in. The activism led by SAFE and its allies is admirable, as
the group has brought to light disturbing questions about the University's
behavior. The University cannot allow the allure of profits to muddle the
school's ethical standard. As with all of its actions, the school must hold
itself to a fundamental morality when making financial investments.
No close friend left behind
Think about all the friends
you've made since getting
to college. Have a number?
Great. Now,
here's a harsh
reality: for every
12 friends you've
made, you'll ,
only statistically
remain friends .
with one of them. 2
For many MICHAEL
Michigan stu- SCHRAMM
dents, college is
the best oppor-
tunity to make friends. Newfound
independence, plus 40,000 people our
age, equals social interaction. We'll
never again live in a microcosm so
designed for creating relationships. So
we take advantage of our surround-
ings.We make friends in our residence
halls, classes, student clubs and Greek
communities. Some of these people
become our close friends, even our
best friends, but after we vacate our
dorms, finish classes and leave our
organizations, we too often leave our
friends along with these spaces. This
shouldn't happen. Of course, we can't
maintain every friendship, but we're
not maintaining many that we should.
Now, not everyone's terrible at
maintaining connections. It's entire-
ly possible that you easily stay in con-
tact, but statistics say we're generally
not. A recent study showed that we
have 396 friendships over the course
of our lives, yet we only maintain 33
at a time. Out of 33, only six are con-
sidered close friends. Here's another
statistic: seven out of 10 people iden-
tifylosing11outof12 friends as one of
their biggest regrets, so losing touch
isn't a habit we welcome or accept -
it's a legitimate problem.
Which makes sense.At our core,we
have an innate desire for companion-
ship.Wetryavoidingalonelystate,but
our constant busyness makes schedul-
ing friend time difficult. After enough
time, we lose touch with many once
close companions, and both parties
feeluncomfortable initiating a conver-
sation. Post-college life worsens the
situation. Moving, work and children
causeincreasedbusyness,meaningwe
have fewer opportunities to make new
friends. Couple this with our inability
to stay in touch, and we push needed
socialization on fewer people. This
toxic trend continues as we settle into
long-term relationships. Our roman-
tic partners increasingly engulf our
needs until our friendship circles nar-
row significantly - eventotally.
And though romantic partners
provide an otherwise unattainably
powerful friendship, they alone can-
not satisfy the human craving for
interaction. One reason is we exam-
ine our friends' personality traits and
incorporate the ones we most enjoy
into ourselves. As we become famil-
iar with each individual, we come to
understand their ingredients - what
makes them them. After spending
enough time together, we pinpoint
the traits we admire. Eventually, con-
scious or not, we merge these traits
into our identities. Maybe witnessing
your friend's level-headedness gives
you composure in stressful situa-
tions. Perhaps hearing a rationally
grounded yet emotional boyfriend
rant causes you to feel and express
your emotions. Regardless of which
traits you appreciate, no single per-
son demonstrates every admirable
characteristic. We need many people
with differing traits to be the best
person that we can be.
Friendships are more than a tool
forself-improvement. They're funda-
mental in gettingthe most out of life.
Outside of necessary alone time, life
is simply better enjoyed with people.
Favorite pastimes can be fun alone,
but oftentimes being with a friend
enriches these activities. I'm sure we
can all look to our last lunch, movie,
workout or night out and remem-
ber the highlights and memories
came from moments driven by social
interaction. Friends also invite us to
activities we would otherwise never
do. You may never realize that you
love grabbing coffee or taking walks
until a friend makes the suggestion,
but they may quickly become favorite
pastimes. You don't even need active
conversation to enjoy friend time;
even comfortable moments of silence
can feel enjoyable with a friend.
Whichever activity is chosen, hav-
ing an assortment of friends maximiz-
es these experiences' values. Going
to lunch with different people can be
drastically different, but you enjoy
each one. Partofthis enjoymentcomes
from having a wide variety of interac-
tions and personalities, and no matter
which friend you choose, activities
feel considerably more fun with life-
longfriendswho knowyou intimately.
But friendships aren't just use-
ful during good times; they aid us
in times of struggle, and we need a
variety of people to guide us through
problems. Different friends possess
different strengths. Some friends are
perfect for relationship advice while
others provethe perfectconfidant for
family issues. Different friends even
fill specific subcategories among dif-
ferent topics. Sometimes you just
need an emotional vent while other
times you need advice. At times you
need someone to validate your opin-
ion while occasionally you need your
friend to empathize and express the
frustration you're experiencing.
I'm sure it didn't take this column
for you to realize that friendships
are important. I think every student
agrees that great friends enhance
life, but if we understand this, why
don't we maintain them? They pro-
vide us with substantial benefits, yet
the effort we invest in them doesn't
equal their significance. This imbal-
ance likely stems from how rapidly
we befriend in college. After leaving a
residence hall, class or organization,
we quickly enter another where we
make other great friends - assum-
ing life will always occur like this
and enduring friendships will effort-
lessly last. However, similar to the
flawed logic of love's effortlessness,
friendships require attentive nurtur-
ing. And as we move, marry and have
children, maintaining friendships
- let alone making new ones - will
become increasingly difficult. As col-
lege students, we'll never have a bet-
ter opportunity to make friends.
So while you have the opportunity,
consciously develop friendships with
people you enjoy. Send the text mes-
sage about planning a lunch catch-up.
Or get coffee. Or play video games. Or
go work out. Or Skype them if you're
far away. It may feel uncomfortable
if you haven't spoken in months, but
receiving the "Yes! I've missed you,"
text trumps the potential awkward-
ness and occasional non-response. I
promise. If you consistently do this,
you and your friend will develop the
ability to remain close even without
speaking for awhile. That's important,
because life is busy and you can't get
lunch with 60 people every week, but
you can keep in touch with 60 people
you value.
But don't feel like you need 60
friends. Everyone's different, so
everyone requires a different num-
ber. If you only have 20 friends,
that's fine as long as you haven't lost
someone important for lack of keep-
ing in touch. Whether or not you
remember, if you really cared about
someone, you had a reason, and see-
ing them again will likely remind you
of their significance. These people
deserve a place in your life. Though
quality is better than quantity, qual-
ity and quantity are better than just
quality because progressing through
life is better when done with many
people you've known for a long time.
Sharing your life and creating memo-
ries are always better with people
you care about, or more importantly,
who care about you.
- Michael Schramm can be
reached at mschramm@umich.edu.
Last Tuesday, the Central Student
Government voted to indefinitely postpone a
vote on Assembly Resolution 3-050 proposed
by SAFE. The resolution called for CSG to
petition the Board of Regents to create an
ad hoc committee to investigate University
investments in companies accused of
violating human rights, including General
Electric, Heidelberg Cement, Caterpillar Inc.
and United Technologies. The CSG Student
Assembly voted to indefinitely postpone a
decision on the resolution.
CSG's refusal to vote on the resolution
was a failure in the institution of student
representation. A student government has
a responsibility to listen to consider the
demands of the student body. The student
government is not bound by any requirement
to only represent a majorityvoice on campus.
In fact, as the representative body, CSG is
obligated to highlight the perspective of
minority and underrepresented groups. A
blind endorsement of the majority prerogative
is to create a dangerously homogenous voice.
The University of Michigan is a diverse
institution that values all points of view, and
the student government should act as such.
By refusing to even allow a robust debate
on the proposed resolution, the CSG Student
Assembly effectively ignored the very
constituency they were elected to represent.
Furthermore, by enacting an indefinite
postponement and thus denying future
dialogue, CSG not only failed to listen to
students, but effectively silenced SAFE and
the 37 student organizations in support, a
significant student voice on campus. With
CSG presidential election polls closing
tonight, the next administration needs to
take steps to ensure that this injustice does
not happen again.
The University's investment strategies
must adhere to a code of ethics. Currently the
school has an existing President's Advisory
Committee on Labor Standards and Human
Rights in which the University vests power
to protect human rights and labor standards
in all agreements involving University
licensing. It protects several areas of human
rights, including labor rights, women's rights
and health and safety standards. While
their commitment to social justice wherever
the University logo appears is admirable,
similarly high standards should be applied to
University investments. .
As a public institution, created by a
government that supposedly charges itself
with the pursuance of human rights, the
Universityhas aresponsibility to continuously
monitor all investments that may be
contradictory to its values. By investing in
companies that are engaging in human
rights violations, the University is complicit
in those actions. Failure to monitor ethical
issues surrounding its investments indicates
detrimental moral values and a solely profit-
motivated mindset on the University's part.
As a state-funded institution, the University
must be ethically proactive in all of its actions.
Failure to adhere to these ethical guidelines
is a direct contradiction of the University's
commitment to social justice issues.
In order for the University to create
an ad hoc committee, three conditions
must be met. According to the CFO's
statement on University investment, there
must be a general campus consensus, the
organization, industry or entity in question
has demonstrated behavior antithetical to
the core mission and values of the University
and these bodies can be proven to be
responsible for their implications. However,
these requirements are unnecessary. These
red tape barriers allow the University to
keep investing in companies that don't fit our
ethical and moral standards. The University
should always have a committee reviewing
whether or not organizations, industries or
entities we invest in comply with ethical and
moral standards - not just when they have
already significantly violated human rights.
In doing this, the University would not be
breaking new ground. Stanford University's
Statement on Investment Responsibility
states its trustees are responsible for taking
into account ethical factors when setting
investment policies and voting practices to
address allegations of "substantial social
injury" while investing, or considering an
investment in corporations. The University
should have a strict code of ethics in place as
demonstrated by Stanford, and ensure that
it carefully evaluates how its endowment is
being spent. Investment decisions not only
represent what virtues the administration
supports, but also reflect the interests of the
students and alumni. Donations and tuition
make up a significant amount of endowment .
and not letting the students or alumni have a
say in, or for that matter even suggest to look
into social implications of the University's
investments, is in itself an act of undermining
their rights.
Columbia and Harvard University
each also have an Advisory Committee
on Shareholder Responsibility comprised
of four faculty members, four current
students and four alumni. These committees
formulate recommendations on what
social, environmental and political policies
that shareholders should support. This
information is then relayed to other
committees who determine proxies on
social issues. The committees occasionally
investigate investment and divestment
policies as well.
In 2009, several students advocated
for the creation of a similar group at the
University without success. It is vital that
the University establishes a system similar to
the ones enacted by Harvard and Columbia.
The committee must directly acknowledge
the interests of the student body and alumni
while making investments, especially
considering its vast student body and the
diverse communities it encompasses.
Just as this University has grown from a
backwater college in the forested Midwest
to one of the world's leading academies of
thought and action, so too has our inviolable
moral duty. We commend any student group
that calls on this institution to live up to
the high ethical standard that it sets for its
students, and indeed itself, in so many other
areas. Ifnothingelse, SAFE and its allies have
re-centered the campus conversation on the
balance between the University's fiduciary
and moral imperatives. Any company
complicit or duplicitous in human rights
violations is unworthy of our investment and
the many exemplary individuals who have
helped buildthe endowment over the course of
generations. To that end, the University needs
to institutionalize a permanent mechanism
to evaluate complaints against companies
that are suspected of doing business with
unethical regimes. A committee composed
of faculty, students, administrators, alumni
and community members can dutifully and
thoroughly evaluate these claims and publicly
recommend to the Board of Regents whether
or not these companies merit divestment or
other sanctions. Until such a committee is
established, willful blindness will continue to
be a poor substitute for defining leadership on
one of the pressing issues of our time.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Barry Belmont, Edvinas Berzanskis, Nivedita Karki, Jacob Karafa,
Aarica Marsh, Megan McDonald, Victoria Noble, Michael Schramm,
Matthew Seligman, Paul Sherman, Allison Raeck, Linh Vu, Daniel Wang
SAM DICKSTEIN AND GREG TERYNNV
Stand with FORUM
Now, more than ever, students
are frustrated with Central Student
Government. Some feel their voices
are not being heard, others are con-
cerned that the current administra-
tion only has a specific demographic
of students in mind and a vast per-
centage of students have no idea
what CSG has been working on this
past year. This administration's ini-
tiatives included a costly bus route at
the expense of student organization
funding and a changed ticket policy
this year. But there is much more to
CSG. Or at least there should be.
CSG needs immediate redirection
to becomea relevant body and fulfill
its purpose of serving the students.
Our Central Student Government
has great potential to be a unifying
organization for the varying per-
spectives on campus, a resource for
students and groups lookingto influ-
ence improvements at Michigan and
a place where all students feel their
voice is not only germane, but cher-
ished.
It's that potential that led us to
FORUM. A former chair for an oppo-
sition party, seniors with no tangible
stake in the outcome and students
from all different perspectives and
demographics - these are the cam-
pus leaders that make up FORUM.
Over and over again you've heard
us say we're out to empower stu-
dents, creating a more open dialogue
at Michigan - and we mean it. It
started with the open and transpar-
ent way we recruited our candidates
so that everyone who wanted to join
had a fair shot. But it doesn't end
there - even if we win this election.
An open dialogue mustbe constantly
evolving. It shows that we're always
thinking, always tweaking our ideas
based on your input.
The past few weeks we've been
on the Diag and at Pierpont Com-
mons asking students "What do you
want a FORUM for?" in your stu-
dent government. The response has
been impressive and overwhelm-
ing. Students want more trans-
parency within CSG, with many
students noting the fact that pieces
of legislation passed by this year's
assembly are not even accessible on
the CSG website, a clear example of
the current administration's failure
to reach the students. They want
increased security and safety at the
University, more sustainability ini-
tiatives and a more open and inclu-
sive campus climate among many
other ambitious platforms and
causes championed.
We've delivered on some of those
things already. We've lobbied Uni-
versity Health Services for online
appointment-making. It's now a real-
ity. We're working with the Univer-
sity Administration to reform the
Race and Ethnicity requirement to
become more relevant and construc-
tive. We've had FORUM rep collabo-
ration in everything from initiatives
for increased minority enrollment,
institutional expansion of voter reg-
istration and broadened access to
contraceptives on campus in residen-
tial halls and at UHS.
We believe in Carly Manes, Pavi-
tra Abraham and the representa-
tive candidates we have selected as
a group that can come together to
finally have the constructive, mean-
ingful campus dialogue that has been
missing from the current govern-
ment. This group is united because
the status quo is not sufficient for this
student body.
We are not a monolith; our party
is a collection of diverse perspec-
tives. But what we have in com-
mon, what binds us, is our passion
for improving the daily lives of
all students, not a select few. And
that's why we stand with FORUM.
Join us on March 26 and 27 at
vote.umich.edu.
Sam Dickstein is is the FORUM's
Party Chair and Greg Terynn is
FORUM's Communications Director.
INTERESTED IN CAMPUS ISSUES? POLITICS? SEX, DRUGS AND ROCK'N'ROLL?
Check out The Michigan Daily's editorial board meetings. Every Sunday and
Wednesday at 6pm, the Daily's opinion staff meets to discuss both Univer-
sity and national affairs and write editorials. E-mail opinion@michigandaily.
com to join in the debate.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be
fewer than 300 words and must include the writer's full name and Univer-
sity affiliation. We do not print anonymous letters. Send letters to tothe-
daily@michigandaily.com.
I