4A - Monday, January 13, 2014 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com 4A Mnda, anary13 214 heMihign aiy -mihiandilco Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 - 1tothedaily@michigandaily.com MEGAN MCDONALD and PETER SHAHIN 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. FRMTHE DAILY Supporting student-athletes Closing the graduation gap requires personalized support for athletes recent study conducted by CNN reported "many (public university) students in the basketball and football programs could read only up to an eighth-grade level." Although the study doesn't include numbers from Michigan, the University's student-athletes have exhibited a history of poor academic performance. Graduation rates for Michigan student-athletes have traditionally been much lower than those of the general student body. In order to facilitate the improvement of academic performance among athletes, the University needs to provide more attentive and personalized support to its student-athletes. The senior shriek CNN reached out to 40 public universities, asking for the SAT, ACT and reading comprehension scores for its admitted student- athletes. On Jan. 7, 2014, CNN published its findings on the 21 schools that responded, and discovered that a majority of schools had "between 7 percent and 18 percent of revenue sport athletes who are reading at an elementary school level." Michigan was one of the schools that failed to provide information on its students. In 2013, the University's Federal Gradu- ation Rate - which measures the gradua- tion rate of freshmen within six years - for football players was 57 percent. The men's basketball team showed a FGR of 50 percent. Michigan's six-year graduation rate for all students - athlete or not - was 89.7 percent in 2012, good for fourth-best in the nation. Student-athletes are pressured into certain degrees, whether they actually find an interest in them or not. For example, within the Kinesiology Department, 60 slots are saved specifically for student-athletes. However, more often than not, athletes find themselves unprepared for the major and shift into general studies. In 2004, 49 percent of students completing general studies majors were being pursued by athletes. This major has no foreign language requirement, fewer graduation requirements and lacks concentration in one subject area, making it a vague and bland degree to pursue. Athletes should be given the same academic attention as any other student at the University, and be encouraged to pursue a major they find an interest in, not the onethey are pressured into. Focusing on the athlete's academic desires will allow student-athletes to achieve their greatest potential, both on the field and in the classroom. The University and NCAA should also consider relaxing the time and financial constraints put on student-athletes through the limitations of four-year scholarships and other restrictive rules that push students to graduate as quickly as possible. However, the negative trend between ath- letes and academics isn't something the Uni- versity, or anycollege, can solve. Mostofthese students enter the University unequipped for rigorous higher education, starting at the ele- mentary school level. The mere fact that some athletes are barelyliterate and notgraduating shows that the education system is failing to teach students, and is emphasizing too much on athleticism. Without reforms to the pres- ent education system, athletes will continue to be left in the dust. may be graduating in the spring. Or I may not be. It becomes less and less clear as I stare deep into the LSA Course Guide and try to decipher its dry recipes: one part, Upper Level Writing (didn't I already take that twice?), two parts Social SOPHIA Science and an USOW attempt to fit in a minor to taste. I wish my mom were here to set up a play date with my academic advisor. Roll over in bed, check Instagram. Why does everyone hate my genera- tion again? Georges Perec's Things: A Story of the Sixties is a tribute to another generation in which a hunger for material and immaterial things (experiences, clothes, prestige and likes) hid the emptiness of people's lives. Its perpetually frustrated characters are described as being caught in a web of their own vast desires. As I think about my own future, the idea of paralysis by sheer magnitude of aspiration first introduced to me through Perec's work comes to mind. I want to be a filmmaker. I want to make money. I want to help people. I want to move far away. I want to stay close to home. I want everything and act upon nothing. I envy mercilessly: cheapening what I have by peering over my neighbor's wall and covet- ingtheir summer internships. In the black silence of greed I wallow. I take online personality quizzes that are supposed to tell me what careers would be a good fit for my personal brand of incompe- tence. Apparently I'd make a great guidance counselor or carpenter. Maybe I should change majors. Iam invited to the Rhodes Schol- ars reception. Mistakenly, I think it is an informal information session so I go wearing a sweat suit and smelling like yesterday's pizza. As the wine and cheese pageantry cli- maxes the candidates for the vari- ous fellowships offhandedly list their accomplishments, I wonder what types of time management strategies go into winning research awards by day and fighting crime by night. What would these Sunday- best baby geniuses do if I lifted my coffee cup and poured its contents on my head? I leave and make a mental note to work harder to end global warming. They have jobs for people like me at specialty coffee shops and white- walled minimalist boutiques. I'll be excellent at greeting costum- ers with intelligent, noncommittal banter, allowing them to peruse their options with amused ease. My fellow employees will love me for my well-constructed work time playlists and caffeine-induced bursts of creative energy (which will result in elaborate window displays and behind-the-counter tomfoolery). I might even get a new boyfriend who plays bluesy guitar in a band that's blowing up on the local scene. He won't let me shoot his music videos because he has a friend who could do it better, but I'll take many Vines with perfect shot compositions. I won't have to live in my parents' basement because they'll let me use my old room with its bumbling mountains of camp photos and young adult literature. "You're still my little girl," my mom will say as she drops me off for work, "Don't forget to e-mail your resume to Dad's friend tonight." For now I let myself love this cocoon of a university, its Mid- western warmth, its self-assured machinery. Every day I walk its campus, my flaws and strengths become more evident; defeats scab over with time and experience while victories are cauterized by reality's harsh flame. This is a place that has made me feel incredibly proud of myself, yet small as hell, hellishly small, looking the wrong way through a telescope. Michigan is the place where I began to fathom how much someone my own age can accomplish. It is where I fumblingly began to understand the concept of self-discipline and the power of the uncool. Maybe I will end up as a professional coffee crafter, queen of the pour-over brew ... but Michi- gan keeps whispering that maybe I will accomplish something beyond my own vast imaginings, past Hol- lywood and Wall Street, around the curve of Madagascar, to the stars. I may be graduating in the spring. Or I may not be, For now I dance the Mambo No. 4, the fourth year, the senior shriek, hoping that the future is as bright as they say. - Sophia Usow can be reached at sophiaus@umich.edu. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS Kaan Avdan, Sharik Bashir, Barry Belmont, James Brennan, Rima Fadlallah, Eric Ferguson, Nivedita Karki, Jordyn Kay, Jesse Klein, Kellie Halushka, Aarica Marsh, Megan McDonald, Victoria Noble, Michael Schramm, Matthew Seligman, Daniel Wang, Derek Wolfe MAURA LEVINE I Dynasty disaster The GOP vs women... again T he new year is supposed to bring in rejuvenation. Con- sidering that everyone is one year older Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the family featured in the unusual and wildly popular TV show "Duck Dynasty," has started a controversy across the country. On Dec. 18, the television network A&E announced that the anti-gay statements Robertson made to GQ magazine were disappointing and that he would be suspended from the show "indefinitely." The country went wild. Supporters of the program claim he had the constitutional right to express his religious and personal beliefs without being kicked off the show, while A&E supporters said the network had every right to suspend him. In fact, since A&E is a private enterprise and the "Duck Dynasty" family signed a contract with them, the network was within its legal rights to suspend him, despite the petitions flying around the web to boycott them. Legal experts have confirmed that generally when people sign contracts with TV networks for a new show, a "morals" clause is included in the writing. Although the specifics of the Robertson contract aren't known, there likely is a morals clause in his contract as a matter of general practice. If so, this would prohibit Phil Robertson and other members of the show from using any language or performing any actions that are "insulting or denigrating." While that seems like a broad spectrum with a lot of gray area, these definitions are basically left up to the network to decide. In this case, A&E has determined that Robertson's statements do not stand for what the television program wants to promote. Throughout the GQ article, Robertson compared homosexuality to bestiality and included homosexuals in a category with "adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers ..." who are all denied access into heaven according to the Christian Bible. Former Republican vice presidential can- didate Sarah Palin of Alaska and Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, of Louisiana have both criticized A&E for being "intolerant" of Rob- ertson's religious beliefs, which they say are protected under the First Amendment. The politicians are not quite accurate in their cit- ing of the Constitution, however, because the First Amendment only protects citizens from encroachment by the government. It is not likelythat Robertson could find legal recourse due to any constitutional rights because his contract was signed with a private TV net- work under guidelines that he agreed to. Others may say that A&E is discriminating against Robertson's religious beliefs and his ability to express them in a free country, but this too would be hard to prove in court. According to Eugene Volokh, a professor at University of California, Los Angeles Law School, "It doesn't sound like they were taking him off the show because they don't like the fact that his message is religious; I think they don't like the fact that his message is anti- gay ... I imagine if an atheist on an A&E show said things that A&E thought disapproved of homosexuality, they would deal with it the same way." In other words, Robertson would have a hard time convincing anyone in the legal system, a judge or a jury, that A&E was discriminating against his religion. The problem was that the network was upset with his anti-gay and thus offensive comments, which he couched in a religious pretext. Considering that Robertson's comments were on such a hot-button political issue, this story has sparked controversy and garnered a fair amount of media attention. Even though many people are invested in his comments and the ongoing countrywide debate about religion and homosexuality isn't likely to be solved for a long time, this doesn't mean that anything illegal happened. Americans are apt to quote the First Amendment with little knowledge of its limitations and requirements for application. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want with no consequences. In this situation, Phil Robertson signed a contract with the private, non-government television network A&E, and when he made comments in violation of his contract, they were within their legal rights to suspend him per the contract he signed. Just because Robertson is famous doesn't mean he can say whatever he wants. As he is still connected with A&E, they "own" his words and have the ability to kick him off the show if his behavior is contrary to their morals. Maura Levine is an SA junior. and hopefully wiser, the new year should usher in new goals, insights and evolved ideas. One thing it should not bring in is the same old ideas of the past. 2013 was a PATRICK MAILLET rough year for the American government. From the NSA leaks to the government shutdown to the continuing debacle that is healthcare.gov, the American people lost a lot of faith in their government this past year. In particular, Americans got to see just how polarized Congress is. In 2013, the first year of the 113th Congress, a total of 65 laws were passed - the fewest of any single Congressional session on record. The House voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act 42 times while much-needed legislation on immigration reform, a farm bill and an act ensuring the creation of jobs all floundered and were unable to get out of committee. Instead of approaching the new year with optimism and potential bipartisanship, the House is sim- ply repeating the errors of the past year. Last week House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) released the congressional calendar for 2014. In an effort to maximize cam- paign abilities for the upcoming midterm election, the House will be in session just 97 days prior to Elec- tion Day, and 112 days altogether. In 2013, the House was in session 118 days before Election Day and 135 days altogether. Just when we thought the "do nothing Congress" had done as little as they possibly could, we discover that Congress can somehow stoop even lower. While the GOP is maintaining its strict philosophy that "a government that does nothing is a good government," the party has also renewed another one of its past initiatives: its war on women. Last Thursday, a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on H.R. 7, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." This subcommittee, consisting solely of 12 men, reviewed a bill that would "deny tax subsidies to women and small businesses who purchase health insurance plans that include abortion coverage." This bill would ban insurance coverage for abortion in all of the newly created state-level insurance marketplaces from the ACA while also forcing small businesses to pay additional taxes on health benefits for their employees if the company's insurer offers abortion coverage. The bill's only exceptions are for women who are victims of rape or incest, and for cases in which the life of the mother is at risk. This distinction of whether or not an abortion fits these exceptional circumstances will likely be decided by the IRS, meaning that a rape victim would potentially need to plead her case for an abortion to an IRS auditor. Don't let the name of the bill fool you. Taxpayer dollars are already banned from going toward abortions as reinforced by the Stupak Amendment of the ACA. The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" instead works to curtail women's rights by penalizing those who offer such types of insurance. But the GOP's war on women's health doesn't stop there. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) announced last month that he plans on attaching a rider to the appropriations pack- age that is likely facing a vote next week, which would allow employ- ers to refuse offering health insur- ance that covers contraception for moral reasons. As Ryan said on a talk radio interview last month, "I'm fighting for a conscience clause rider on appropriations because I'm very worried about religious freedom." Religious freedom is certainly something worth defending, and it is guaranteed to us in the First Amendment of the Constitution. But that same document establishes the judicial branch of government headed by the Supreme Court. The Court has made it clear time and again that a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. Insteadofappreciatingthe lawofthe land set forth by the Supreme Court, the GOP continues to do everything in its power to strip women of their legal rights. This battle is particularly rele- vant here in Michigan, as this state has now become one of the single most restrictive states for women's health. Last month the Republi- can-dominated state legislature approved a bill that bans both pub- lic and private insurers from cover- ing an abortion even in the cases of rape, incest or endangerment to the mother's life. Now a woman in Michigan will have to purchase an additional rider on her insurance policy if she wishes to proactively prepare for getting pregnant from rape. Unfortunately, other states are following Michigan's lead and working to pass similar laws. So for those of us who are ready to fight for women's health, get ready for another year filled with the same old arguments perpetuated by the same old list of characters. Instead of focusing on pressing issues that should be a goal of legislative action, the GOP has decided to continue its war on women in the coming year in order to rally its conservative base for the upcoming midterm elections. Another year will likely be wasted on partisanship. Although I'd love to say that 2015 might usher in an era when middle-aged white men stop making decisions about what women can do with their bodies, I'm not too optimistic. - Patrick Maillet can be reached at maillet@umich.edu.