Monday, July 25, 2011 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com C, i tc-a DAM DANIEL SINGER I Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu Shirking duty a BETHANY BIRON EDITOR IN CHIEF MARK BURNS MANAGING EDITOR TEDDY PAPES EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial hoard. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. Raise the roof Debt ceiling shouldn't be used as a political tool The nation's debt ceiling is looming on the horizon, and as the U.S. moves closer to default there is little reas- surance from Capitol Hill. The U.S. is already in the throes of financial crisis, and the mere threat of not extend- ing the debt ceiling is causing economic instability. Congress needs to arrive at an agreement on spending, taxes and a new debt ceiling that doesn't only push the problems a few months down the road. Both Republicans and Democrats may have to make ideological sacrifices for a compromise - but with a national default as the alternative, a deal must be reached. Last week, the Daily published an article entitled "Police work to make campus safer for students." The title of the article is correct. The police are quite effective and laudable for their work in protecting our community. None the less, I find some of the DPS statements in the article disturbing. At many points in the article, DPS is represented as having the attitude that crimes are in part the victim's fault. For example, DPS spokes- woman Diane Brown is quoted as saying "Many of the assaults really are equally blamed on both sides." The author of the article summa- rizes the spokesperson's comments by saying that "Ultimately, (the spokesperson) said the issue lies in personal responsibility of University members in following the suggested safety measures." For a few reasons, DPS taking this stance is antithetical to the goal of having a safe community - the pri- mary goal of DPS. Regardless of who is actually to blame for these crimes, I hope DPS will avoid adopting this kind of stance in the future. I brought these concerns to the spokeswoman for DPS last week, and she brought to my attention that her comments were made before and were not meant to apply to the recent sexual assaults near campus. While I appreciate this clarification, my con- cerns apply to DPS's attitude toward all crimes against community mem- bers, regardless of their severity. If members of the community thought DPS blamed the victims in part for crimes, they are less likely to feel that DPS is on their side in keep- ing the community secure. This is likely to result in community mem- bers being less cooperative with DPS in ways that are detrimental to the operations of DPS and the safety of our community as a whole. A woman who has been assaulted, for example, may fail to report the assault if she feels that it's her fault. As we know from the National Crime Victimiza- tion Survey, many acts of violence (against women, in particular) go unreported, and a plausible expla- nation of part of that is the victim incorrectly feels like it is her fault. By making the kinds of statements quoted in the article, DPS seems to be reinforcing this attitude. Further, by instilling the attitude that victims are in part to blame for the crimes, DPS seems to be suggest- 4 ing that we shouldn't rely on them for our security. They instill the idea that because each person is alone in guaranteeing their safety, they are to blame for a crime. But as we learn from Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Rawls, we're better off entering into social arrangements, like forming DPS, so that we may work together as a whole community to secure our mutual safety. By expressing the attitude that it is each person for himself or herself, DPS seems to be renouncing its role in that plan. Finally, by suggesting that it is in part the victim's fault, DPS sup- presses the kind of creative and venturesome spirit that character- izes the Ann Arbor community. The reason we want a safe and secure society in the first place is so that we may go about our business, learning and living without being paralyzed by concerns of personal and prop- erty safety. The attitude expressed by DPS in the article suggests that for a member of the community to 4 be safe, they should not engage in some activities in which they may otherwise reasonably engage. A community member who wants to leave their apartment to skip around downtown listening to music on their earphones shouldn't. feel like they cannot because they're risking their personal safety. By DPS tell- ing someone that it is their fault that they are violated, DPS is essentially telling them to stay home. This is the same kind of chilling effect that ter- rorism has on a community. I applaud the continuing efforts of DPS in trying to secure our com- munity, butI hope that it will recon- sider the public stance it takes in the future. Suggesting ways in which we may better secure ourselves is help- ful, but suggesting that crimes occur because we fail to follow the advice is contrary to the goal of having a safe community. Daniel Singer is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Philosophy. Congress has taken advantage of the necessity of the debt ceil- ing's extension to make their political desires a reality. Rather than responding to the issue of entitlement reform or other spending issues with appropri- ate democratic measures, the debt ceiling is being used as leverage to force major changes. The spendingthat is pushingthe U.S. closer to the debt limit was provisioned and passed by Con- gress in the past, and Congress can make changes to spending in the future. A reform of this spending does not need to be rushed by the current debt limit deadline. Adjustments to bor- rowing, spending and revenue must be made carefully, without the weight of the debt ceiling pushing down on the process. Unfortunately, Republicans remain steadfast in their refusal to raise the ceiling, so negotia- tions must go forward. Both House Speaker John Boehner and many Republi- cans in Congress are demand- ing massive expenditure cuts, mainly along the lines of enti- tlements, and many of their concerns are legitimate. Social Security certainly needs to be revamped and current govern- ment spending is growing to precarious levels. The debate between Boehner and President Barack Obama has been going on for some time, but little progress has been made. It's not that there has been a paucity of deals or solutions being offered, but simply an unwillingness to compromise. While some Republicans are interested in making deals with the Demo- crats across the aisle, Boehner is not one of them. The problem with the discus- sions between Boehner and the White House is that he refuses to tackle the national deficit from the other side - with revenue increases. Raising taxes would doubly improve the deficit issue and help the nation grapple with its current financial woes. But Boehner refused on all counts to raise tax rates, even though Obama pledged to trim Medi- care, Medicaid and Social Secu- rity. It's hard to imagine how a deal could be reached with Republicans giving so little. As attempted parleys between Obama and Boehner continue to fail, the debt debate will most likely be resolved in Congress. Boehner and Congressional Republicans shouldn't con- tinue to wield the debt ceiling as a weapon. Reforms must be made, but the Republican's cur- rent strategy is far too volatile. Their muscling puts the coun- try's recovery at risk and may prevent both Republicans and Democrats from getting what they want. No matter what happens, the debt ceiling must receive an extension. And if a spending deal is required to do it, an effective one would include compromise and con- cessions from both parties. 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 University affiliation. Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu.