Opinion

JENNIFER CALFAS

EDITOR IN CHIEF

AARICA MARSH 

and DEREK WOLFE 

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

LEV FACHER

MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 

the University of Michigan since 1890.

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.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Page 4A — Wednesday, January 7, 2015

A

lthough the season of giving 
recently ceased, the need 
for donations of one of the 

most 
necessary 

resources 
remains constant. 
Blood 
circulates 

unceasingly 
through 
our 

veins, 
providing 

our bodies with 
components 
essential 
for 

survival. 
Yet 

dependence upon 
this combination 
of cells is overlooked until dire 
circumstances lead to a deficiency. 
Due to a tremendous ability to 
replenish it, we can donate blood 
to individuals in drastic need. The 
demand, however, still outweighs the 
supply. Therefore, blood collection 
agencies 
should 
unquestionably 

maximize the entire population of 
eligible donors. Doing so requires 
banishing unfair deferral practices. 
Though 
the 
Food 
and 
Drug 

Administration recently announced 
plans for the upheaval of a ban on 
donations from homosexual and 
bisexual men, its revised policy 
remains far from inclusive.

According to the American Red 

Cross, less than 10 percent of eligible 
donors give blood, but roughly 
38 percent of the United States 
population is currently deemed 
eligible. I, for numerous years, 
have constituted a part of this tiny 
percentage of donors. I’ve both 
worked and participated in blood 
drives, and I still donate annually. 
Unlike some of my more squeamish 
counterparts, I’m not bothered by 
needles or the sight of blood.

I’ve also been lucky — consider-

ing my astoundingly low iron lev-
els — to have consistently met all of 
the requirements. Friends, family 
and classmates were deferred from 
donating. Some didn’t meet the mini-
mum weight requirement. Some pos-
sessed low iron levels, while others 

were unable to donate due to recently 
traveling abroad or getting a tattoo. 
However, falling under the status of 
“men who have had sex with men” 
(MSM) was, by far, the most discrim-
inatory reason why those close to me 
were deferred. Even today, friends of 
mine — some who are far healthier 
than me and are probably capable 
of making double red cell donations 
— would be unjustly deferred on the 
basis of sexuality.

Previously, a ban upheld by the 

FDA — initiated in 1993 — prohib-
ited “men who have had sex with 
other men, at any time since 1977” 
from donating blood. On Dec. 23, the 
agency proposed to remove the pol-
icy and instead institute a 12-month 
deferral period. Gay and bisexual 
men, under the revised program, 
could now donate blood, but there’s 
a stipulation. In order to remain 
eligible donors, the men must not 
have engaged in sexual activity with 
another man for a year.

Eliminating 
the 
heavily 
dis-

criminatory and archaic prohibi-
tion on donations from the gay and 
bisexual community undoubtedly 
demonstrates an attempt at embrac-
ing equality and good intentions to 
amend issues. However, good inten-
tions don’t suffice. The new deferral 
period is meant to increase the pool 
of eligible donors. By finally grant-
ing bisexual and gay men the ability 
to donate, the prospective expansion 
is expected — according to a study 
by the University of California, Los 
Angeles — to raise the current blood 
supply by two to four percent.

For the University and other 

institutions holding extensive annu-
al blood drives — such as the Blood 
Battle — the inclusion of this student 
demographic would lead to more 
successful efforts and more patients 
receiving crucial aid. However, the 
new policy stigmatizes individuals 
in a manner similar to the previous 
restriction. Men from the gay and 
bisexual communities are eligible 
to donate only if they don’t possess 

active sex lives. Even if the student 
or individual is in a monogamous, 
responsible relationship, they still 
will be denied. No identical policy 
requires heterosexual individuals to 
remain celibate for a year in order to 
donate. Rather, the policy suggests 
gay and bisexual individuals must 
alter an aspect of their relation-
ships that remains unquestioned for 
heterosexuals. According to a state-
ment by FDA, the rationale for the 
new restriction is that “compelling 
scientific evidence is not available 
at this time to support a change to 
a deferral period less than one year 
while still ensuring the safety of the 
blood supply.”

Even if testing methods for HIV 

were inefficient in earlier decades, 
technology is far more advanced at 
discovering infections within the 
blood — discerning issues within a 
matter of nine days. To further ensure 
no problems arise, each sample of 
blood is examined — regardless of the 
donor’s gender. The same measures 
utilized to ensure the safety of the 
blood donated by sexually active 
heterosexual individuals can be used 
for gay and bisexual donors.

Many countries utilize a similar 

deferral, but others collect blood on 
a case-by-case basis. If thoroughness 
in guaranteeing safety is the concern 
supporting this method of collection, 
then institute the deferral period 
on a very limited basis as definitive 
research is conducted to determine 
the magnitude of any potential risks 
and to promptly revise the policy to 
be more realistic — by focusing upon 
individual donations instead of ste-
reotyping. Although it demonstrates 
some progress, the deferral is unnec-
essarily discriminatory. Blood drives 
are meant to aggregate life-saving 
resources. 
Donation 
regulations 

shouldn’t unfairly require one’s abil-
ity to do a good deed to be dictated by 
their sexuality.

— Melissa Scholke can be 

reached at melikaye@umich.edu.

Another drop of revision

MELISSA 
SCHOLKE

Edvinas Berzanskis, Regan Detwiler, Devin Eggert, David Harris, Rachel John, 

Jordyn Kay, Aarica Marsh, Victoria Noble, Michael Paul, Allison Raeck, Melissa Scholke, 

Michael Schramm, Matthew Seligman, Mary Kate Winn, Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

A new year, a new Schlissel? 

I

, 
for 
one, 
have 
been 
thoroughly 

underwhelmed by University President 
Mark Schlissel since his installment 

as the 14th president of the University of 
Michigan. To be fair, I was underwhelmed at the 
announcement of his presidency last January, 
prior to public acceptance of the job. Based on 
his background in higher education, his visible 
identities and his expressed intent in taking the 
most highly esteemed position at this university, 
I didn’t see what he could bring to a campus such 
as ours. For much of the University community, 
the 2013-2014 academic year was one of 
community upheaval and nationally publicized 
campus turmoil. I wasn’t sure what expertise 
Schlissel could bring to our campus community 
that would help address the institutional fault 
lines and communal fractures that were so 
clearly in need of attention, resources and just 
blatant recognition.

Six months in to his official term as the 

supreme power of all things Michigan (empha-
sis on the block ‘M’), I still haven’t quite figured 
out what exactly that special something is. In 
the past six months, Schlissel has really let me 
down. Not that I expected anything outside of 
the administrative status quo from him, but 
even with the tragically low expectations I had, 
Schlissel had some pretty impressive moments of 
blatant disregard for the student communities he 
was hired to represent. Ranging from his com-
ments on student-athletes as not all academically 
“qualified,” to his dismissal of student demands 
in relation to sexual assault on campus, he hasn’t 
exactly proven his commitment to the various 
student communities.

The good news, though, is that Schlissel is only 

six months into his inaugural term. He still has 
plenty of time to really prove his commitment 
to students and show us that he is more than an 
administrative mouthpiece — that he is an educa-
tor committed to investing in all students, in all of 
their interests and in all of their identities; that he 
is committed to actualizing the concept of “diver-
sity” in all of its forms, not just using the word in 
public forms. So as I write my own resolutions 
for the New Year, I have decided to take it upon 
myself to write a couple for Schlissel as well.

1) Uplift Student Voices
In a statement published by the Daily on 

Nov. 30, Schlissel responded to a list of student 
demands regarding sexual assault on campus 
by saying, “The one thing I will object to, which 
drives me a little nutty, is framing things as 
demands. I think that makes it really difficult to 
have discussions.”

This statement dismisses and silences stu-

dents’ feelings and experiences with sexual 
assault on campus, as well as their efforts toward 

change. It shows a blatant disregard for some 
survivors’ and allies’ frustration with the cur-
rent administrative dialogue and action around 
assault at the University.

In December, University of Pennsylvania 

President Amy Gutmann joined students at 
her annual holiday party as they staged a “die-
in” after the no-indictment verdict in both the 
Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases. This is 
the type of administrative action that empow-
ers students. Regardless of how Gutmann feels 
about the verdicts, she was showing solidar-
ity for her students and affirming their feelings. 
While Schlissel didn’t have to agree with any of 
the demands, he needed to affirm the feelings of 
those who wrote them, not mock his students, 
both survivors and their allies.

2) Stop “Listening,” Start Engaging
I really do commend Schlissel on the dozens 

of campus conversations he has held with stu-
dents over the past six months. It’s critical for any 
administrator making decisions on behalf of stu-
dents to actually meet with the students whose 
lives their decisions impact. But there is a differ-
ence between simply listening to and actually 
engaging with student concerns. And from what 
I have personally experienced and heard from 
my peers, there has been a lot of selective listen-
ing and very minimal active engagement.

While recognizing six months is a very short 

period of time, it’s inexcusable to be in several 
intentional meetings with the president and not 
once have him, or anyone on his behalf, take a 
single note on the “student feedback and input” 
that was requested. During numerous fireside 
chats (conversations where invited “campus 
leaders” met with Schlissel for an hour to talk 
about campus concerns), not once did Schlissel 
write down a student concern, publicly acknowl-
edge and engage a student grievance or (to my 
knowledge) schedule follow-up meetings with 
any of the students in those meetings.

So for the next convergence of “student lead-

ers” that Schlissel plans to hold, it would be wise 
for him to make a sincere effort to actively engage 
with the invited students. This means doing 
homework about who is in the room, what kinds 
of experiences have students in the room had and 
what work have they already done on the initia-
tives being discussed.

While I may not be his biggest fan, it’s one of 

my resolutions in the New Year to not freeze peo-
ple in time, and to allow others the space to learn 
and grow as I have been afforded.

So, happy New Year, President Schlissel. Let’s 

make this one better than the last.

— Carly Manes can be reached 

at manes@umich.edu.

The economics of oil

Y

ou’re going to get groceries, either in 
your car or in the passenger seat of your 
friend’s car. You notice the car’s gas 

tank is on empty, and either 
you or your friend drives the 
vehicle into a gas station. 
You expect to spend around 
$4 a gallon. However, to 
your elation, you realize that 
gas prices are incredibly low. 
It’s probably around $2 per 
gallon.

With the recent dip in 

gas prices, I’m sure that 
many of you have either 
experienced or seen some-
one else’s excitement over low gas prices. It’s 
great to save a nice chunk of money without 
sacrificing consumption.

But it’s interesting to see how your saving at 

the pump is influencing the entire world.

The reason for your savings is actually quite 

an extensive tale. A few months ago, production 
of oil in the United States rose dramatically as 
a controversial rock-splitting process known 
as fracking exposed significant oil deposits in 
North Dakota and Texas.

With the United States adding extra supply 

of oil into the international market, basic 
supply and demand models inform us that the 
increased supply spurs a decrease in price. 
This implies that for prices to remain the 
same, international countries must decrease 
oil output.

This simply wasn’t going to happen.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting 

Countries — OPEC for short — is an 
organization that works with the world’s 
largest oil-exporting countries (besides Russia) 
to regulate the market for oil. The organization 
met for a regular meeting on Nov. 27 to discuss 
whether to produce less oil, which they decided 
against. Since these countries are economically 
dependent on the oil market, losing a piece of 
the market pie to America would be detrimental 
to the countries’ long-term financial stability 
— even if they must endure lost revenue from 
lower prices in the short run.

So, major oil producers like Saudi Arabia — 

the country in OPEC that supplies the most oil 
— are taking the hit. They’re willing to let oil 
drop to $20 per barrel compared to the $110 per 
barrel prices over the summer.

And while OPEC is indifferent to these 

reduced prices, Russia, the largest exporter of 
oil, is terrified.

The ex-finance minister of Russia is quoted 

as saying, “We are entering a full-fledged 
economic crisis.” Being the largest exporter 
of oil in the world, the country is on the brink 
of a two-year recession. Russia spiked interest 
rates to the highest rate in 16 years to stabilize 
their economy, and inflation is predicted to be 
12 to 15 percent. This all results in a predicted 
economic output contraction of 7.9 percent. Not 
good for the former Soviet Union.

I’m sure you’re reading this and asking why 

this international economics influences college 
students. Perhaps I’m being a tad of a nerd, but 
isn’t it at least slightly fascinating that your 
economic saving has such a wide impact? That 
it’s the topic of conversation in OPEC meetings 
involving 12 countries?

Plus, decreased oil prices could lead to 

decreased costs for plane travel and express 
delivery companies, which could translate 
to cheaper expenses for you flying home or 
ordering textbooks via FedEx.

These prices also influence your spending 

in areas outside of traveling. If you’ve saved 
money, you’re likely spending it elsewhere. 
More consumption equals a boost in production, 
labor and company revenues benefitting from 
heightened purchases. Your Espresso Royale 
owners, Uber drivers and producers of Crystal 
Palace are probably feeling these effects.

Additionally, 
even 
though 
your 

consumption contributes to the negative 
economic echoes in Russia and Saudi Arabia, 
you may also be their savior.

While a decrease in international supply 

could take prices back to normal, so could an 
increased demand.

Saudi Arabia believes this too, as stated by 

their oil minister, Ali Al-Naimi. The intuition 
behind this is that the dip in gas prices 
will incentivize drivers to drive more. This 
increased demand for gas would eventually 

T

his Winter Break, I took a 
three-week solo road trip 
down the West Coast. I 

started in Seattle, worked my way 
down to Portland, to San Francisco, 
to Los Angeles and finally to 
 

San Diego.

It was my first time traveling by 

myself for such an extended period 
of time. Needless to say, it was a 
thrilling, life-changing experience, 
but it was also a terrifying one.

I am a 19-year-old female, and I 

was traveling alone in parts of the 
country I had never visited before. I 
was equipped with no acquaintances 
and a delusional sense of direction in 
each city. I intended to embark open-
mindedly with the belief that every-
one I met had the best intentions. On 
the contrary, I found myself much 
more distrustful and wary — some-
thing that still deeply disturbs me.

Before I left, I packed my bags 

with paranoid precaution. I made 
sure to remove my lanyard from my 
wallet, just to eliminate easy access 
for thievery. I sewed pouches into 
all of my underwear so I could carry 
my cash and cards by hand. I double-, 
tripled-checked to make sure each 
pair of pants I brought had pockets so 
I could store a pepper spray in each 
one. I crossed off skirts, short-shorts 
and any sort of V-neck shirt from 
my packing list just to eliminate any 
potential desire for my body. Perhaps 
these were subconscious, automatic 
instincts or perhaps they were 
conscious ones that represented a 
cumulative understanding of what I 
learned growing up.

I wanted, so badly, to trust every 

single person I met on the way — but 
society has raised me with an innate 
stranger-danger mindset. As a young 
woman, I have naturally grown to 
fear all unfamiliar men, especially 
if they are walking in my direction 
late at night. It feels ridiculous as a 
modern-day woman to guard myself 
with this mentality, to keep my walls 
up because of this anxiety. I should 
not have to take these precautions 
simply because I am female, nor 

should I harbor this inherently 
terrified mentality. But I do.

I began to wonder: Could my 

mentality be categorized as sexist? 
At a superficial level of generalizing 
all men as potential threats: yes, that 
is sexist. However, when it came 
down to resorting to stereotypes to 
determine my safety, I justified it as 
a pass I could give myself. I saw all 
those Lifetime movies and Dateline 
20/20 episodes where women met 
awful fates simply because they 
didn’t take enough caution. The 
prevalence of female victimization 
stories in the media has elevated the 
statistics to feel higher than they 
actually are. This is not to say that 
assault should be downplayed or 
ignored — it’s certainly important 
to be updated and reminded of their 
occurrence. However, their domi-
nance in the news makes it easier 
to spotlight all men as individuals 
with suspicious intentions.

I began to ponder: If I was walking 

down a city street alone late at night, 
and there happens to be a male walk-
ing in my direction, what would I do? 
Though I certainly wish I could say 
I would brush the thought off and 
continue on my way, that is not true. 
I admit, I would instantly clutch onto 
the mace in my pocket and automati-
cally label him as a potential threat 
to my safety — just in case anything 
were to happen. I realize it’s terrible 
to categorize all men into this hurt-
ful stereotype, but in a situation that 
involves my safety, I often give myself 
an excuse to use this “sexism.”

Then, I began to contemplate 

more complex situations. Say it 
was late at night and I was walking 
down an urban street alone. On 
my left, a white male was strolling 
nonchalantly in my direction. On 
my right, a calm black male was also 
moving in my direction. Upon first 
impression, neither may pose an 
immediate threat — but I can’t help 
but wonder which side of the street I 
would naturally veer toward if forced 
to make an on-the-spot choice.

I have never been in this specific 

situation, but I unfortunately have 
a terrible hunch. As a woman of 
color raised by school systems 
that emphasize diversity, I have 
been taught values of equality 
that I wholeheartedly believe in. 
I would like to think of myself 
as a progressive individual far 
beyond discrimination of any kind. 
However, how is it that society — or 
something inherently wicked within 
me — has made me naturally and 
subconsciously succumb to racism 
and sexism? Even as an educated 
millennial, why do I still carry these 
thoughts? We all carry an obscure 
xenophobia 
based 
on 
negative 

stereotypes, but we cannot pinpoint 
exactly why. We intrinsically fear 
other sexes and diverse ethnicities 
— simply because our culture has 
constructed and heightened this fear 
from a young age.

As a woman, I don’t want to 

carry around four pepper sprays 
everywhere I go. I don’t want to 
have to think about a man’s crotch — 
specifically, how I can possibly knee 
him there — whenever I encounter 
the opposite sex. I’d like to not worry 
about how provocative my clothing 
may be or how to possibly keep my 
belongings intact.

I am not the only female who 

carries these fears, and also not 
the only one who takes precautions 
based on stereotypes. So how do we 
change this widespread xenophobic 
mentality and exaggerated fear? 
More important than creating this 
change on a societal level, it’s vital 
we first change these thoughts 
within ourselves. Clearly, this is 
easier said than done. Where do we 
distinguish the fine line between 
protecting 
ourselves 
and 
not 

generalizing based on typecasts? I, 
like many others, am still searching 
for the complex, nuanced answer to 
all these queries, but the solution 
seems to be just as ambiguous as 
the questions themselves.

— Karen Hua can be reached 

at khua@umich.edu.

Protection or generalization?

compensate the oversupply of oil 
in the economy. Therefore, your 
purchase of more gas could increase 
prices, reviving the Russian economy.

So, two weeks from now, when 

you and your friends are planning 
that spring break trip to Florida or 
Cancun, the thought will cross your 
head that you have to tell your par-
ents. Maybe they’ll be fine with it, but 

if they’re not, you have an out. If they 
raise concerns about the boozing and 
risks associated with partying in the 
sunshine, fire back at them that this 
trip has nothing to do with Spring 
Break. Rather, your road trip or flight 
is a calculated attempt at consuming 
gas to create an equilibrium in the 
international economy. You’re trying 
to stimulate Saudi Arabia’s economy; 

you’re trying to be the Mother Teresa 
to the entirety of Russia. Advising 
against this trip is simply a disservice 
to the goodwill of the world.

Okay, maybe that won’t work, but 

if it does, you’ll be thanking me for 
this column.

— Michael Schramm can be 

reached at mschramm@umich.edu.

MICHAEL 
SCHRAMM

