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