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
4A — Wednesday, February 11, 2015

I 

don’t “do” numbers. As an 
English major, I was drawn 
to an interpretative world of 

innumerable pos-
sibilities. 
Noth-

ing is concrete. 
Nothing is finite. 
Each word, each 
phrase, 
each 

image 
possesses 

a myriad of mean-
ings. The most 
appealing aspect 
of all, though, was 
the field’s lack of 
numbers.

Yet, 
during 
some 
impromp-

tu weekend research, I actively 
searched for numbers.

Cotton swabs amassed on the 

counter as I swabbed away rem-
nants of the previous night’s make-
up. As eyeliner smudges darkened 
the ashen smears encircling my 
eyes, I began to question why I even 
bothered with the time-consum-
ing process. The answer: to add a 
few years to my “baby face.” One 
inquiry led to another, and I began 
to measure the amount of time the 
process actually took. The answer: 
seven minutes. Seven minutes to 
artificially add maybe two years to 
a face I believe looks perpetually 16 
years old.

Inspired by this discovery, I 

began to tabulate a list of numbers:

Five feet with the addition of two 

inches to comprise my height.

A “9” found stitched onto the tag 

of my jeans.

A dilapidated “7” faded by con-

stant friction between sock fabric 
and shoe soles.

The length of my hair.
The quantity of pimples dotting 

the rim of my chin.

The inches circulating my rib-

cage representing my bra’s band 
size.

My weight.
My body mass index.
The numbers added together, in 

theory, could provide an unusual 
and faulty approximation of my 
physical appearance.

My miniscule data collection 

directed my thoughts toward the 
subject I was intending to research 

for my next column, and I began to 
consider more measurements. My 
mind flashed to the tiny, glowing 
green rectangles connecting into 
formation on a treadmill panel to 
enumerate the distance an indi-
vidual runs or the calories they’ve 
burnt. That same person could tally 
the amount of weight they’ve lifted 
or the total hours they’ve spend 
working out daily. Another person 
might calculate the amount of calo-
ries they’ve consumed.

One 
might 
enumerate 
the 

instances when they’ve walked past 
a mirror only to be disheartened by 
the figure reflected back at them. 
Another may reflect on the quantity 
of times they’ve received disparag-
ing comments about their appear-
ance from others — or even from 
themselves. Conversely, one could 
tally the number of times someone 
draws attention to their body in a 
positive 
way, 

whether 
it’s 

desired or not. 
An 
individual 

who 
religious-

ly 
maintains 

a 
strict 
diet 

may 
recount 

the number of 
times 
friends 

mockingly com-
mented on their 
decision to eat 
a bit of “junk food.” For a sizeable 
population of individuals, their 
measurements may even include the 
number of meals they’ve skipped, a 
calculation of the instances when 
they’ve purged or the number of 
times they’ve binged in a week.

As a society, we fixate on these 

measurements. We try to modify 
them. We stress about them. We 
use them as motivation. As a result, 
these sums can often masquerade 
as markers of individual worth and 
can acquire enough power to demol-
ish our self-esteem. Our own indi-
vidualized assortment of numbers 
infiltrates our thoughts and daily 
lives to shape the ways we view the 
bodies we inhabit. According to a 
study cited by a Brown University 
webpage on body image and health, 
“74.4% of normal-weight women 

stated that they thought about their 
weight or appearance ‘all the time’ 
or ‘frequently.’ ” 46 percent of nor-
mal-weight men responded in a sim-
ilar manner to the question.

While members of our society 

— myself included — may be in an 
ongoing battle with our own set of 
measurements, there are far more 
important figures requiring our 
attention. One-fourth of the nation-
al college student population — as 
reported by the National Institute 
of Mental Health — is afflicted by 
an eating disorder. A separate study 
found that “95% of individuals who 
have an eating disorder are between 
the ages of 12 and 25.8.” According 
to the National Eating Disorder 
Association, on the national scale, 
roughly 20 million women and 10 
million men experience an eating 
disorder of clinical significance 
within their lifetime.

Numbers 

inform us, pro-
vide 
logical 

solutions 
and 

simplify 
our 

world. 
How-

ever, our per-
ceptions toward 
and 
apprecia-

tion for the vast 
array of body 
types that exist 
should not be 

quantified. The human body, with 
its wide-encompassing variations, 
is a qualitative entity, incapable of 
standardization. Our fervent desire 
to align our bodies to match a set 
of idealized measurements only 
exacerbates these highly prevalent 
and detrimental mental illnesses. 
Even numbers are incapable of 
expressing the entire significance 
and impact eating disorders have 
on our society. To truly understand 
and raise awareness about eating 
disorders, society needs more than 
statistics. We need to understand 
the misconceptions, the stigmati-
zation and the contributing factors 
— information I hope to cover in an 
upcoming column.

— Melissa Scholke can be 

reached at melikaye@umich.edu.

MELISSA 
SCHOLKE

Concerning calculations

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Aarica Marsh, 
Victoria Noble, Michael Paul, Allison Raeck, 

Melissa Scholke, Michael Schramm, Matthew Seligman, 

Linh Vu, Mary Kate Winn, Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

O

n Wednesday, Jan. 7, 
terrorists attacked the 
headquarters of Charlie 

Hebdo, a French 
satirical 
maga-

zine. These ter-
rorists 
were 

angered by the 
disrespectful 
cartoons of the 
Prophet Muham-
mad 
(pbuh)* 

published by the 
magazine. 
This 

resulted 
in 
a 

global debate on 
free speech, with 
people tweeting and protesting in 
support of the magazine behind the 
banner “Je Suis Charlie,” which is 
French for “I am Charlie.”

Is 
the 
claim 
#JeSuisCharlie 

really what people should be 
advocating for?

On social media, some people took 

a different approach to the issue by 
using other slogans like #Respect-
forMuslims, and #IamNotCharlie, 
demonstrating other views as people 
began to question identifying with 
Charlie. Additionally, people tweet-
ed with the hashtag #JeSuisAhmed 
in honor of the Muslim police offi-
cer who died protecting the Char-
lie Hebdo building. These hashtags 
advocated making the distinction 
between Muslims and extremists, 
recognizing that Muslims were also 
hurt in this controversy.

I will start by making it clear 

that I condemn the attack on Char-
lie Hebdo, although I will not take 
responsibility for the actions of 
these terrorists, as they do not act on 
the principles of Islam.

As a Muslim, seeing that people 

are so fast to claim “I am Charlie” 
in defense of these cartoons of my 
beloved Prophet (pbuh) is frustrat-
ing. If I am true to the practices of 
my Prophet (pbuh), I only recall the 
story of how he visited his neighbor 
while she was ill even though she 
spent her days cursing him openly. 
All of the stories of the Prophet 

(pbuh) that I know stressed his 
kindness and compassion for oth-
ers. Terrorists that claim killing 
staff members of Charlie Hebdo is 
in some way defending the honor of 
Islam do not have the slightest idea 
of what it means to be Muslim.

To claim “I am Charlie” is to 

identify with Charlie and oversim-
plify the situation instead of real-
izing the complexities of the thin 
line between freedom of speech and 
hateful speech. I see the double stan-
dards so heavily ingrained in the 
words “I am Charlie” as people point 
fingers at Muslims for being too sen-
sitive and backward to appreciate a 
harmless satire. This so commonly 
painted picture of Muslims only 
adds to Islamophobia and the idea of 
a “Muslim other.”

As an American-born Muslim, I 

see this strong sense of Orientalism 
as a tale of the Muslim who cried 
blasphemy. In this tale, the simplis-
tic Muslim cannot understand the 
beloved Western freedom of speech. 
Saying Charlie is the banner behind 
which freedom of speech should be 
upheld is largely 
a result of these 
ideas and not 
consistent with 
how 
Western 

onlookers usu-
ally see this type 
of expression.

Perceiving 

Charlie 
Heb-

do’s 
cartoons 

similarly 
to 

anti-Semitic 
or 

racist depictions will help to combat 
Islamophobia. The magazine claims 
that the satire targets extremists, 
not Muslims. I would question what 
they view as hateful speech against 
moderate Muslims, as it’s the Proph-
et (pbuh) who is depicted, and he is a 
figure revered by all Muslims. 

Charlie Hebdo stands as an insti-

tution that promotes the double 
standard of normalizing Islamo-
phobia. In 2008, Affaire Siné drew 
a cartoon for Charlie Hebdo that 

was accused of being anti-Semitic. 
He was eventually fired by Charlie 
Hebdo editor Philippe Val. As Val 
stated, Sine’s cartoon and statements 
“could be interpreted as making a 
link between conversion to Judaism 
and social success.” Anti-Semitism 
calls for an apology, but promoting 
Islamophobia is freedom of speech.

To say “I am Charlie” creates the 

claim that in order for a society to 
truly have freedom of expression, 
even the most hateful speech must 
not only be tolerated, but also cel-
ebrated. Looking back, it seems, 
that the only way to truly progress 
is to move away from this double 
standard, and see Charlie Hebdo 
for what it is.

The perceptions of the car-

toons published by Charlie Hebdo 
should be at the same level as any 
other stereotypical publication. It 
should be viewed on the same level 
as the anti-Semitic depictions of 
Jews throughout their history or 
blackface before the civil rights 
movement. These cartoons are pro-
paganda and the acceptance of them 

as 
harmless 

acts 
of 
free-

dom of expres-
sion is ignoring 
the 
fact 
that, 

throughout his-
tory, 
progress 

away from hate-
ful stereotypes 
comes 
with 

viewing 
these 

depictions 
as 

hateful speech. 

Whether or not people believe that 
the cartoons should still be allowed 
to be published, we can only move 
forward as a society by realizing 
the double standards ingrained in 
claiming “I am Charlie”.

I am a Muslim; I am not an extrem-

ist. I am progress; I am not Charlie.

*pbuh stands for “peace be upon 

him.”

 
— Rabab Jafri can be 

reached at rfjafri@umich.edu.

I am not Charlie

RABAB 
JAFRI

CAUE BORLINA AND ARUN NAGPAL| VIEWPOINT

Martian metropolis

Of all the bodies in our solar system, none 

has so captured the imagination like Mars, the 
red planet. Perhaps it’s the striking crimson of 
the iron oxide, and its connotations of the blood 
and fury of war — the planet was named after 
that particular Roman god, in fact. But perhaps 
it’s because Mars is relevant; never before in 
human history have we felt so close to anoth-
er extraterrestrial body. Now, as we steadily 
populate that planet with all manner of elec-
tromechanical rovers and robots, write books, 
run simulations and dream of a life on another 
world, we bring ourselves within reach of that 
astounding possibility.

Mars, let it be said, is strictly uninhabit-

able by our limited standards. It’s on average 
50 percent farther from the sun than we are, 
and its temperatures drop to frigid extremes. 
A Martian winter, for instance, commonly 
drops to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit below 
zero. Dust flung into the atmosphere by the 
wind stays there for extended periods, cre-
ating massive, blinding dust storms that pre-
vent sunlight from warming the planet. These 
effects combine to produce a world whose 
weather is as inscrutable and hostile as the 
god for which it is named.

Of course, that hasn’t stopped humans from 

attempting to peek behind the curtain. It’s a 
remarkable thing: Mars is the only known plan-
et inhabited solely by robots. While we have 
had successful landers on Venus, they have only 
been ‘alive’ for minutes before instrument fail-
ure. The gas giants don’t have a surface to land 
upon. And a landing has never been achieved on 
Mercury or Pluto. From the failed Mars 2, 3 and 
6 landers from the USSR to the recent tweets 
of the United States’ Curiosity rover, Mars has 
been invaded at least 13 times.

The landers did some great work there. 

Phoenix, for example, started an intense debate 
about the existence of metastable liquid water 
(what we would call a brine) in several regions 
of Mars. However, the rovers gave Mars explo-
ration real heart. The first was the Sojourner, 
then the Spirit, then the Opportunity and final-
ly the Curiosity in 2011.

Curiosity is the real champion — right after 

the rover landed, the probe found some exciting 

evidences showing that approximately 3.5 bil-
lion years ago, a lake existed in the crater that 
she landed in (yes, Curiosity is a she). But who 
really cares? I mean, geologists and planetary 
scientists care; they want to understand what 
happened. But why should society care?

We explore Mars because of its similarity 

to our own planet. In fact, it is suspected that 
at one point Mars resembled Earth in many 
ways - so what happened? Even more fright-
eningly, could it happen to us? To answer 
these questions, it is clear that visiting Mars 
is the next step.

Nowadays, however, we do things with a 

more 21st-century approach. SpaceX recently 
partnered with Google on a project to send 
up thousands of miniature satellites in low 
earth orbit to provide low cost Internet to the 
entire planet. Elon Musk, the ambitious CEO 
of SpaceX, says that this project will help fund 
what will ultimately become the first city on 
Mars. But Martian Metropolis aside, we first 
need to get there.

Sure, NASA and a dozen other potential 

space-farers are working on it, but support is 
the most vital component in any project. Enthu-
siasm and — most of all — a sincere belief in our 
ability to soar are two of the most important 
aspects in space exploration. That’s where we 
the people, scientist or nonscientist, blue-collar 
or white, need to step up. Through community-
driven organizations like SEDS, the Planetary 
Society or even Pinterest, Kickstarter and 
Twitter, anyone can express their belief in an 
interplanetary species, and in the power of the 
human drive.

Ad Astra.
SEDS is an organization committed to spread-

ing awareness and enthusiasm about the devel-
opments in the space science and industries. We 
regularly conduct outreach events, participate 
in space-related projects, and host events with 
prominent faculty and speakers involved with 
space. Contact us at seds-council@umich.edu, or 
on Facebook at SEDS@UM.

Caue Borlina is an Engineering junior and 

president of SEDS. Arun Nagpal is an Engineering 

freshman and the publications director of SEDS. 

As students at the University of Michigan, 

we are lucky enough to be surrounded by peo-
ple who are passionate about the recognition 
and equality of all social identities, and we are 
encouraged to become involved in activism 
around social justice issues. Yet one issue con-
tinues to be overlooked, even by employees and 
administration at the University — people who 
should care more about the discrimination that 
impacts many of their students on a regular 
basis.

Due to the existing inequality in the blood 

donation process, it’s necessary to spread 
awareness about the FDA’s policy that bans men 
who have sex with men (MSM) from donating 
blood, while simultaneously advocating for a 
policy change. This will require the support of 
the University campus, the Ann Arbor commu-
nity and beyond.

According to a meeting that occurred with 

the Blood Products Advisory Committee of 
the Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 2, 
blood donation is “not considered a civil right.” 
This was one of several infuriating comments 
expressed by those hesitating to change the 
policy. Though recent conversations have been 
shaped around changing the policy to a one-
year deferral period, the hesitations toward 
moving forward with a policy change are still 
incredibly discriminatory. Even a one-year 
deferral period implies that simply being gay or 
bisexual is a risk.

A study at the University of California, Los 

Angeles determined that this recent change 
could allow over 317,000 more blood dona-
tions each year, but a removal of this policy 
could allow that number to double. Considering 
that each blood donation can save three lives, 
a removal of the policy could potentially save 
thousands of lives every year.

Despite the excitement surrounding the 

only progress regarding a change in this policy 
since its implementation in 1983, many fac-
tors are being overlooked. Individuals would 
still be discriminated against based on their 
sexual orientation, and those who identify as 
MSM are being forced to remain abstinent for 
12 months if they wish to donate blood. Behav-
iorally based deferral periods related to con-
tracting HIV, such as intravenous drug use or 
receiving payment for sex, are one-year defer-
rals. Although this new deferral period for 
MSM claims to be following the same guide-
lines, it focuses on sexual orientation rather 
than risky sexual behaviors for all potential 

donors. However, with new nucleic acid scien-
tific testing, HIV can be detected within three 
days of contracting the virus, and every blood 
donation is already tested for HIV. Therefore, 
even a one-year deferral period is unwarrant-
ed, and the concern should be refocused away 
from sexual orientation.

A successful and appropriate policy change 

would be to ask all potential donors about 
potentially unsafe sexual behaviors, such as 
having new sexual partners or unprotected sex. 
It’s entirely possible that people who are cur-
rently eligible to donate by the FDA’s standards 
are at a much greater risk of contracting HIV 
than those who identify as MSM, which is why 
an overhaul of the entire blood donation health 
history process is necessary. This would create 
a blood supply that’s even safer than it is now, 
while simultaneously removing sexual orienta-
tion from the questioning process.

This Wednesday, from 2 to 8 p.m. in the 

Pendleton Room of the Michigan Union, Blood 
Drives United is hosting a sponsor blood drive. 
The aim of this blood drive is to create an 
inclusive space, raise awareness and educate 
the community. Anyone who’s ineligible to 
donate because of this discriminatory policy is 
encouraged to bring someone to donate on their 
behalf, which will demonstrate that potentially 
twice as much blood could be collected if this 
policy were lifted.

We will be engaging in conversations to 

address opinions about the policy, how we can 
better educate those on campus and ways to 
bring this activism to the attention of the FDA 
to push for a more inclusive policy change. 
Those who attend will receive a free t-shirt, 
have the opportunity to be interviewed for a 
video explaining the policy and will be able to 
engage in meaningful dialogue about social 
justice in blood donation and healthcare.

It’s imperative to consider how this policy is 

still encouraging discrimination in the United 
States. Several countries do not factor sexual 
orientation into their blood donation processes, 
including Chile, Spain, Italy, Mexico, Poland, 
Portugal, Russia and South Africa. It’s time that 
the United States learns from other countries to 
see how ending this inequality could also save 
more lives.

If you have any questions or ideas about the 

policy or Blood Drives United’s efforts, please 
contact blooddrivesunited@umich.edu.

Samantha Rea is an LSA senior.

SAMANTHA REA | VIEWPOINT

MSM policy education

These sums can 

masquerade as markers 

of individual worth 
and can demolish our 

self-esteem.

Anti-Semitism 

calls for an apology, 

but promoting 
Islamophobia is 

freedom of speech.

