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.