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.