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 — Monday, March 30, 2015
L
ife, at times, is completely
overwhelming,
especially
during the years defined
by
undergradu-
ate education. It’s
not
necessarily
the busywork, but
rather to what it’s
made to amount:
this idea that the
purpose of educa-
tion is to enable
you to navigate
the thralls of the
real
world,
to
secure a job that
pays well, to start saving for retire-
ment, etc. It’s the pressure to real-
ize predefined notions of success
that catalyze anxiety.
This anxiety is what has come
to define higher education in the
United States.
The expectations I place on myself
are ever-changing, multifaceted and
confusing as a result. The amount
of pressure I feel at any given time
usually ranges from nominal to near
implosion on my internal barometer.
I often wonder if the University,
American culture in general or my
waxing and waning apathy to formal
education is to blame.
The trouble with this inter-
play can be summed up by an
overarching analogy.
The University is akin to a drug
dealer. The high is so intense
and euphoric from just a first
sample of his product that you’re
instantly hooked.
When an 18-year-old opens that
acceptance letter into the exclusive
club of “Leaders and Best,” the ini-
tial feeling is the inevitable high of
being deemed special. It’s the start
of an indoctrination of arrogance;
an education of privilege instead
of right. A fast track to the apex of
achievement. Once on campus, it’s
all the freshmen can do to chase
after that elusive feeling of signifi-
cance. He or she follows a formula of
success outlined by the University,
searches for every possible affirma-
tion and engages in competition with
themselves and others in order to be
deemed the best.
The dealer peddles us what we
think we need. We use despite the
incurred monetary and mental cost.
Thousands are spent in search of
that which was felt when that letter
was first opened. This quest stomps
out creativity, produces paranoia,
self-loathing and depression.
If the University is the dealer,
American culture is the supplier. It is
the creator of the drug while being,
at the same time, the entity that
fosters the dealer’s wealth. Culture
creates a market within which the
dealer’s product will be valued; our
socialization leads us to believe that
consumption of the drug — partak-
ing in this perverted form of higher
education — regardless of the side
effects, leads to greatness.
Think of Aldous Huxley’s “Brave
New World.” Those occupying the
highest echelons of society — the
Alphas and Betas, those who have
been indoctrinated to the hyper-con-
sumerist values of the ever-peace-
able World State since conception
— are encouraged by the State to
engage recreationally and religiously
to the point of dependence in the use
of the drug soma, which has halluci-
nogenic qualities that transport the
user into a state of blind optimism.
Similarly,
American
society
makes available its form of higher
education to the masses under the
same guise of happiness through
material success. It pushes us to con-
form, to fit the mold of a university
student. It ignites within us the need
surpass our peers and justifies the
equation of monetary gain with per-
sonal satisfaction. Rest and mental
health aren’t options and being over-
worked to the point of needing per-
formance enhancers is considered
the norm. Production and further
proliferation of this ideology are key
to the supplier’s success; we engage
with the system because it’s viewed
as the only viable life option.
Finally, all analogous factors con-
sidered, the student plays the role of
the addict, the one who ultimately
becomes dependent on both dealer
and supplier. Once that first bump
has been had, it’s hard to imagine a
world without. The fear of running
out governs all action. No matter the
detrimental costs, the addict contin-
ues to subsist within preset confines.
University students often choose
the most lucrative educational path.
Thinking deeply about problems
plays second fiddle to vocational
politics. There’s a lack of critique
on the system because students are
hard-pressed to conceptualize an
education not defined by resume-
building summer internships and a
promenade before potential employ-
ers at job fairs. We have become
addicted to high marks and affirma-
tions, to the prospect of the yearly
bonus and the company car. It
seems as if there’s no longer a belief
of higher education as a means for
individual growth.
We don’t study to learn; we study
to succeed.
And if success doesn’t come, the
student is left jaded and broke, an
addict without a fix, profiteered by a
dealer and supplier whose only focus
was a continued influx of money. The
withdrawal — the understanding of
how the system truly functioned — is
bitterly painful.
The saddest part is that victim and
perpetrator are one and the same.
As students, we have a choice. We
can demand to be nourished by our
bodies of higher education, rather
than to be influenced by them. We
can accustom ourselves to challenge
our socialization, to redefine what
it means to be educated. We can
democratize the process by afford-
ing education to all individuals
who value knowledge as a tool with
which to overturn systems of subju-
gation, including those to which we
pay increasingly expensive tuition.
Getting sober is an onerous, confus-
ing task, but one necessary for indi-
vidual and societal health; to remain
under the influence is to feed the
drug to the next generation.
Perhaps that’s why, at the end
of my undergraduate career, I find
myself at odds with the true value of
my education. I ask myself: have the
last four years of my life amounted
to a process of self-realization, or
rather, to an appeasement of the
status quo?
— Austin Davis can be reached
at austchan@umich.edu.
The dealer, the supplier and the addict
AUSTIN
DAVIS
As students at the University of
Michigan, we’re commonly united
through phrases like “Go Blue” and
take pride in being the, “Leaders
and Best.” Our strong sense of com-
munity is part of the reason why
so many students choose to attend
the University.
This past week, a resolution was
introduced to Central Student Gov-
ernment that hurts this sense of com-
munity and unity that many hold
valuable to their Michigan experi-
ence. Students Allied for Freedom
and Equality has introduced “A Reso-
lution to Call Upon The University of
Michigan to Appoint a Committee to
Investigate Investments in Socially
Irresponsible Companies that Vio-
late Palestinian Human Rights.” As
a representative on the CSG Assem-
bly, it concerns me that a resolution
that was so divisive last year has
resurfaced. This is a resolution that
I cannot support and that my fellow
Wolverines should not support.
There’s no denying that the Israe-
li-Palestinian conflict is a triggering,
tough and difficult issue to discuss.
There’s also no denying this resolu-
tion is attempting to turn this histori-
cal conflict into one where students
conflate the Boycott, Divest and
Sanctions movement with all social
justice efforts. This leads to a frac-
tured campus community in which
students are only pushed to further
extremes on the spectrum of the
conflict. While every student on this
campus has the fundamental right
to have their voice heard, I cannot
support movements such as BDS and
#UMDivest, which present a one-sid-
ed narrative and do not allow for col-
laborative or constructive dialogue.
Divestment has historically been
used at our University with regard to
South African apartheid, the tobac-
co industry and, most recently, the
oil and coal industries. In 2005, the
University’s CFO provided the basic
outline for determining whether
or not divestment is appropriate.
This framework should be followed
when asking the University’s Board
of Regents to divest the University’s
endowment, which is not made of
student tuition, from a socially irre-
sponsible set of investments. I chal-
lenge the appropriateness of SAFE’s
request through this process laid out
by the University CFO.
The statement from the CFO reads:
“We will ask the Regents to appoint
an ad hoc committee to investigate
the ethical and moral implications of
our investments only when the fol-
lowing conditions have been met:
• The concern to be explored must
express the broadly and consistently
held position of the campus commu-
nity over time.
• There must be reason to believe
that the behavior or action in ques-
tion may be antithetical to the core
mission and values of the University.
• There must be reason to believe
that the organization, industry
or entity to be singled out may
be uniquely responsible for the
problems identified.”
Regarding the first point of this
statement, there’s clearly no broadly
and consistently expressed position
of the campus community regarding
divestment on this issue. Last year,
when SAFE introduced a similar res-
olution, hundreds of students with
a wide range of opinions attended
CSG’s meetings and spoke during the
community concerns portion of the
meeting in an attempt to persuade
Assembly members to vote one way
or another.
When looking at the second state-
ment, take into account one of the
University’s core missions — the
pursuit and dissemination of truth
and knowledge. Passing a resolu-
tion as controversial as the one pro-
posed would steer the University in
the opposite direction. Rather than
opening the door for dialogue in
which people can learn, BDS is dis-
suading individuals from being able
to express and form new opinions
at the University. Voting yes for this
resolution sends a dangerous signal
internally — to the members of our
own campus community, and exter-
nally, to our peer institutions along
with local and national lawmakers
— that decisions can be made with
limited information and the suppres-
sion of a wide range of opinions and
knowledge.
Finally, the third prong deals with
responsibility for the identified prob-
lems. While the companies targeted
in this resolution have been identified
by BDS as infringing upon the human
rights of Palestinians, this resolution
fails to shed light on the positive work
that these companies perform to help
those in the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip such as building homes, hospitals
and schools. Claiming that these four
companies are uniquely responsible
for issues in the Middle East is a base-
less accusation being treated as fact.
While BDS is a movement that is
attempting to hurt a country thou-
sands of miles away, in reality, it’s
only hurting our campus community
right here at home. SAFE has cre-
ated an atmosphere in which only
one narrative is given legitimacy,
and where dissent, discussion or dia-
logue is silenced. This threatens the
ability of members of our campus to
operate as an open and intellectual
community. Last year, SAFE held
events such as a depiction of a West
Bank checkpoint and delivered hun-
dreds of dorm residents “mock evic-
tion notices” that suggested they had
been evicted from their dorms. These
actions show that this student group
aims to educate community members
through fear and intimidation rather
than through information and fact.
SAFE is a student organization on
our campus that’s actively creating a
polarized campus atmosphere.
As a CSG representative and
member of the Jewish community,
I cannot support a resolution that
undermines the ability of community
members to create a united, inclusive
campus. I cannot support a resolution
that places absolute blame for a com-
plicated conflict on one side. I cannot
support a resolution that provides a
platform for anti-Semitism to thrive.
What the University of Michigan
needs are solutions that bring multi-
ple parties together for constructive
dialogue and action. We will not do
this by annually proposing divisive
resolutions that spark conflict.
I ask you to join me in defeating this
resolution, but more importantly, I ask
for your support in creating solutions
that strengthen our community.
Will Canning is a CSG
representative and Business junior.
WILL CANNING | VIEWPOINT
Why I cannot vote for divestment
FROM THE DAILY
A
recent study released by the Institute of Medicine suggests
that raising the minimum legal age for purchasing tobacco
products to 21 could prevent, or at least delay, tobacco use
and reduce the risk for later addiction in young people. The report
states that if an increased minimum purchase age was implemented
today, there would be a 12 percent reduction in tobacco usage by
2100. This figure should not be ignored. Moving to increase the age
at which individuals can legally purchase tobacco has significant
potential benefits, but can’t be the only step taken. The government
should consider increasing programs that aid smokers in quitting
and potentially increase taxation on tobacco products.
According to the Surgeon General, nearly
90 percent of adult daily smokers have their
first cigarette by age 18 and 99 percent have
theirs by age 26. Those most impacted by
raising the minimum age would be teenagers
aged 15 to 17.
If the legal minimum age to purchase
tobacco were 21, it would limit the ability
of high school students to obtain tobacco
products themselves or ask siblings or
other family members to get these products
for them. Making tobacco products less
accessible to younger populations will reduce
the number of individuals who will become
addicted to tobacco products later on in life.
Moreover, increasing the tobacco purchasing
age would further stigmatize the product,
making younger individuals less likely to
start using it.
That said, a law to raise the minimum age
for purchasing tobacco products must be
implemented correctly. The 18-to-21-year-
old population should be grandfathered in,
which would avoid the issue of forcing these
young people to try and find other ways
of acquiring tobacco products or quit cold
turkey. While the grandfather clause would
not be intended to promote the continuation
of smoking habits, it would be a way to help
those quit under smoother and probably
safer circumstances.
Additionally, there are other issues that
raising the legal tobacco purchasing age
does not address. According to the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2011,
68.9 percent of adult smokers wanted to
stop smoking and 42.7 percent had made
an attempt to quit in the past year, meaning
they stopped smoking for at least one day in
an attempt to quit. Clearly, raising the age
limit is not the only solution. Improving the
availability of resources to help people quit
smoking is also vitally important.
Given that several studies have found
that higher taxes on tobacco products
would effectively reduce smoking habits,
especially with young people and low-
income populations, it should also be highly
considered as a solution. For example,
a 10-percent increase in tobacco prices
would lead to a five- to 15-percent decrease
in smoking in people ages 18 and under.
Since people of lower socioeconomic status
account for a larger percentage of those who
use tobacco products, and studies show that
lower income people are more responsive
to higher prices, a tax would likely have a
significant impact on a large portion of the
tobacco-using population.
Along with measures that must be taken
to reduce the overall percentage of people
who smoke, increasing the minimum legal
tobacco purchasing age presents significant
upsides.
Decreasing
the
availability
of
tobacco products to youths would increase
the stigma attached to the use of these
products and further serve to decrease rates
of consumption. However crucial, this is
just the beginning of a conversation on the
culture of tobacco use in the United States.
Tobacco use is intricately linked with other
factors, such as stress and socioeconomic
status. Therefore, if we, as a society, are
serious about eradicating tobacco use, then
ideas to reduce poverty and improve mental
health treatment must also be addressed.
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller, Payton Luokkala,
Aarica Marsh, Victoria Noble, Michael Paul, Anna
Polumbo-Levy, Allison Raeck, Melissa Scholke, Michael
Schramm, Matthew Seligman, Mary Kate Winn,
Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Finding my Groove
L
ast semester, I wrote about perfor-
mance groups on campus, explor-
ing how they have incorporated
themselves into the Univer-
sity lifestyle and what they
have done to have a unique
presence on campus. If you
are in a performance group,
you have had the great
opportunity to bond with
others who share the same
desire to create a craft. For
any of you who know me, I
am part of a group on cam-
pus called Groove. We are
casually known as “those
guys that play trash cans,” but we are much
more than that. But more than anything,
this group has made my college experience
absolutely wonderful.
I came into college a quiet, nervous percus-
sionist who felt most comfortable at the back
of the band or hidden in the pit orchestra. Yes,
percussion and drumming are not the typical
instruments of an introvert, but damn were
they fun to play. I had started when I was just
a wee fourth-grader, so naturally I gravitated
towards the percussion section.
Flash forward to freshman year, hearing
Groove playing on overturned and painted
recycling bins during Festifall. I wanted to try
out, but I was just too chicken. I was scared
that it would be a male-dominated group,
much too frightening for this little freshman
girl to dive right into. But throughout the year,
I watched my long-time friend rock out on
stage at his Groove shows. It was during those
shows when I realized, “I could so play that.”
It wasn’t anything I couldn’t do if I practiced
enough. I thought, “how cool would it be for me
to be in a group dedicated solely to music?!” It
was after the first Groove show I saw that I
vowed to myself to try out the next year. My
life needed music, something that I had been
doing since I was three years old. To just stop
cold turkey when I got to college made the
transition from home to school even more dif-
ficult. I needed to be a part of something that
had always been a part of me.
The next year, I tried out. I got my accep-
tance e-mail. I cried. I was undeniably happy.
To the Groovers reading this, yes, I did actually
cry. I was chosen to be a part of a group that
wanted me because of my talents, not for how
I appeared. It was at that point that I started to
become comfortable with who I was. Groove
helped me come out of my shell and be more
outgoing. You cannot be a shy individual and
stand on stage in front of 1,500 people. The
combination exists, but it is difficult to manage.
You become uninhibited, and you learn and
absorb the other personalities of the group. We
are only about 30 people, but the alumni and
dedicated fans make this a well developed net-
work that makes me love what I do.
Groove has helped me to expand my artis-
tic abilities, my music writing, to grow in
leadership roles and be exposed to new types
of music genres. Let’s not forget that I have
now gone from hiding in the back of my band
to doing a battle cry on stage in front of hun-
dreds of people, dressing like a hippie from
Soul Train and acting as Ursula the Sea Witch,
more excited than nervous to be out on that
stage. I strive for showing the public what
Groove and I have been able to accomplish in
these past three years.
But to be honest, I am terrified to leave these
people. Love does not even begin to describe
how I feel toward these people with whom I
spend countless hours, practices, chill ses-
sions, parties and heart-to-hearts. We share a
craft building music and instruments together.
To you out there who is a part of a group on
campus, be thankful that you are a
member and realize what you have
gained from such a group. If you
are still searching for your group,
keep looking. You will find some-
thing that makes you happy, that
makes you want to never leave this
University. As I prepare to depart
from this group when I graduate in
a few short weeks, I want to thank
my fellow Groovers who inspired
personal growth in my personal-
ity, my character and my capac-
ity to love a group of strange and
wonderful people.
— Sara Shamaskin can be
reached at scsham@umich.edu.
SARA
SHAMASKIN
Increase the smoking age
United States’ tobacco buying age should be raised to 21