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
4B — Tuesday, September 29, 2015
I
’m weighing in on University
President Schlissel’s address
to Greek life a bit late, but
how and what he
spoke about at
the meeting is an
example of poor
public
health
communication.
If the University
wants to foster
an ongoing dis-
cussion
with
students
about
unsafe drinking
practices,
and
by extension our
rates of risky and non-consensual
sexual activities, they need to get a
handle on this. In my public health
risk communication course, we dis-
cuss the best way to connect with
a given individual and population
about health risks. The goal may be to
make individuals more aware of risk
or motivate them to take meaningful
action to change their risks. There
are also very specific rules about
motivating and communicating with
individuals to change their behaviors
and ideas around alcohol use.
Schlissel should have placed
greater emphasis on the fact that
this is not solely a University of
Michigan
Greek
life
problem.
According to the Association of
College Unions International, the
age of the drinkers, participation
in intercollegiate athletics, involve-
ment
in
student
organizations
where there is socializing with
alcohol, involvement in fraterni-
ties/sororities, sex, family attitudes
toward alcohol, experience with
alcohol in high school and life sat-
isfaction at school all predict the
likelihood of binge drinking.
It just so happens that Greek life
has a higher profile on our campus
and an increased number of prob-
lems than the rest of the under-
graduate population. The National
College Health Assessment for the
University reports that 65 percent
of Greek life students do not pace
themselves to one drink or less per
hour (an indicator of binge drink-
ing) in comparison to 52 percent
of the non-Greek life undergradu-
ate population. Only 45 percent of
Greek life members chose to not
drink at all in comparison to 60 per-
cent of the rest of the undergradu-
ate population, and only 49 percent
of Greek life students report alter-
nating between alcohol and non-
alcohol compared to 64 percent in
non-Greek undergraduate popula-
tion. While Greek life might have
an amplified set of problematic
drinking behaviors, the Univer-
sity seems to be grabbing for low-
hanging fruit by publicly chastising
Greek life undergraduate behav-
ior. Compared to mainstream stu-
dent organizations and the general
undergraduate population, it’s easy
to get an extremely well organized,
loyalty-bound and socially savvy
group of people together if you
threaten them with fines and sus-
pension from social events. When
presented with the task of winning
people over with your argument for
change, the last thing you want to do
is create an atmosphere of coercion.
Along with acknowledgement
that they’re not the only ones with
a problem, public health theory
states that it’s important to express
non-judgment and empathy for
individuals’ risky health behaviors
— especially in the case of alcohol
use. Administrators and faculty
should actively express under-
standing. It’s one thing to know
that students are in a stressful,
high-pressure peer and academic
environment, and it’s a whole other
thing to connect and empathize
with that reality. Understanding
and empathizing with alcohol use
in this context is essential. Con-
frontation and blame is counterpro-
ductive and is more likely to make
the individuals who are in denial
defensive and unwilling to enter-
tain the idea of change. This also
makes individuals who are will-
ing to change their behavior feel
resentful and attacked.
Ultimately, all undergraduate
students have room for improve-
ment in their alcohol use. In the
same 2014 survey, 41 percent of
undergraduate
students
report-
ed binge drinking in the last two
weeks, and binge drinking was
found to be positively correlated
to an increased number of sexual
partners, misuse of prescription
drugs and incidents of physical
victimization (sexual and physical
assault). Health professionals and
administrators must give students
information about how they can
change these numbers, and if stu-
dents want to change their behav-
ior, professionals must ask students
what actions they feel good about
taking to change the behavior.
Schlissel also should emphasize
and support undergraduate and
Greek life students’ agency. Either
Greek life and undergraduates can
partner with the University to create
their own solutions and remedies for
their problem behaviors, or they can
continue their behavior, owning the
consequences that come with it.
Finally, we must acknowledge
that some students will be resistant
to changes in their drinking behav-
iors, and that this is natural, not a
sign of more serious problems. This
means we can allow the respectful
dissent of certain individuals and
still continue the dialogue and find
common ground for change.
That said, public health research
has found that one of the best ways
to make individuals understand
and make good choices surround-
ing risk behaviors is to have some-
one they feel they can identify
closely with presenting health risk
information. In the case of Greek
life binge drinking, work has begun
on having leaders from their com-
munity discuss binge drinking and
health, but it could be done with
greater organization and also focus
on combating other problem out-
comes of binge drinking that need to
be reduced, such as injury or sexual
assault. Within the undergraduate
population, athletic team captains,
student
organization
presidents
and resident advisors could take a
leadership role in speaking about
the risk factors of binge drinking
and work with students to create a
game plan for changing problem-
atic drinking habits.
The University prides itself on its
collaborative environment, as well as
being the cutting-edge in academics
and campus life. Let’s not fall short
when working to improve the health
and quality of life of our students.
— Peggy Korpela can be
reached at kpeggy@umich.edu.
Addressing drinking through public health
Making a safer campus
FROM THE DAILY
L
egislators have finally laid a foundation to fix the dire state of
sex education in Michigan with a bill that would teach sexual
consent — its definition and application — in classrooms
across the state. Alarmingly, the term “consent” is nowhere to be
found in sex education laws in Michigan, making the amendment,
formally introduced by State Rep. Tom Cochran (D–Mason) and
State Sen. Curtis Hertel, Jr. (D–Meridian Twp.) last Tuesday, all the
more necessary.
Sex
education
in
Michigan,
beyond
meeting basic guidelines set forth by the
federal and state governments, is largely
decided
by
individual
school
districts
and the advisory boards appointed by the
district. These guidelines include teaching
important issues regarding sexual contact,
such as how to reduce risk of contracting
sexually transmitted infections or unplanned
pregnancy, and details of legal codes
surrounding sexual relations. However, only
requiring these base standards gives districts
and teachers the opportunity to instill
various biases toward the subject material,
be it for religious or political reasons, leading
education to differ from district to district.
Further,
by
only
explaining
the
ramifications
of
unprotected
sex
and
continuing to emphasize abstinence-only or
abstinence-based relationships, sex education
in Michigan continues to perpetuate the
status quo of either unrealistic or unsafe
sexual relationships. Without a definition
of consent written in the guidelines and a
discussion about why consent is important,
sex education in Michigan fails to foster
behaviors that prevent dangerous sexual
situations. This means students are left with
a haphazard education about cultivating safe
and fulfilling sexual relationships. Given that
limited understanding, among other reasons,
the prevalence of sexual assault on college
campuses is no surprise.
H.B. 4903, commonly called the “Yes
Means Yes” bill, sets forth a definition of
sexual consent as an agreement that is
affirmative, conscious, voluntary and made
by both parties. Lack of any of these parts
renders an act non-consensual — silence,
lack of resistance or a prior history of sexual
relations do not fulfill this agreement.
With 22.5 percent of female undergraduates
at the University reported to have experienced
“some form of nonconsensual touching and
kissing or oral, vaginal or anal penetration,”
it’s clear a culture change is sorely needed.
Though a “yes means yes” definition of
consent may be considered extreme or
unrealistic by some, removing ambiguities
in sexual encounters is absolutely essential if
sex culture in this country is to change.
That said, the wording of the bill lacks
precision in how consent is taught by
stipulating that the agreement is true only
if it is made by “conscious” individuals. The
bill needs to specify that consciousness is not
black or white, and acknowledge that there is
a grey area where an individual is conscious
but impaired due to alcohol or drug use and
therefore unable to make safe decisions.
While the bill only covers the way consent
is taught in Michigan’s classrooms, the new-
and-improved definition must soon appear
in Michigan’s penal code. In the meantime,
it is critical that this bill passes, and that
legislators don’t allow religion, politics or
potential awkwardness get in the way of
ensuring a safer future for all.
Fixing sex education
Bill would add definition of consent to curriculum
E-mail JoE at Jiovino@umich.Edu
JOE IOVINO
“W
hatever you do,
don’t
linger,”
warned the lead-
er of one of my
student organi-
zations. “If the
police shut down
the party, you
need to leave.”
Her
advice
was valid. Lin-
gering
around
a
party
with
a
police
pres-
ence — if under
21 — is a great
way to end up
with a minor in possession citation.
However, having to scurry off at
the first police sighting comes with
serious costs. Friends get lost and
separated, and some friends get left
behind amid the chaos. Especially
when alcohol is a factor, it’s easy to
see how this combination of events
could produce dangerous, sub-opti-
mal situations.
Police shutdowns of tailgates
have become a regular fear of foot-
ball Saturday at the University.
Sometimes this is justified — these
parties can get out of control. But
when students are more fearful of
potential legal trouble than they
are for their own and their friends’
safety, we’ve got to rethink our pol-
icies toward underage drinking.
There are few things that have
thus far characterized Mark Schlis-
sel’s short tenure as University
president more than his very pub-
lic crusade against college “party
culture.” At the school’s first-ever
all-Greek meeting, he warned that
extreme party behavior devalued the
degrees that students work so hard
to earn. He’s not completely wrong.
Schlissel’s call to come together
to address the problems caused
by alcohol overconsumption is
justified and well-deserving of
attention. Unfortunately, his pun-
ishment-oriented approach to our
campus party problem is far less
commendable, and may actually
exacerbate the problem.
New University policies allow
administrators to call the parents of
certain first-year students caught in
violation of school alcohol policies
on a “case-by-case” basis. Tattling
on students away at school is a thin
strategy at best.
For one thing, it doesn’t make a
ton of sense to encourage respon-
sible behavior by taking away stu-
dents’ responsibility for their own
actions and handing it back to Mom
and Dad. Added to the fact that
roughly half of students are now
out of state, and the vast majority of
in-state students don’t come from
Ann Arbor or the surrounding area,
it’s unlikely that students’ parents
can control their child’s behavior
remotely anyways.
At the very best, this approach
prompts students to change only
the behavior that could get them
in trouble with Mom and Dad, like
medical transport or property dam-
age. Presumably, the goal is to help
students develop safe and healthy
drinking habits. It’s concerning that
these policies are essentially equat-
ing safe with not-hospitalized.
The bigger problem with these
policies, though, is the University’s
continued focus on enforcement,
not education. Underage students
already face stiff legal consequenc-
es — specifically a minor in posses-
sion citation — if caught drinking.
Adding the threat of parental
involvement is unlikely to provide
an effective deterrent for a behav-
ior that has been normalized as part
of the college experience, despite its
legal status as a misdemeanor crime.
One look around most college cam-
puses — and even some high school
social circles — will tell you that nei-
ther University policy nor Michigan’s
underage drinking laws are effective
deterrents for most minors. Accord-
ing to a 2013 survey, more than 60
percent of those polled had broken
that law by the end of high school.
Maybe, as some argue, we need
stiffer penalties to keep youngsters
away from the jungle juice. If you
believe that, phoning home might
make sense. But just to put into
perspective how harshly Michi-
gan treats underage drinking, other
examples of misdemeanor offenses
in Michigan include lighting up
to $1,000 worth of someone else’s
belongings on fire and beating your
significant other. While most teen-
age drinkers aren’t going to receive
the same punishment as an arsonist
or wife beater, the current law does
put underage drinking in the same
legal, criminal category as arson and
wife beating.
It’s likely that taking a harsh,
crime-and-justice
approach
to
underage drinking is pushing behav-
ior to the extremes, as minors sneak
alcohol and drink in unsupervised
basements instead of regulated bars,
and drink with the explicit goal of
getting drunk. This is supported by
the fact that minors are much more
likely to binge drink than legal adults.
The Michigan State Senate intro-
duced a bill in May that would
reduce first-time underage drinking
citations from a misdemeanor crime
to a civil infraction. It is imperative
that this legislation becomes law.
As the rest of the state considers
reforming detrimental underage
drinking laws, it’s essential that the
University encourage this effort,
instead of instituting more pun-
ishments for students to fear and
hide from. Instead of attempting to
strengthen failed deterrence poli-
cies, the University should focus on
improving existing programs like
Stay in the Blue, and develop new
initiatives to help students drink
responsibly. In addition, the Uni-
versity should aggressively support
Senate Bill 0332, recognizing it as a
step toward a safer campus commu-
nity and better decision-making.
— Victoria Noble can be
reached at vjnoble@umich.edu.
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller, Payton Luokkala, Aarica
Marsh, Adam Morton, Victoria Noble, Anna Polumbo-Levy,
Melissa Scholke, Michael Schramm, Stephanie Trierweiler,
Mary Kate Winn, Derek Wolfe
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
VICTORIA
NOBLE
PEGGY
KORPELA
DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY?
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION.
Readers are encouraged to submit letters
to the editor and viewpoints. Letters should
be fewer than 300 words, while viewpoints
should be 550-850 words. Send the article,
writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.