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.

