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 — Thursday, October 15, 2015
R
ecently, I had the extreme
pleasure of being in a choco-
late shop, which is where I
would be all day,
every day, if given
the option. This
enjoyment, how-
ever, was under-
cut by a strange
trace of melan-
choly.
The
entire
time I browsed,
I was barraged
by
a
mixture
of
mournful-
ness and nostal-
gia. Had I been
here before? Why was I thinking
about how much I missed my dog
and hadn’t talked to an old friend in
ages? How had my thinking suddenly
turned into existential dread where
all I could contemplate was how use-
less everything we do is since our sun
will eventually become a Red Giant
and consume us anyway?
Just as I was coming to terms
with how alone I am in the universe
and how we are all born to die, I
realized that the chocolate shop
was actually playing a string
of incredibly sad songs — “Say
Something” by A Great Big World,
“Fix You” by Coldplay and “Can’t
Feel My Face” by The Weeknd,
among others.
At first glance, this seemed like a
terrible marketing plan: who wants
to associate chocolate with sadness
or the confusion and futile nature
of living? In the American value
system, chocolate is supposed to be
a source of joy and meaning in the
endless, empty void that is the uni-
verse, but they’d now linked it with
anguish. After some discussion with
my shopping companions, though,
we brought the meaning of this mar-
keting campaign into new light.
The business owners were actu-
ally — on purpose or not — employ-
ing a psychological strategy called
priming, in which the use of one
stimulus (like sad music) influences
the response to a different stimu-
lus (in this situation, for example,
our need for chocolate went from
merely extreme to dire). By making
loneliness and unhappiness salient
for the consumer, the need for the
dopamine boost that chocolate pro-
vides grew. In all honesty, it seems
to be a rather depressing tactic, but
if it works, it works.
Having established this, it should
follow that this tactic of priming
could be used to market just about
anything, even ourselves.
Isn’t that exactly what we’re doing
at events like the Career Fairs? Des-
perately trying to get the attention
of recruiters who are already too
overwhelmed with other resumes
and elevator pitches to care? There
has to be a better way to get a foot
in the door, and I think we might all
be able to take a leaf out of the book
of this strange chocolate shop and
extend this marketing strategy to us
as individual commodities.
So how would one go about
doing this?
At the next networking event you
have the opportunity to attend, you
should try executing your own subtle
priming on the recruiter. One that
I would try is helping the recruiter
make the association between you
and someone they would natu-
rally want to assist, such as a child.
As humans, we are programmed
through evolution with the impulse
to help children. To execute this,
refer to the recruiter as “mom” or
“father” throughout the interview.
This will forge a connection in their
mind between the idea of being a par-
ent who wants their child to succeed
and you as a candidate who is asking
for a job. This plan is foolproof and
will work, 100 percent guaranteed.*
Another priming tactic you could
employ would be to go the opposite
direction and prime the recruiter to
have a great deal of respect for you.
To do this, all you need to do is pre-
tend to be the company’s CEO and
appear offended when they claim
they don’t recognize you. You could
even go so far as to threaten their
job. This combination of fear for
their livelihood and intimidation
from speaking to the CEO of their
organization will mentally prepare
them to be very receptive to what-
ever you demand. They might be
confused as to why their boss’ boss
is asking for an entry-level position,
but they can’t possibly turn you
down; it’d be a pretty unwise career
move for them.*
(* I am not legally able to give either
such guarantee and am not liable for
any consequences of attempting any
of these tactics. In fact, maybe don’t
try them.)
I realize that both the LSA Fall
Career
Expo
and
Engineering
Career Fairs have just passed, so
maybe this advice is a little late,
but there are always opportunities
to try and get people to buy what
you’re figuratively selling. In fact,
these potential marketing schemes
might be your ticket to not only an
internship or job, but also a ticket
to whatever it is you want — a date,
a discount or another extension on
a project that was due two months
ago but you just couldn’t bring your-
self to do it because you just started
binge watching “Breaking Bad” and
you can’t just stop now because
you need to know what happens to
Jesse. The sky is the limit.
So give these ideas a try and tell
me how they go. If all else fails, you
always have the option of sitting in a
chocolate shop and crying.
— Sarah Leeson can be reached
at sleeson@umich.edu.
SARAH
LEESON
I
’m new to The Michigan Daily,
and if anyone had told me a year
ago that I
would be sharing
my writing with
thousands of stu-
dents and alumni
and
countless
others, I would
have taken it as a
joke. I’m science-
minded, to say
the least, so the
prospect of put-
ting my opinion
out there in writ-
ing for anyone
and everyone to criticize is frighten-
ing. Though criticism can be negative
at times (luckily I haven’t received
anything too tough to handle, yet), it
can also be constructive, which was
the type I received in regards to my
last article.
After my last article, “‘Organic’
and ‘healthy’ are not synonymous,”
was published, I was contacted by
Mischa Popoff, author of the book
“Is It Organic?” and a long-term
supporter of the organic movement.
His response was not only positive,
but also revealed a few facts about
the organic industry that were
interesting and conflicting at a fun-
damental level. Needless to say, no
industry as large and rapidly grow-
ing as the organic industry is perfect,
but Popoff peaked my interest, and
was able to provide me with a follow-
up interview about his experience.
Popoff has been immersed in the
organic-food realm his whole life. He
grew up in Saskatchewan, Canada,
on a grain farm that became fully
organic in 1993, far before Canada (in
2009) and the United States (in 2002)
had national organic programs. For
five years, Popoff worked as a United
States Department of Agriculture
contract organic inspector.
“I left the organic movement when
I realized it was a bureaucratic scam
designed to propel a political agen-
da,” he said. Popoff’s arguments cen-
ter on a few points: that “43 percent
of all organic food sold in America
actually tests positive for prohibited
pesticides,” that organic-crop field
testing is practically non-existent,
and that the organic industry is fuel-
ing a fire against GMOs which has
little to no scientific grounding.
I entered the interview expecting
to speak to a man who only ate local
foods, grass-fed meat and purely
organic produce. I have realized now
that nothing is so simple. Perhaps I
was naive to think that the National
Organic Program could be articu-
lated by a single man in such a linear
manner. Though Popoff presented a
number of good arguments, the issue
is more complicated than simply con-
demning the entire organic industry.
“Some people say I’m anti-
organic for speaking out with the
media like this, but the truth is I’m
pro-organic, and I’m trying to save
the industry I love,” he admitted.
Popoff’s is only one of thousands of
opinions about the successes and
failures of the organic industry, and
it’s important to approach each new
one with caution.
From the research I have done
on Popoff’s points, I’m in agreement
with some of them, yet left in con-
fusion with others. The first of his
statistics — essentially that every
time you buy something bearing the
organic seal (which is a complicated
issue within itself) there is a 43-per-
cent chance it will actually test
positive for pesticides — is more com-
plicated than just a single percentage.
First, it’s important to distinguish
that the pesticides that are prohib-
ited in organic farming are synthetic.
There are some organic pesticides
that the USDA approves to be used
on products, and for those products
to be sold under the label “organic.”
Even still, according to the USDA,
“Organic agriculture practices can-
not ensure that products are com-
pletely free of residues; however,
methods are used to minimize pollu-
tion from air, soil and water.”
The USDA claims that the main
purpose of organic farming is to
maximize “the balance of natural
systems,” and to enhance “biodiver-
sity, biological cycles, and soil bio-
logical activity.”
It seems naive to assume that
doing such things in a 100-percent
natural way, without any inten-
tional or unintentional influence
of
technological
advancements,
is actually possible. Additionally,
according to a 2010-2011 pilot study
on pesticide residue testing, “As
long as the operator hasn’t directly
applied prohibited pesticides and
has documented efforts to mini-
mize exposure to them, the USDA
organic regulations allow residues
of prohibited pesticides up to 5 per-
cent of the EPA tolerance.”
Popoff’s second claim, that there
is absolutely no field testing of
organic products, is also a compli-
cated issue to address, based solely
on the issue of semantics. Words
such as “testing” and “inspection”
are thrown around as if they identify
specific activities that are conducted
on farms. The USDA identifies that,
“Before a product can be labeled
‘organic,’ a Government-approved
certifier inspects the farm where
the food is grown to make sure the
farmer is following all the rules nec-
essary to meet USDA organic stan-
dards. Companies that handle or
process organic food before it gets
to your local supermarket or restau-
rant must be certified, too.”
As
a
consumer,
“inspection”
sounds fine, but does this include lab-
testing to ensure that the products
do not exceed the allotted 5 percent
of residues? Or does the term
“inspection” simply imply passive
observation of methods and crops.
Additionally, only 5 percent of an
organization products are tested
once per year. What this means to me
is that by the time it is found that a
farm is not complying with organic
standards, individuals could have
purchased products from this farm
under the impression that it was, in
fact, organic. Maybe more pre-sale
testing could benefit the industry
after all.
The third and perhaps most
worrisome issue with the organic
industry is the rising push against the
use of GMOs. Currently, according to
the Organic GMO Policy, “The use of
genetic engineering, or genetically
modified
organisms
(GMOs),
is
prohibited in organic products.”
A report by Packaged Facts dem-
onstrated that of the $5 trillion retail
value of the global food and bever-
age market, $500 billion dollars are
attributed to the non-GMO market.
Additionally, Packaged Facts pre-
dicts that the non-GMO market will
almost double by 2019. There are con-
siderable resources being allocated to
the marketing of GMO-free markets,
that perpetuate the fear of these
“alien” foods. However, the problem
with this is that there is little scien-
tific evidence backing the claims that
GMOs are harmful. In this regard,
the money being spent within the
anti-GMO movement should be allo-
cated to something more useful.
It’s evident that any industry as
large and quickly growing as the
organic industry is not perfect. The
main issue, I believe, is transparency.
Despite the countless annual reports
and guidelines that are published by
the USDA, the Agricultural Market-
ing Society (AMS), Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and prac-
tically any other three to four letter
acronym of an agency that exists
under the umbrella of “food adminis-
tration,” there still seems to be little
consensus on what’s actually going
on and in what ways it’s truly neces-
sary to take action.
Until then, my biggest suggestion?
Keep doing your own research.
— Grace Carey can be reached
at gecarey@umich.edu.
The problem with organic
It’s radical we haven’t divested
Some of you may have heard of the Divest/
Invest Campaign on campus. However, we
aren’t talking about the Israel-Palestine divest-
ment campaign; we are talking about the fossil
fuel divestment campaign. What even is fossil
fuel divestment? That’s a good question. On the
Fossil Free campaign’s website, divestment is
defined as, “the opposite of an investment —
it simply means getting rid of stocks, bonds or
investment funds that are unethical or morally
ambiguous.” For our university, that means get-
ting rid of investments in our endowment that
don’t meet our University’s moral standards for
investment. These fossil fuel investments are
not only risky for investors, as they are liable to
become stranded assets, but they are also con-
tributing to the global warming of our planet.
That’s why we are calling on the University to
join the hundreds of other institutions that are
divesting from fossil fuel companies.
Our campaign (which you can find out
more about at divestum.org) has been doing
a lot to try to get University President Mark
Schlissel and our Board of Regents to do
just that. Last year our campaign — like our
climate — really heated up, as we increased
pressure on the administration to begin the
process of divesting from fossil fuels.
Our first major action of 2015 was Global
Divestment Day on Feb. 13, as part of more
than 450 events in 60 countries worldwide!
We don’t mean to brag, but we also had one
of the largest events, as more than 100 stu-
dents came out in single-digit temperatures
for a rally in the Diag. On March 16, our Cen-
tral Student Government passed a resolution
in support of our campaign with a 32-2 vote.
On March 27 and 28, we participated in the
Climate Teach-in +50, which was the largest
climate event ever on campus. We heard from
notables like Amy Goodman and Bill McK-
ibben telling us why we need to take action
on climate change and why divestment is a
great way universities can take action. Fast-
forward a couple weeks to April at one of the
Board of Regents meetings, which we attend
every month: We delivered a letter written by
some faculty and staff that support divest-
ment. The cool part? We had more than 100
other faculty and staff members sign on in
support of the letter. These are only the high-
lights; we had numerous meetings with fel-
low students and numerous faculty and staff
members to build up all the momentum we
had last year.
Finally, some of Schlissel’s advisors, and
later Schlissel himself, met with us to dis-
cuss divestment. Long story short: They
don’t believe we’ve met the three-pronged
standard that warrants a committee to sim-
ply look at the issue of divestment. Despite
opposition from up top, we are not going
away because this campaign is so much big-
ger than this campus. The divestment move-
ment began on college campuses and now has
spread all around the world to religious insti-
tutions, nonprofit organizations, charitable
foundations and even national governments.
So far, there have been commitments to divest
funds from fossil fuels from more than 2,000
individuals and more than 430 institutions
that span 43 different countries. Clearly, we
are not alone, as there are still hundreds of
divestment campaigns around the world with
universities leading the way.
Other universities, such as Stanford Uni-
versity, the University of Maine and the Uni-
versity of California system, have pledged to
divest their endowments from fossil fuels.
Prominent institutions like the Guardian
Media Group, Norway’s Sovereign Wealth
Fund and even the Rockefeller Brothers Fund
— history’s original oil barons — have pledged
to divest. And even cities like Seattle and Ann
Arbor have made commitments. That’s right:
Our own city is completely divesting from
fossil fuels, but our University won’t even
form a committee to look at divestment from
coal and oil.
OK, so we know that the University has bil-
lions of dollars in its endowment — just under
$12 billion, to be exact — and because of the
secrecy of the endowment, our best guess is
that more than a billion of that is invested in
fossil fuel companies. But why does divest-
ment matter? The core purpose of divestment
is to morally, politically and socially bank-
rupt the fossil fuel companies. Because of the
amount of money they pump into our political
system and because our society is so reliant
on fossil fuels, these multinational compa-
nies have control over our everyday lives and
global geopolitics. These companies have
enormous assets and divesting from them
may partially disrupt their finances, but more
importantly, will send a strong signal that
the world is standing in solidarity against
these companies. We are saying that these
companies are uniquely responsible for cli-
mate change, and that we agree with people
all over the world that action must be taken
against climate change.
We continue to trumpet this call as every
nation in the world meets in Paris in early
December for the COP 21. We will stand up
to the University and won’t back down until
they commit to divest and join the hundreds
of other institutions and universities that are
on the path to divestment. We are not alone
and can join the movement in making fossil
fuels history, just like the more than 200 coal
plants that have closed since 2008, the Key-
stone XL pipeline that still hasn’t been built
and the Shell drilling operation abandoned in
the Arctic. We are the Leaders and the Best,
and we won’t rest until we divest.
Written by LSA senior Nicholas Jansen
and LSA sophomore Daniel Wu on behalf
of the Divest and Invest Campaign.
DANIEL WU AND NICHOLAS JANSEN | VIEWPOINT
“W
hy would I sit around sober
when I could sit around
fucked up?”
A friend posed this ques-
tion to me a few days ago
as we chatted over lunch.
I pondered this thought as
I took a sip of my water. I
drink water because cof-
fee, tea and sugary drinks give me migraines.
In fact, I have reached a point in my life where
almost anything can trigger a migraine. Choco-
late, stress, caffeine, lack of sleep, rain, gluten,
you name it; it gives me a migraine. However,
the migraine trigger that has affected my life
the most is alcohol.
Thanks to walking through football Satur-
days and watching the “I’m Shmacked” videos
that litter YouTube, I’m guessing that we’re all
well aware that there’s a lot of underage drink-
ing that happens at the University. A lot of it.
To be completely candid, throughout my
freshman year, I did a lot of drinking. Every
party I attended, I would have at least three
drinks unless I was a designated “sober sister.”
This is a job in which you refrain from drink-
ing in order to help out any sorority sisters who
may need someone in control and aware of their
surroundings to help.
Over the summer I began experiencing
crippling migraines and very soon started an
aggressive diet and lifestyle that focused on
decreasing my headaches. This includes the
paleo diet, no caffeine, obsession over sleep
control and, of course, no alcohol.
I spent the month of August nervously antic-
ipating my return to Ann Arbor. What would
it be like being sober all the time? Would I be
able to have fun? Would I feel awkward? What
would tailgates be like? I read articles about
being sober in college, and I texted everyone I
knew who didn’t drink.
As it turns out, being sober is not so terrible.
In fact, it can be really fun. You remember
everything, you feel great the next day, and I
take it as an opportunity to eat extra cook-
ies because I’m not drinking so many calories.
Being sober at parties has been an eye-opening
experience for me because it has caused me
to realize that we rely way too much on alco-
hol to have a good time. We rely too much on
alcohol to be able to talk to someone we’re ner-
vous around and make new friends. We rely too
much on alcohol even just to feel comfortable
dancing. Being sober has taught me to embrace
my awkward grandma dance moves. Now I just
look like a proud grandma on an elevated sur-
face at tailgates.
I don’t think this means we have to all be
sober all the time. It’s OK to occasionally want
a drink here and there. I still wish for it some-
times, and sometimes I cheat. I also want to say
that I’m not here to go into the debate of the
current drinking age; that’s a can of worms I’m
going to hold off on opening. I’m simply saying
that going to a party and realizing how much
fun you can have without being “shmacked”
can be a very rewarding experience. It forces
you to be comfortable in your own skin. Every-
one is too self conscious to see what you’re
doing anyways.
I encourage you to at least entertain the idea of
not drinking at the next party you go to. Don’t do
it for me, or to be sober to protect your friends. Do
it for yourself. Do it so you can wake up the next
day feeling great, because you’re hangover free
and because you went out of your comfort zone.
— Alison Schalop can be reached
at aschalop@umich.edu.
Do it for yourself
Advanced self-marketing
ALISON
SCHALOP
GRACE
CAREY