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, October 26, 2015
I
n the past decade, the American public and
the world at large have been exposed to a
problem — the rising prison population in
the United States. People
know American prison facts
so well they can probably
recite them in their sleep:
America holds roughly five
percent of the world’s peo-
ple, but 25 percent of the
world’s prison population.
Between 30 and 41 per-
cent of juveniles have been
arrested by the time they’re
23. Over the last 30 years,
our prison population has
increased more than 400
percent. Many prisoners are
ineligible for student loans, public housing and
food stamps, and are isolated from support sys-
tems after doing their time.
The Black Lives Matter movement, which
has increased news coverage of killed or incar-
cerated young black males, and the popular-
ized “The New Jim Crow” book by Michelle
Alexander, have led people to believe that the
problem of mass incarceration lies in the impris-
onment of too many nonviolent drug offenders.
The solution, therefore, seems obvious: Release
nonviolent offenders and provide less punitive,
more rehabilitative options. That feels good in
theory — a simple solution for a simple prob-
lem. Unfortunately, that formula seldom applies
to life.
While we should reverse extreme policies
hindering this population, solving the prob-
lems regarding nonviolent drug offenders will
not solve problems in America’s criminal jus-
tice system. Why? They don’t make up that
many offenders. That is, 90 percent of general
offenders are in state institutions, and 17 per-
cent are there for drug-related crimes, meaning
that if we were to release all nonviolent offend-
ers, it would decrease the prison population by
approximately 300,000. That’s significant, but
will not combat the larger issue. Additionally,
while it is true that close to 44 percent of feder-
al prisoners are locked up for drug crimes, fed-
eral prisoners make up a small portion (about
216,300 as of 2014) of our prison population.
Fortunately, within this context, drug laws
have become increasingly lenient. From 2009
to 2013, drug laws were made more forgiving
in 40 states. Due to the high expenses of hous-
ing inmates, increasing use of drug courts and
decriminalization of marijuana, our perspec-
tive on drug use and treatment has shifted; the
nation has moved away from punishment and
toward rehabilitation. As a result, the well-
known (and smaller) issue of harsh drug poli-
cies has become somewhat resolved.
And yet, even beyond the understanding of
nonviolent drug offenders, there are more mis-
conceptions about problems plaguing our crim-
inal justice system. Specifically, private prisons
and mandatory minimums.
It’s commonly believed that private prisons
are deplorable institutions, set to exploit prison-
ers and imprison as many people as possible. Yet,
according to the ACLU, private prisons contain
just 6 percent of state prisoners and 16 percent
of federal prisoners. Although these institutions
are incentivized to imprison more people, they
were created as a response to mass incarceration,
not as instigators of the issue. They’re not the
main concern.
Additionally, mandatory minimums are seen
as unjust structures that have wildly increased
prison populations. However, prisoners have
not served much more time due to these sen-
tences. According to David Brooks, “Roughly
half of all prisoners have prison terms in the
range of two to three years, and only 10 percent
serve more than seven years.” To be sure, man-
datory minimums are not “good.” But, again,
they are not the main driver of mass incarcera-
tion in this country.
Clearly, though, there are problems in our
criminal justice system; we don’t have the larg-
est prison population for nothing. It seems
that the answer lies in our prosecutors. From
the 1990s to the mid-2000s, district attorneys
became more aggressive with their felony
charges, ultimately imprisoning people for lon-
ger periods — increasing imprisonment even
while the number of arrests was decreasing.
The reason these persons delivered harsh
sentences is murky, possibly due to tough-
on-crime policies, the war on drugs and
political motivators.
Ultimately, though, these actions were likely
propagated by the belief that criminals are bad
people, not people having done badly in a difficult
situation. Maybe if we change how we see them,
not as callous, manipulative or insane individu-
als, but rather as humans who falter and make
mistakes based on their lives’ contexts, we will
avoid unfairly harsh penalties.
Now, you may be asking, if we are to shape
our perspectives, does that mean that everyone
should be let go? Should there be no punish-
ment for the crime? Of course not. However,
we need to suggest proper restitution, thereby
allowing perpetrators to right their wrongs:
apologize, rehabilitate themselves and pay it
forward to the community of which they’ve
damaged. Provide them autonomy by giving
them a purpose and the opportunity to aug-
ment something else — specifically if it can help
their victims (or victims’ family).
Two New York-based programs embody this
sentiment: the Bard Prison Initiative and Work
For Success program. The former allows pris-
oners to earn a college degree while the latter
provides them opportunities to work after being
released. Each helps reduce recidivism rates,
expand the economy and instill hope in people
who were formerly lost in the system.
In order to implement these kinds of programs,
we must believe that troubled people can restore
justice. We should allow people the opportunity
to alter the way they see themselves and their
world, and contribute positively (directly or indi-
rectly) to those they’ve harmed. Truly, that’s the
beauty of human nature within our society —
we can advance ourselves and avoid a zero-sum
game, with a definite loser and winner. That is,
our capacity for improvement can make every-
one in our world better off. Whether it’s reform,
rehabilitation or introspection more broadly, our
malleability allows for limitless possibilities.
— Sam Corey can be reached
at samcorey@umich.edu.
L
ast week, I sat through a
women’s studies lecture on
body image. Thanks to the
comprehensive
health
educa-
tion I received
throughout
middle and high
school,
I
was
already familiar
with most of the
material. I knew
anorexia’s
tell-
tale signs, and I
understand that
binge eating is
considered
an
eating disorder alongside bulimia.
Body Mass Index is a misguided way
to measure if someone is a healthy
weight or not, and dieting almost
never, ever produces sustainable,
long-term weight loss.
I’ll admit that it wasn’t until we
arrived on the PowerPoint slide
about objectification that I sat up in
my chair and started to actively lis-
ten. I already knew what objectifica-
tion was — when society views the
female body as an object, as opposed
to a whole being that’s lived in and
experienced — and I knew that it’s
definitely not a good thing. Objecti-
fication is dangerous for a whole host
of reasons: It lowers women’s self-
esteem and makes us believe that our
value is tied to our physicality, some-
times leading us to eating disorders
as a desperate attempt to maintain a
“desirable” figure. When women are
reduced to objects, violence against
us is internalized as normal, and
both men and women dehumanize
us and see us as less competent.
But this isn’t even the worst part.
For me, the most disturbing trend
stemming from objectification is
when women turn this practice onto
themselves. Some women tend to
objectify their own bodies by inter-
nalizing a third-person’s perspec-
tive of themselves, something that,
according to a survey published in
Psychology of Women Quarterly,
leads to decreased cognitive perfor-
mance, increased feelings of shame
and anxiety, and restrained eating.
Just like advertisements that grue-
somely dismember a woman’s body
to isolate sexualized parts, we some-
times look in mirrors and chop our-
selves up, too, falling victim to the
notion that our body is not a holis-
tic experience, but merely a col-
lection of things — legs, bust, torso
— that can each be isolated and, in
turn, scrutinized.
This is the element of objectifi-
cation that quite literally took my
breath away, but not because it was
surprising. Like most of the lecture
material, I was already familiar with
objectification theory. I had learned
about it in my middle school health
courses when I was 13, and although
I understood its pervasive and dam-
aging effects at the time, I remem-
ber that I never really wrapped my
head around it. In eighth grade, I
had yet to truly experience body
surveillance and shaming. At the
risk of sounding obnoxious, at 13, I
didn’t have a single reason to be self-
conscious of my body. I had grown
up athletic, pretty, confident and so
outspoken I verged on loudmouth.
Because I wasn’t embarrassed of my
body in the slightest bit, the notion
of systematically and relentlessly
surveying my figure for flaws was so
far from reality. I easily dismissed
self-objectificationn as inapplicable.
So when the bell rang on the last day
of school in June 2008, I didn’t think
critically about self-objectification
and wouldn’t until it eventually
became my own reality.
Fast forward to Wednesday of last
week. I’m 21 now, and am hyper-
aware and self-conscious of my looks.
I didn’t realize how often I self-objec-
tified until my professor forced me to
face it head-on with two simple ques-
tions. First, how often do you look in
a mirror? As she counted upwards, 1,
2, 3 … to as many times as you walk
by anything reflective, I kept my
hand raised. Second, when you look
in the mirror, what are you looking
for? Are you seeing if your hair or
makeup is in place, or are you focus-
ing in on a part of your body? My face
burned. I felt so embarrassed. I felt
so superficial.
It was like my professor was read-
ing my mind. Every morning when I
get up, I stand in front of my mirror
and look at my stomach. It’s my least
favorite part of my body, and I vigi-
lantly watch it to see if it looks bloat-
ed. I’ll lift up my shirt and look at it,
then stand sideways and see how
much it sticks out. I’ll search care-
fully to see if that late-night piece of
pizza settled anywhere on my hips.
Isolating my stomach is part of my
morning routine, and it’s a textbook
example of self-objectifying.
I can’t wholly blame “society” for
relentlessly pressuring me to look
a certain way, and the source of my
body image issues is more compli-
cated than glossy magazines that
equate beautiful to thin. Everyday,
I internalize conflicting signals tell-
ing me to both love my body, but at
the same time constantly work to
improve it. That I should adore the
skin I’m in, but to make sure that skin
is waxed, clear and made desirable
with a host of products. When I look
at my stomach, part of me is admir-
ing my curves, while the other part is
desperately ensuring that they never,
ever soften with time (or pizza).
Although my mirror survey could
be seen as partially congratulatory,
treating my body as something that
must maintained to look a specific
way is degrading, and now, at 21, I
finally get it. If eighth-grade Annie
could see me in the morning in front
of my mirror, she’d probably shove
me, tell me to knock it off and to quit
being so vain.
My surveillance is not healthy,
and it took last Wednesday’s lecture
to realize that it’s more than just a
dumb habit — it’s detrimental to my
overall self-worth and confidence. I
must work harder to view my body
not as a collection of parts, but as a
whole, spiritual being that can com-
bat the onslaught of messages telling
me my worth is measured in pounds
and inches. Last Wednesday’s lec-
ture made me realize that I was
more confident at 13 with braces and
zits than I am today, and frankly,
that’s just backwards. It’s about time
I change that.
— Anne Katz can be reached
at amkatz@umich.edu.
Struggling with self-objectification
T
he polarization of America’s
political parties might be
brainwashing us all. Hillary
Clinton’s 11-hour
testimony before
the House Select
Committee
on
Benghazi hearing
put the former
Secretary of State
and
Democratic
presidential
candidate
at
the
mercy
of
interrogative
congressional
representatives.
And for nearly
every minute, a bitter battle between
the two sides of the aisle waged on.
Like Bernie Sanders, U.S. Rep.
Elijah
Cummings
(D–Md.),
a
member of the committee, has
had enough with the e-mails. He
concluded, “It is time now for
Republicans to end this taxpayer-
funded fishing expedition.”
Meanwhile, Republican members
of
the
committee
maintained
the full-court press on Clinton
along with stern looks and an icy
indifference to humor.
The conservative base continues
to exist in its own subset of reality
regarding Benghazi. Now many of
the major news outlets agree, none
of the investigations drummed up
anything significant about Clinton.
But this does not include Fox News
(sigh), which continues to label
Clinton a liar.
The
partisan
tension
is
so
tangible now that CNN reports the
hearing “is unlikely to have changed
any minds.” We’ve survived the
Benghazi round unswayed, so until
another event causes controversy,
the two parties have been called
back to their corners in what
is ultimately the fight for the
2016 presidency.
Listening to Cummings during
the Benghazi hearing, he spoke
with an impassioned voice and
appeared to be emotionally stirred
during parts of Clinton’s testimony.
Meanwhile
the
Republican
congressmen were cold and stern,
like Bond villains.
But I’m a liberal. To see it that
way, am I conforming to the rules
of partisanship? I struggle to
determine whether I’m judging
conservatives by what they say
on the record or my preconceived
ideas about them. By stepping
into the shoes of a conservative
sympathizer, it’s easy to buy their
argument.
They’re
steadfast,
serious and seem to hold their
beliefs loyally. To each party,
the other one seems to be made
of buffoons and cheats, leaving
middle-of-the-road-Americans
with a difficult choice to make.
Political beliefs are influenced by
other values. Conflicting principles
lead to political debates where no
solution is possible because both
arguments make sense. Thanks to
the two-party system, American
voters are pressured into voting one
way, and choosing a candidate based
upon shared beliefs.
But what if that same candidate
also pushes for initiatives that
would work against the voters’
self-interest? It’s hard to imagine a
tougher political position than being
something like a devout Christian
living in poverty, a voter who watches
the GOP simultaneously champion
religious beliefs and rail against most
social programs.
Seemingly
major
political
distinctions like these are glossed
over by the two-party system of
politics, and voters don’t know how
to vote in their own self-interest
rather than for the politician who
best resonates with the party.
Calling
someone
a
Republican
or Democrat means as much as
anything they could say in their
own defense.
Titles resonate with the public
more than a substantive debate
about the issues (unless you’re
Bernie Sanders). Americans seem
to spend little time thinking about
their own beliefs. I call this the
“Shut-up-and-take-my-money”
theory of voting.
The quickest way to identify a
conservative extremist is to find the
person who hates Democrats, and
vice versa. When loathing for the
enemy is a prerequisite, any move
to compromise can cost you your
livelihood. Just ask John Boehner.
The stalemate that couldn’t be
ended by an 11-hour hearing in the
House of Representatives will face
one of two possible outcomes. First,
the deep chasm that divides the two
parties could remain unbridgeable
until Election Day, and we can
publicly look forward to 12 more
months of dogmatic spitfire until the
next president is decided.
Or, anyone intending to vote
should take a deep introspective
look at their own values and
analyze their roots. This is the more
hopeful, albeit much less likely,
way to cut down the confusion and
noise of the partisan divide on an
individual
standpoint.
Whether
it’s legalization of marijuana, an
increased minimum wage or a
white-hot
military
response
in
Syria, each unique belief has its own
nuanced set of motives and values
that we often fail to analyze within
ourselves or our candidates.
The outcome of the election
is the prize. At the moment the
next president is announced, both
parties get to see how well their
campaigning strategies paid off and
how many of the undecided they
could lift up onto the bandwagon.
After all, a CEO doesn’t need
to be persuaded to vote for tax
cuts. Whichever party claims the
presidency will shuffle the deck —
the game of politics will start anew
and the Benghazi hearing will
become a distant memory.
Society
is
so
accepting
of
authority
that
it
has
allowed
marketing firms and microphones
to hijack our political system. The
parties and their supporters tell us
what to believe. It is easy to trust
a voice on the radio, or someone
giving a lecture, because they speak
with some authority. Yet the system
works best for individuals who
choose candidates that conform
to their own beliefs and fight the
social obsession with joining one of
the two existing clubs.
We can go through debates and
hearings until the C-Span satellite
crashes to earth, but the voice each
voter should be concerned with the
most is their own. Holding a free-
form debate with the mirror should
be higher up on everyone’s agenda
in order to to establish a set of
personal beliefs, and make it harder
for political ad-men to buy and sell
voters to big-politics.
The
broad
scope
of
two-
party politics is too unspecific. It
compromises
individual
values
for conventional wisdom. Joining
under either party’s flag with no self-
awareness groups members into a
faceless mass to be directed onward,
and is a willing loss of liberty.
— Tyler Scott can be reached
at tylscott@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
ANNE
KATZ
E-mail in chan at tokg@umich.Edu
INCHAN LEE
Changing our perceptions
TYLER
SCOTT
Don’t fall into the two-party trap
SAM
COREY