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, November 9, 2015
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller, Payton Luokkala,
Aarica Marsh, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Melissa Scholke, Michael
Schramm, Stephanie Trierweiler, Mary Kate Winn, Derek Wolfe
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Finding Peace in My Pieces
S.S. | MICHIGAN IN COLOR
I
t’s not just the chill part; Internet ser-
vice providers are starting to take a page
out of cellular service companies’ books
and cap the amount of data
allowed to be used in a pay
period. Though it’s yet to
hit
Michigan,
Comcast
recently announced 300
GB caps it would be plac-
ing on customers in certain
zip codes as part of a trial
period for the new strategy.
The dreaded “You’ve used
90 percent of your allotted
data” text could now come
twice as often.
It’s hard to frame the
decision as anything more than a sheer
money grab, as Comcast will simply charge
additional fees for those going over the cap.
Similarly, it’s hard to find any evidence that
the 10 percent of customers that Comcast
says uses most of its network resources are
causing enough network congestion to war-
rant such a business decision. One of its own
vice presidents even mentioned it was one of
their “business policies” and did not know of
any technical reason for the decision. For a
50 Mbps Internet tier, a fairly standard high-
speed tier, saturating the connection for a
mere 16 hours would cause you to hit their
cap. As more people cut their cable TV cords
and move to internet-based consumption,
Comcast found a way to get that money back.
They were already one of the most hated com-
panies in the country, and it certainly isn’t
doing much to attempt to lose that title.
This is just the latest in a long list of com-
plaints against Internet service providers,
which are hated even more than airlines.
From low speeds, high prices for poor perfor-
mance and absurdly low customer satisfac-
tion, Internet companies are evil in the eyes
of the customer.
Usually there’s a simple solution to dealing
with a company providing a subpar service:
Go somewhere else. Except with Internet ser-
vice providers, this simply isn’t possible. Take
my student house in Ann Arbor, for exam-
ple. The only two Internet service provider
options available are Comcast and AT&T, and
the fastest speed offered by AT&T is simply
too slow to provide adequate Internet usage
for a house of nine people. Thus, there is only
one reliable option. If the merger between
Comcast and Time Warner Cable had gone
through, it would have been the only avail-
able Internet service provider for about 40
percent of the entire United States.
The Internet has become an essential ser-
vice much in the same vein as electricity and
water. Yet the system has developed into an
oligarchy of Internet service providers and
Tier 1 and Tier 2 network operators that
control Internet traffic and are given a large
amount of organizational control essential to
controlling this necessary good, from every-
thing to its availability, its quality and its
price. We regulate electricity and water, two
other services that the Internet has now come
to resemble in its necessity and distribution
patterns, as public utilities. We would never
let Nestle control public water distribution.
The only way to move the Internet forward is
to treat it as seriously as we do those indus-
tries and regulate it as such with government
oversight on the quality and the price.
However, this problem is far more than
just our necessity to stream more video. It’s
not just access to movies and TV shows that
is being threatened. It’s more than just lack
of access to social media and other websites
that dominate web usage. The Internet is the
cornerstone of the exchange of information
and the freedom of expression that drives
and defines modern society, and our current
system of accessing the Internet is prohibitive
and fundamentally broken.
This lack of proper Internet quality and
accessibility is also detrimental to increasing
economic inequality and educational inequal-
ity among citizens. Forty percent of house-
holds in the city of Detroit have no Internet
access. All the way back in 1999, the National
Telecommunication and Information Admin-
istration called this “digital divide” one of the
country’s “leading economic and civil rights
issues.” Sixteen years later, we’ve only seen
both the digital divide and education achieve-
ment gaps widen as wealthy districts have
access to more resources and poor districts
fall farther behind. The Internet has become
the backbone of a large amount of informa-
tion access today, and when we fail to give
anything close to equal access to the Internet
to all citizens regardless of economic stand-
ing, it is only an additional way in which the
country fails to provide equal educational,
professional and social opportunities.
Policies by the cable industry and Internet
service providers have shown nothing more
than the fact than the lengths they are willing
to go to increase their profitability in leverag-
ing an essential service. Our country desper-
ately needs its own policies to improve both
Internet quality and equality as it continues
to become essential in the lives of citizens.
— David Harris can be reached
at daharr@umich.edu.
DAVID
HARRIS
As a vegetarian, Meatless Mondays
are convenient. I can eat whatever
I choose in the dining hall that day,
with more options than I normally
have. This day makes me feel that
the University is supportive of my
dietary choices, which I have made
to reduce my carbon footprint. While
I enjoy these days, many grumble and
moan, complaining about the walk to
another dining hall. However, these
objections are completely separate
from the intent of Meatless Mondays.
Implementing this day is a way for
the East Quad Dining Hall to cut its
carbon footprint and raise student
awareness about the impact of the
consumption of meat on the environ-
ment. This day allows the Michigan
community to share in this effort,
regardless of dietary preference.
Diet is a daily choice that has an
enormous impact on the future of
the Earth — this cannot be over-
looked, and students should not be
ignorant of this fact. A vegetarian
diet decreases an individual’s car-
bon footprint by 1485 kilograms
of carbon dioxide annually. If just
365 individuals were to eat all their
meals at East Quad on this day, it is
the same as one individual adopt-
ing a vegetarian diet for an entire
year. In a Forbes article discussing
the livestock industry’s greenhouse
gas emissions, decreased meat
consumption is cited as one of the
most effective individual measures
to prevent climate change. The
same article estimated that 51 per-
cent of greenhouse gas emissions
can be attributed to the livestock
industry. The recent World Health
Organization report linking meat
consumption to cancer risk only
adds another dimension to the edu-
cational opportunities associated
with the implementation of Meat-
less Mondays. I commend Michigan
Dining’s efforts to make students
aware of the impact of their diets.
Educating students about the
impact of their diets follows the
University’s values. In its mission
statement, the University states,
“We look for tools and strategies to
enhance sustainable practices in all
facets of operations and seek to lead
in the global quest for a sustainable
future.” Furthermore, the Univer-
sity aims to foster “a community of
learners.” The implementation of
Meatless Mondays proves that these
two values can go hand in hand. In
this instance, the University is lead-
ing by proactively striving to achieve
its mission.
I object to the argument that
Meatless Mondays are an offense
against student agency. Other din-
ing halls still offer meat on these
days and are accessible to the stu-
dents who would prefer to follow
an omnivorous diet. The Univer-
sity has the right to take measures
to cut its carbon footprint and
educate its students surrounding
the environmental impact of meat
consumption. After all, we are at
this University to learn. We cannot
selectively learn what is convenient
or oppose advances for the reason
of habit.
I will go one step further: I sup-
port the implementation of Meatless
Mondays at all dining halls across
campus. This would not be an attack
on student liberty, but an oppor-
tunity for the University to make a
statement about environmentalism
and reinforce University values. As a
University, we should practice envi-
ronmental stewardship and take
measures to reduce our carbon foot-
print. Meatless Mondays are a great
step forward on behalf of Michigan
Dining. These days provide a way for
the entire Michigan community to
make a difference. It is the Univer-
sity’s responsibility to raise public
awareness surrounding this issue
specifically, as well as other envi-
ronmental issues.
For these reasons, I object to the
unfounded student attacks against
the University’s leadership. Let’s
get behind Meatless Mondays,
rather than attacking a University
initiative that benefits the environ-
ment and educates the University’s
students. Meatless Mondays are
an opportunity for us all to lead by
example rather than an opportuni-
ty to complain and ignore an incon-
venient truth.
Luke Higgins is an LSA sophomore.
“So verily, with the hardship,
there is relief,” (Quran 94:5).
I repeat this small quote from the
Quran often — it has become my own
little mantra, my own pep talk, as I
try to take one more step forward. I
have depression. I knew since I was
11 years old that something wasn’t
right. That the emptiness I felt inside
wasn’t felt by my family and friends.
It was a strange realization for me, as
an 11-year-old, to acknowledge that
sometimes I felt sad for no reason, and
sometimes I didn’t want to see any-
one, and sometimes I thought about
what it would be like if I didn’t exist.
It’s one thing to realize you have
depression. It’s another to realize you
have depression in a community that
barely talks about mental health and
where depression and anxiety aren’t
seen as real illnesses. Those
who suffer must do so alone.
Ten years later, I still strug-
gle with my depression, and
many people in my life are
unaware of the fact. I spend
a lot of time actively hating
myself, my body, the way I
talk, the decisions I make, my
own emotions and my faith.
My greatest fear is losing con-
trol, and with depression, I
never feel in control.
Having depression means
I have trouble saying “no,” as I’ve
established my self-worth with how
much I can offer others.
Having depression means
Guilt. So much guilt. For feeling
pain when my parents gave up their
families, lifestyles and homes and
crossed oceans and borders for me to
be able to be here. For feeling my pain
is superficial to theirs.
Having depression means
Sometimes hating my religion,
because religion hasn’t fixed me.
And sometimes hating my religion
because I can’t hide it. Hating my
scarf, something that feels like a sec-
ond skin to me, because I’ve been
harassed countless time for it. I’m so
overburdened with the responsibil-
ity of speaking for Muslims at work,
in class and on the street that I can
barely focus on my own spirituality.
Having depression means
Losing people, who can’t under-
stand why I act the way I act, and can’t
understand when I need to step back.
Having depression means
Feeling so goddamn tired. Not
being able to get out of bed, and not
being able to work, study or see peo-
ple. And sometimes being so tired
that I wish I hadn’t been born brown
or raised Muslim so that I could hide
in the background and have a minute
of peace.
Having depression means
My heart, lungs and limbs all con-
strict as I’m struggling to breathe
with ease.
Having depression means
Fearing that I will always be alone.
I’m exhausted by all the fear
and burdens and trials. And those
feelings are real manifestations of
depression. I’m over hearing solu-
tions such as “learn to be grateful,” as
if depression is a superficial problem
stemming from a lack of gratuity. I
am grateful for the undeniable luck
of having a loving family and com-
munity. But the fact remains that I
shouldn’t have to hide my depression
to feel accepted or safe. I shouldn’t
have to convince you that my depres-
sion has nothing to do with my lack of
gratitude or willpower. Depression is
real, and its treatment looks like very
different things to different people.
My time here at this University is
comprised of my most difficult years,
and I often struggle with doing any-
thing beyond surviving.
We talk about self-care and its abil-
ity to heal. But we don’t talk about
how hard it is to recondition ourselves
to learn that putting ourselves first
when we’re suffering is not selfish. We
come from communities that consis-
tently give, because we’re all forced to
simultaneously prove our worth and
attempt to survive, that it becomes
second nature to put others before
ourselves. To say that self-care cures
depression would be a false embel-
lishment and an over-simplification of
a complicated process. It hasn’t cured
my depression. However, it has given
me the agency to find moments of
peace in spite of the depression.
And it began. Attempting to stitch
and piece myself back together
again. To not only understand that
I needed to take care of myself, but
to get over my guilt of focusing on
just myself and finally to put the
time and resources into caring for
myself. I had to acknowledge that
I was burned out. And come to the
understanding that being burned
out is not synonymous with being
weak. After years of consistently
sacrificing my mental health, body
and spirituality for things of little
consequence, I learned to take care
of myself. Whether it meant taking
a break from meetings, reading out-
side, actively choosing to spend time
with my friends instead of studying
or taking a trip back home during
the middle of the week, I learned to
begin to prioritize myself, my needs
and my wants. For someone who
valued themselves by other’s estima-
tions, to come to the realization that
my existence is not exclusively for
the benefit of others was profound.
So I move forward, and try to mend
and rebuild myself in a way that val-
ues my own being.
I have been told by strangers, fam-
ily and friends that I am “too angry,”
“too vocal,” “too intense,” “too emo-
tional” and “too sensitive.” And at
times, I believe them to be true. But
I have to remind myself that I am
angry. I am vocal. I am intense. I
am emotional. And these are things
that I value about myself, and I will
not be apologetic for them. These
are traits that have shaped
my being and beliefs. These
do not limit me, as I am also
capable of compassion, love
and kindness. I will not be
limited by single adjectives
that are used to dictate and
shame my behavior.
Trying to heal means
changing my environment.
It means removing people
from my life who aren’t
good for me. This has been
perhaps one of the most difficult
things I’ve had to do: actively cutting
people from my life. This step causes
me a lot of pain, a lot of what-ifs and
a lot of second-guessing. This doesn’t
mean I don’t care for them. It also
doesn’t mean that I have to engage
with them if it is harmful to my per-
son. It just means that I have been
exhausted with being the collateral
damage and I can’t let it continue. My
body, my mind, my friendship and
my love have no obligation to you or
your desires.
Lastly, I began to let myself be fully
loved by the support system I have. I
began to believe that I was worthy of
that love when I came to terms that it
was OK to ask for help — that the alien-
ating feeling of depression doesn’t
have to be as lonely as I thought. This
small shift has helped me heal in
healthier ways, and because of that I
will forever thankful for my ami, dad,
sisters and friends who have consis-
tently been there for me.
And so here I am, a brown Mus-
lim woman trying to figure out
how to survive in a world not built
for my existence and trying to fix
myself piece by piece. I still struggle
and relapse, and it is still incredibly
hard to fully accept myself for who I
am. And maybe, one day, I won’t be
scared to publish this piece under my
full name. Until then, I continue to
wrap my hijab around my head, and
try to lean into my next step, for ver-
ily, with every hardship, comes ease.
“Netflix and chill” could start
getting a lot harder
FROM THE DAILY
Fairer lines, better democracy
Michigan should adopt new anti-gerrymandering legislation
I
n this month of football and Blood Battle rivalry, we do not always
give our neighbors to the south a lot of credit. But last week’s
voter approval of a proposal to curb gerrymandering in Ohio’s
legislative districts deserves our admiration, if not our jealousy.
Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing
congressional
or
legislative
districts
to
concentrate voters, primarily based on political
party lines. These politically polarized districts
often result in general elections in which the
candidate of the majority party has no real
competition, leading to fairly predictable
election results. This practice endures because
many states allow congressional and legislative
districts to be drawn by partisan commissions.
Ohio’s voter-approved law, termed Issue
1 on the ballot, takes a small step toward
changing this democracy-threatening practice.
It requires the commission that designates
Ohio’s legislative districts to have at least
two members from each party, and requires
a bipartisan vote to approve district lines for
10 years while limiting the duration of the
district borders to four years in the absence of
bipartisan support. It also amends the state’s
constitution to require that district borders be
drawn without favoring a party.
While
these
changes
will
not
apply
to congressional districts, they will still
significantly
impact
Ohio’s
political
climate. It is now in the best interest of
commissioners to draw borders based on a
bipartisan consensus so the borders will be
approved for a full 10 years, and so they can
withstand a court challenge based on the new
constitutional amendment.
Michigan can and should enact legislation
that goes even further to affect congressional
redistricting. In the 2014 election, Republicans
in Michigan won nine out of 14 seats for the
U.S. House of Representatives with only 47.5
percent of the votes, while Democrats won only
five seats despite winning 49 percent of the
vote. This disparity is inexcusable and makes it
increasingly difficult for Democrats to gain fair
representation in the state.
The redistricting process in Michigan is
currently controlled by the majority party of
the state legislature. But in July, state Reps.
Jon Hoadley (D–Kalamazoo) and Jeremy
Moss (D–Southfield) reintroduced legislation
to create a citizen-led bipartisan redistricting
commission. If this legislation is passed, a
bipartisan commission would be formed
and composed of 14 members: five from the
Democratic Party, five from the Republican
Party and four with no party affiliation. Those
who served as an elected official, lobbyist or
party-elected official in the previous 10 years
would be ineligible to serve on the commission.
The proposal would require two-thirds
approval in both the State House and Senate, as
well as statewide voter approval. Unfortunately,
Representative Lisa Lyons (R–Alto), chair of the
House Elections and Ethics Committee, has
announced she will not allow the bill to see the
light of day in her committee.
This is unacceptable. The fact that just 63
percent of eligible Michigan voters cast ballots
in the 2012 presidential election, with over 20
percent fewer voting in 2014, demonstrates
that voters feel disenfranchised by the
political process. The only way hope can be
restored in the political process is by putting
elections back in the hands of voters.
A vegetarian on ‘Meatless Mondays’
LUKE HIGGINS | VIEWPOINT