Opinion SHOHAM GEVA EDITOR IN CHIEF CLAIRE BRYAN AND REGAN DETWILER EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS LAURA SCHINAGLE 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 4 — Tuesday, March 15, 2016 L ast fall, University of Michi- gan President Mark Schlissel gathered the Greek commu- nity and excori- ated them for devaluing the University’s academic repu- tation. This is part of a larg- er pattern on our campus of beginning to hold Greek life accountable. Greek life has been the focus of changes that address the drinking culture and campus sexual assault that has gone unchecked for too long. Schlissel’s changes that target these issues are a welcome change of pace. It’s high time that the University no longer turns a blind eye, and these organizations bear the costs of their actions. However, in an effort to curb these serious problems with Greek life, the administration has swung the pendulum too far in an authorita- tive direction. While it is important to address these issues, the University must reevaluate disciplinary actions and focus on creating a dialogue. This past year, the University threatened sanctions on members of Greek life who attended the Mud Bowl, a charity fundraising event. As Daily columnist Brett Graham points out, the Mud Bowl exemplifies the best aspects of Greek life. The Univer- sity’s response stepped over the line and will likely have long-term nega- tive consequences. By simply treating anything Greek- related with sanctions, the adminis- tration is developing an adversarial relationship with some members of the Greek community. This isn’t a good course to chart. Personally, I have many issues with Greek life, and I would love to see fraternities and sororities play a diminished role on campus. But that’s not a realistic possibility. Much of the University’s funding comes from wealthy donors who were members of Greek life dur- ing their undergraduate careers, and the University won’t likely agree to changes that risk losing that money. Furthermore, Greek life is a cultural institution at the University, with more than 20 percent of undergradu- ate students affiliated. What message does the administration send to a sig- nificant portion of our student body when it intervenes in such a paternal- istic way? The University’s response mir- rors a tendency within parts of the social activist community on campus to demonize Greek life; to view it as a toxic mess that doesn’t want to improve itself. However, it’s important to note that there’s will within Greek life to end these abuses. I spoke to Henry Adams, president of the Interfraternity Council, about these issues, and from his perspective, there’s a growing self-awareness within the IFC of binge drinking and sexual assault’s sheer extent. He also stressed that he doesn’t view the community meeting as a break of the IFC’s working relationship with the administration and that they want to continue improving Greek life at the University. Furthermore, Schlissel’s com- munity meeting was co-organized by the IFC, and each of the fraterni- ties’ presidents spoke at the event about the meeting’s importance. These issues are endemic: members of Greek life are 2.5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than non- members and more likely to binge drink than the average student. There’s an element within the Greek community which earnestly wants to curb these issues. These efforts have begun to take shape: Fraternities serve beer rather than hard liquor at open parties and new members are given an orientation that aims to pre- vent the aforementioned behaviors. Other communities at the Uni- versity have made similar attempts to prevent sexual assault and over- drinking. My co-op asks our guests to define consent before entering a party and all of our house officers are given bystander intervention training by the Inter-Cooperative Council. I’ve seen other co-ops hang the definition of consent around the house. These policies show our guests that we have a zero-tolerance policy on sexual assault. They also make the defi- nition of consent salient to party- goers and help prevent potentially disastrous encounters. We put in a tremendous amount of work to prevent sexual assault, but why should this be outside the norm? After Schlissel’s community meet- ing, Tom Allen, fellow Fordie and former president of Alpha Sigma Phi, said that “(Greek life) is defi- nitely going to be open to what was said yesterday and in the future work really close with the University to make things safer.” According to Allen, eight fraternities within the IFC have already invited SAPAC for bystander intervention training and we should applaud that. But what about the rest? Students who are in co-ops and are part of the University’s social justice community should reach out to the Greek community. I envision a broad partnership between Greek life, cooperatives, the administration, CSG, SAPAC and other groups on campus dedicated to creating a safer campus. This won’t be a cure-all — some aspects of toxic masculinity are so deeply entrenched that we’ll need to see a nationwide cultural shift before we can eradicate them. My co-op has a deep history of activism, but only began aggressively fighting against sexual assault in 2014. Let’s accelerate that process and instead of working in silos, combine our efforts to make the University safer. — Roland Davidson can be reached at mhenryda@umich.edu. Lending a cooperative hand ROLAND DAVIDSON Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan, Jeremy Kaplan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala, Kit Maher, Madeline Nowicki, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke, Kevin Sweitzer, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung, Stephanie Trierweiler, Hunter Zhao EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS A few weeks ago, a bright blue board on the Diag sponsored by Students for Life stood next to the Shapiro Undergraduate Library advertis- ing for an initiative called Pregnant on Campus. This project’s goal is to provide pregnant or parenting students with the support, resources and information they need to continue their education even while they are dealing with the added pressures of pregnancy or raising children. Our group holds office hours where students can come talk to their peers in a safe, non-judgmental environment, and we gather resources, references and information so that pregnant or parenting students can find what they need without spending hours searching the Internet. This year, we have even estab- lished a Pregnant on Campus scholarship. But our efforts are tainted by the misconceptions and controversies that are attached to our pro- life label. We see this all the time, and our Diag board was no exception — if you looked closely, you could see someone’s black Sharpie addition: “Abortions are OK too.” The vandalism in and of itself was not par- ticularly upsetting to me, despite the hours of our time and the investment of our club’s money that went into the advertisement. Even the message itself was understandable, because abortion does remain a legal and viable choice for a pregnant student. What bothered me the most was that the graffiti artist’s work implied that Pregnant on Campus is an effort by Stu- dents for Life to manipulate and shame women into not choosing abortion. This is an assump- tion that underlies many conversations that I have had with pro-choice and even some pro- life people, and I think it is important to clarify our true intentions. My question is this: If a woman wants to carry her child to term, and the biggest barrier is her fear that she will not be able to finish her education and pursue her goals because of soci- etal pressures and factors out of her control, is abortion a “good enough” solution for her? Is it acceptable to encourage her to make that choice, instead of demanding that change be made on a societal level to ensure that she will still be supported and empowered throughout her pregnancy and beyond? This is not to say this is the only situation in which a woman would consider abortion, and I do not by any means wish to imply that a woman makes the decision to abort lightly. But the issue of finishing her education is some- thing every pregnant college student will think about, and it is not fair to her that she might feel forced into abortion because of a lack of support and resources. To me, empowering a woman’s right to choose does not mean pushing her toward abortion solely because society has failed to provide for her and her child. It means that if she is even considering making the brave and sometimes terrifying decision to parent or to give her child to an adoptive family, she knows she will be supported and encouraged every step of the way. One of the long-term goals of Pregnant on Campus is to make the University of Michigan a place that both acknowledges and respects the rights that pregnant women are granted by Title IX, which forbids universities from discriminating on the basis of sex. Since preg- nancy is something only a woman can ever experience, any structures of society that punish her for being pregnant are inherently sexist, and Title IX recognizes that to create equal opportunities for women, pregnant stu- dents need to be given special support to stay in school. For example, one of the biggest impacts of Title IX is that professors cannot penalize a student’s grade in any way because of a doctor- approved, pregnancy-related absence and must give the student a reasonable amount of time to make up work regardless of the attendance policy for any other students. Policies such as these increase a woman’s agency to choose by allowing her to consider decisions that might otherwise seem impossible to make. As a pro-life group, we are not afraid to say this increase in support for pregnant stu- dents has the potential to reduce the number of abortions sought by college-age women. And we would celebrate this outcome, because it would mean that young women are being given what they need to truly make their own deci- sions, free from restrictions imposed by a lack of resources. At the most basic level, Students for Life is built on a respect for all human life, not just the life of the unborn. That means we are dedicated to caring about women, too, and protecting their rights and their freedoms. So the next time you see Pregnant on Cam- pus’ name on the Diag, try to look past your preconceived notions of what it means to be pro-life. Try to understand that what Preg- nant on Campus strives for is something that I believe pro-choice groups also seek passionate- ly — the support and empowerment of women in our society. A woman should never have to choose between her child and her education, and it is up to us to make our University a place where she feels strong and supported enough to have both. If you are pregnant or parenting and looking for support, please do not hesitate to contact Preg- nant on Campus at pregnantinfo@umich.edu. Pregnant on campus CHLOE ALBERTA | OP-ED A s I ran in a pack with my best friends and track team- mates on a bright and sunny Florida morning, I tried desper- ately to focus on the cadence of my footfalls and the overwhelming sense of calm- ness that usually washes over me as soon as I step out the door. However, I quickly found it impossible to enjoy the humorous conversation happen- ing around me, or even the sound of the waves gently lapping the shore- line, due to the disturbing number of middle-aged men who deemed it their civic duty to comment on every- thing — ranging from our activity of choice (running) to our bodies. That first run in Florida lasted only 30 minutes, but my friends and I were cat-called 14 times. Standing on a street corner, wait- ing for the traffic whizzing by to come to a halt so that we could cross the road, a man leaned out of his beaten-up truck and had the audac- ity to snap a picture of us. In one swift motion, he crossed all personal boundaries and took with him the image of our bodies — not knowing anything about who we were. I shud- der thinking about where the picture is now or what it was used for. Essen- tially, standing there in a T-shirt and spandex, completely normal running attire for a warm climate, I realized that I had never felt more exposed and objectified in my life. Here we were, athletes on a train- ing run so that we could become bet- ter at our sport, and we were being reduced to mere sexual objects. Would it be appropriate to stand on the sidelines of a college football training camp and yell slurs at the boys as they sprinted back and forth across the field? Or even more simply, at the countless shirtless male run- ners we saw along our route? No, of course not, because at no time in our lives have we been taught that these activities are sexual or that we have the right to invade other people’s comfort zones with our words. So why is it that, because of an inher- ently patriarchal society, we are expected to deal with men ignoring our athletic abilities to instead com- ment on the size of our chests or the curvature of our bodies? The couple of times one of us tried to counter the remarks with a certain obscene hand gesture, the men either yelled more loudly or gave us the same motion right back. In their minds, our bodies were on display for their gratifica- tion — and they had every right to express their pleasure. How dare we take away their right to self- expression, or put in a more sac- charine manner, their right to give “compliments.” For the record, compliments are defined in the dictionary as remarks of “esteem, respect, and affection.” There is no way that these strang- ers have any semblance of respect for me when all they see is a sum of body parts. They don’t know I could like the same kind of music as their daughters or that I am a student attending a prestigious university. Furthermore, affection implies intimacy. Compliments from close friends make me feel warm and con- fident, while these so-called “compli- ments” from strangers make me feel like I have done something wrong. They have not only made me feel uncomfortable, but have also genu- inely terrified me. Once, as I was run- ning on the shoulder of a fairly busy road, a car swerved much too close to me, and a teenager leaned out and screamed something about an explicit sexual act. I flinched in sur- prise and sprinted onto the sidewalk, almost in tears due to my anger and frustration. I was only a freshman in high school. A man who genuinely thinks that he is complimenting ran- dom girls by shouting at them about their assets is disillusioned and stuck in a far bygone era. What’s even more terrifying, how- ever, is that I have heard girls say they do not mind the jeers because they prove that they are “hot” or that they find the attention amusing. These girls are missing out on the impera- tive difference between a compli- ment and a derogatory remark. With each “hey, baby,” “how you doin’ girl” or the incredibly uncreative “damn,” the cat-caller is obtaining gratifi- cation while the act of cat-calling becomes even more socially accepted in today’s culture. I have been the recipient of this kind of harassment in Florida, in my hometown of Grand Rapids and even in Europe. Cat-calling can seem benign, but it is just the tip of an insidious ice- berg. Young girls will grow up con- fusing these invasive and honestly just plain creepy remarks as signs of genuine love and affection. They will think that they must use their bodies to garner male attention. They will think that what they were wearing warranted the harassment, and eventually begin to blame them- selves. This is the problem with cat- calling. If a grown man can’t contain himself while driving past a group of barely-of-age girls in sports bras, our society obviously still has a lot of growing up to do. — Kaela Theut can be reached at ktheut@umich.edu. End cat-calling KAELA THEUT W hen I first joined Facebook in 2008, my posts would typically read something like, “Elliott Rains is going to school … again!!” Nobody ever commented on, liked or probably even read these updates. Nearly a decade later, I sit at my computer with two of my Facebook posts col- lectively approaching 200 comments. The times have certainly changed. Each of these posts were prompts asking my Face- book friends to openly discuss two of the most polarizing figures in recent American politi- cal history: Donald Trump, who has openly supported torture, and Bernie Sanders, a self- described democratic socialist. Given the gen- erally hostile nature of this year’s presidential primaries, one might assume the contents of those 200 comments were equally hostile, agi- tated and not all that constructive. Having grown up in a small, rural and mostly conservative village and now attending a pub- lic university in one of the most liberal cities in the country, I have collected a diverse group of Facebook friends over the years. Many people might question why I did such a silly thing in the first place. Nick Bilton, a New York Times writer, called social media arguments “Can’t-Win Propositions.” When interviewing fellow journalists, Bilton was even told, “The rule about engaging is that you should never engage.” Some respondents noted the format and immediacy of social networks cause misunderstandings. According to Bilton and his interviewees, the nature of social media, along with the way in which people have grown to use them, has created this mentality where it is better to say nothing at all than to possibly engage in a con- troversial dialogue. In other words, the most civil and safe social media are not social at all. However, a recent study by the University of Delaware suggests that social media com- ments and discussions might influence voters’ perceptions of candidates. Though the findings are limited and relatively new, the idea of politi- cal discussions among friends and family that shift narratives and shape opinions is not all that radical. Knowing a Facebook comment might help determine who will be written about in history books centuries from now should be enough to dismiss the idea of “can’t-win” posts. However, there is still much apprehension when it comes to commenting on somebody’s meme about Bernie Sanders taking kids’ lunch money. After reading and responding to all 200 comments, you might be surprised how civil and productive the discussions were. As a whole, I believe a lot was won in the proposi- tion of engaging. Many of my ultra-conserva- tive friends from high school conversed with many of my ultra-liberal friends from college in a civilized and constructive manner. Though I can’t attest to anybody’s personal opinions being changed, it was visibly apparent that many involved in the discussion got something out of the experience. A Sanders supporter talked with a Republican about progressive tax brackets; a vocal Trump supporter and a Sand- ers activist discussed their mutual distaste for Hillary Clinton’s political history. None of these constructive conversations would have taken place if my friends, fam- ily and I had embraced the mentality that social medias are not suitable environments for political discussion. Had we accepted the criticisms that the technologies underlying social networks like Facebook and Twitter breed conflict and hatred, we would have lost out on educational and enjoyable social interaction. If we willingly accept the narra- tive that the only types of discussions we can have as a society on social media are super- ficial or silent, we might squander one of the most revolutionary social developments in human history. Never before has a technological platform enabled 200-plus interactions between so many complete strangers, allowing them to engage with one another on a globally impact- Social media politics ELLIOTT RAINS ful process — much less on a random Wednesday night in March. By col- lectively shifting the narrative to one of mutual respect, understand- ing and civic engagement, the par- ticipants in the 200-plus interactions were given the motivation to partici- pate harmoniously. The affordances of social media were used not as enablers to “can’t-win” hostility but to possible democratically influential connection. In both 2008 and this past week, it was clear to me that we as citi- zens — be it students, factory work- ers or CEOs — shape the future of social media. Though its affordanc- es present us with new opportuni- ties and experiences, we ultimately dictate how those affordances will be put to use. I am all in favor of dog memes, sports highlights and birthday wish- es taking up a portion of our news feeds. But, I can’t help but think it would be a shame if we didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to change human history with a politi- cal Facebook post every now and then. — Elliott Rains can be reached at erains@umich.edu. “Students who are in co-ops and are part of the University’s social justice community should reach out to the Greek community.”