Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Samantha Goldstein

Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan
Ethan Kessler
Lucas Maiman

Magdalena Mihaylova

Ellery Rosenzweig 

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Ali Safawi

 Ashley Zhang

 Sam Weinberger

CSG campaigns ignore guns and student safety

Standing with Planned Parenthood, again

CHARLES CALLIS | OP-ED

STEPHANIE TRIERWEILER | COLUMN

A

t this point, it hardly 
feels like a headline 
since 
it 
happens 
so 

cyclically: 
Republicans 
are 

once again trying to defund 
Planned Parenthood, the largest 
provider of reproductive health 
care and sex education in the 
United States.

Last 
Thursday, 
Politico 

reported 
that 
after 
nearly 

coming to an agreement on 
funding 
levels 
with 
House 

Democrats, House Republicans 
“reneged on women’s health 
issues” during a discussion on 
the annual health spending bill 
for 2018. They are demanding 
several policies that threaten 
health 
care, 
including 

cutting off federal funding to 
Planned Parenthood as well 
as eliminating a federal family 
planning program. This comes 
on heels of President Trump’s 
administration 
slashing 

funding for the Teen Pregnancy 
Prevention Program.

Articles revolving around 

the 
bill 
trickled 
into 
my 

newsfeed at the end of last 
week, quietly juxtaposed with 
the massive waves of pride, 
conversation 
and 
activity 

sweeping across the internet 
for International Women’s Day. 
Hearing news of this attack on 
women’s freedoms feels like 
a stinging reminder of just 
how far we still have to go. 
Despite our progress and sense 
of empowerment in so many 
spaces, women’s autonomy and 
lives continue to be at stake.

Make 
no 
mistake: 
If 

attempts to defund Planned 
Parenthood come to fruition, 
people will suffer, particularly 
women, 
people 
of 
color, 

communities 
of 
lower 

socioeconomic status and rural 
communities with geographic 
barriers 
to 
health 
care. 

National Public Radio explains 
that 
Planned 
Parenthood’s 

federal funding comes from 
Medicaid reimbursements and 
Title X grants. “Defunding” 
the 
organization 
would 

immediately block low-income, 
uninsured people — who depend 
on public health programs — 
from accessing health care. And 
since near half of its revenue 
comes 
from 
government 

funding, Planned Parenthood 
would struggle to maintain its 
centers and services in the same 

capacity.

Planned 
Parenthood 

currently plays a central role in 
providing health care to millions 
of people across the country. 
According 
to 
its 
2016-2017 

annual report, the organization 
saw 2.4 million patients and 
provided 9.5 million services. 
It’s the largest provider of sex 
education in the United States 
and has programs for schools, 
families and professionals. It 
has also conducted research 
in 
reproductive 
health 
for 

over 100 years and provides 
services such as birth control, 
pregnancy testing, emergency 
contraception, abortions and 
referrals, sexually transmitted 
disease 
testing, 
treatment 

and 
vaccines, 
HIV 
testing 

and medication, and LGBTQ 
education.

Additionally, 
Planned 

Parenthood provides critical 
services for people who don’t 
have other options. For example, 
78 percent of its patients have 
incomes at or below 150 percent 
of the federal poverty level. 
According to the Guttmacher 
Institute, 
family 
planning 

health centers like Planned 
Parenthood are the only source 
of care for four in 10 women.

Brianna Jackson, a regional 

patient 
services 
associate 

for 
Planned 
Parenthood 
of 

Michigan 
and 
member 
of 

Planned Parenthood Advocates 
of 
Michigan, 
said 
in 
an 

interview that her interactions 
with patients remind her every 
single day of why she does her 
job: “Just today, I saw a patient 
who was coming in for an IUD 
(intrauterine 
device), 
which 

is usually standard. However, 
she is also homeless and is 
battling an eating disorder, 
depression and anxiety without 
medication. We got her signed 
up 
with 
Medicaid 
so 
she 

could have insurance moving 
forward to find a counselor and 
found her resources to go to a 
shelter if needed. We try and go 
beyond basic health care and 
address the patient and their 
needs as a person.”

Despite 
how 
much 

Planned 
Parenthood 
means 

to women’s health care, rights 
and education, anti-abortion 
activists 
have 
unleashed 

smear campaigns against the 
organization and lawmakers 

have 
relentlessly 
attempted 

to strip it of funding. But this 
crusade is nothing new. Planned 
Parenthood has been routinely 
demonized 
throughout 
its 

history, and its activities have 
been unfairly framed, time 
and time again, as morally 
objectionable.

Even its beginnings are 

rooted 
in 
fighting 
stigma. 

When Margaret Sanger opened 
the first birth control clinic in 
the United States in 1916 and 
distributed birth control as 
well as health information to 
women, she and her staff were 
arrested within two weeks for 
distributing the materials. (This 
clinic was later organized into 
what would become Planned 
Parenthood 
after 
national 

attention was brought to her 
cause). And since the 1970s, 
many state and federal attacks 
have been made to circumvent 
access to abortions and criticize 
Planned Parenthood for being a 
significant provider of abortion 
services.

The common denominator? 

An ideological push that views 
women as second-class citizens. 
Yesterday, it was birth control. 
Today, it’s abortion. Tomorrow, 
it might be something else 
critical to women’s health.

Jackson 
says 
of 
the 

consistent attacks: “At the end 
of the day, we want to offer 
comprehensive women’s health 
care, and some people really 
don’t like that. Because of the 
fact that we offer abortion 
services, because we’re such a 
large organization and because 
we receive federal money, we’re 
being attacked. But we are never 
going to stop abortion services 
just so the attacks stop. Safe 
and legal abortions are part of 
women’s health care and part of 
their rights.”

This new threat of defunding 

is particularly worrisome due 
to the Trump administration 
laying the groundwork to roll 
back protection of abortion 
rights. But we must be resilient, 
we must support women and we 
must fight for organizations that 
do critical work for women. I 
stand with Planned Parenthood.

I

n preparation for writing 
my previous column, “A 21st 
Century Science Course,” I 

interviewed Yuri Popov, a lecturer 
for two sections of Physics 140. 
Originally, I had planned to talk 
to Popov about changes that he 
has seen throughout the years 
while 
teaching 
introductory 

mechanics. However, we ended 
up discussing how U.S. high 
school students compare with 
other students around the world 
in math and science.

The causes and how to address 

these problems are debatable 
topics, but the fact that the U.S. lags 
behind many other industrialized 
countries in math and science 
education is a well-researched 
fact. From data collected by the 
Programme 
for 
International 

Student Assessment and analysis 
conducted by the Pew Research 
Center, the U.S. ranks 38th in 
math and 24th in science out of 71 
countries assessed.

Some people may not see this as 

a huge issue. Though the U.S. is not 
first in either math or science, we 
are not last either. Someone might 
ask why this even matters as most 
people will not end up using what 
they learn in high school chemistry 
class in their everyday lives, and 
they might be right. However, it is 
important to expose every child to 
these topics so that they have every 
opportunity available to them.

Just because someone doesn’t 

use the information every day, it 
does not mean that it is useless 
to teach. There is inherent value 
in teaching every person math 
and science. In these high school 
classes, students focus on logic and 
reasoning, and this will influence 
their cognitive development. We 
owe it to future generations to 
improve the way we teach these 
subjects to give them the best 
opportunity to learn and to grow. 
To do this, we first must recognize 
some of the problems that could be 
causing U.S. students to fall behind.

Popov highlighted what he 

sees as the issues that cause U.S. 
students to fall behind. “The three 
main problems are how schools 
are funded, who decides the 
curriculums and the (excessive) 
amount of choices these young 12 
and 14-year-old kids have when 
signing up for classes,” Popov said.

The property taxes that fund 

schools 
obviously 
offer 
more 

advantages in high-income areas 
as opposed to low-income areas. 
Changing the way that schools 
receive 
funding 
would 
make 

education more equal across the 
board. Deciding what material to 

teach and how to teach it has also 
been a hot issue for many years. 
Popov suggested that professionals 
in each field should be the ones to 
help develop the curriculums so 
that what is truly important is able 
to be discussed in the classroom.

These first two issues I think 

most people understand, and it is 
fairly simple to show that these are 
problems. However, the third is 
slightly more complex, and I myself 
did not think of this as a problem 
initially. In fact, giving kids 
choices and autonomy over their 
own lives is important for their 
development. As pointed out by 
Ned Johnson in an interview with 
Scientific American, children can 
lose motivation if they do not feel 
they are in control of their lives. It 
is great for someone who is a parent 
to encourage their child to explore 
what interests them and allow for 
them to make choices based on 
those interests.

However, as I began to reflect 

on this topic more, I realized that 
there might be some value in more 
standardized requirements and 
less flexibility in a high school 
student’s class schedule. I can’t 
speak for everyone, but at least for 
me, choosing courses in college is 
a confusing and anxiety-riddled 
time. I probably change my mind 
about a certain class four times 
before finally signing up for it, 
and I was the same in high school. 
Though it may help a child’s 
motivation if they are able to make 
their own choices, how do they 
know where their interests lie if 
they end up electing not to take 
what could be an important course 
in high school?

From the Scientific American 

article mentioned earlier, Ned 
Johnson used the example of 
allowing children to choose their 
own personal pastimes. I agree 
these choices should come in the 
form of what extracurricular 
activities 
a 
kid 
wants 
to 

participate in and what to do with 
their Saturday afternoons rather 
than what classes to enroll in. If 
a student has been required to 
spend a few years in high school 
studying and learning a topic, 
they will be more prepared 
to make decisions regarding 
specialization after high school.

During Popov’s years of 

secondary education, he was 
required to take four years of 
physics, four years of math, 
two years of chemistry and two 
years of biology. There was an 
importance placed on math 
and science, and the classes 
filled up his schedule. Four full 

years of physics in high school 
seemed unheard of to me, but 
thinking about it, I came to see 
it as not unreasonable.

To many people, this might 

seem too intense for every student. 
However, I think that if done 
correctly, this type of curriculum 
would be very beneficial. This 
is anecdotal evidence, but many 
people I talk to found physics, or 
any science for that matter, hard 
because it was confusing and 
taught very quickly. In contrast, if 
you had four years to really learn 
it, the subject could be taught at 
a better pace and be much more 
approachable. In doing so, people 
who may not have considered 
a career in a certain field might 
now be more inclined to do so.

It may seem like a radical 

change, but I think science 
literacy is truly just as important 
as English literacy. The more you 
are exposed to true science and 
scientific thinking, the better 
you will be at telling truth from 
fiction. From a study conducted 
by 
the 
National 
Science 

Foundation, from data located 
in Appendix Table 7-11, one can 
see that in 2014, 80 percent of 
college 
graduates 
responded 

that astrology was “not at all 
scientific” 
whereas 
only 
60 

percent of high school graduates 
responded with this answer. I 
believe this is because those who 
go on to college become exposed 
to more scientific thinking and 
therefore are able to distinguish 
real science from pseudoscience. 
Increasing the amount of science 
that is taught in high school 
would help those who do not 
go on to college or those who 
avoid science classes in college, 
to think more critically in their 
everyday lives.

Of course, there could still 

be room for advanced programs, 
classes that go at a slower pace 
and a multitude of electives to fill 
in gaps, but a more standardized 
high school curriculum that 
places 
more 
importance 
on 

science than it currently does is 
needed in the U.S. Implementing 
this is highly dependent on 
solving the issues of funding and 
curriculum creation. However, 
if every student was exposed to 
more science, more people would 
develop better analytical thinking 
skills and more opportunities 
would develop for those who may 
not have been exposed to these 
subjects otherwise.

A case for more science in high school

ROBERT DALKA| COLUMN

DAYTON HARE

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ALEXA ST. JOHN

Editor in Chief
 ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND 

ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors

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.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

O

n Feb. 14, 17 children 
and 
educators’ 
lives 

were taken at Marjory 

Stoneman Douglas High School 
in Parkland, Fla. Since then, 
students, educators and millions 
of others have called for policy 
changes to curtail the epidemic 
of mass shootings in America. 
However, here in Ann Arbor, 
Central 
Student 
Government 

campaigns stayed silent.

It is the sad reality in 

America that as students, we are 
an at-risk population for mass 
shootings. Yet, spending much of 
my time holed up in classrooms 
and focusing most of my energy 
on my studies, the threat of an 
active shooter is not normally 
at the forefront of my attention. 
When I find myself thinking 
through what I would do if there 
were a shooter on campus, I 
find myself utterly ill-equipped. 
The Parkland massacre and 
the more than 200 other school 
shootings 
in 
America 
since 

Columbine in 1999 demonstrate 
the threat of an active shooter 
on the University of Michigan’s 
campus is more of a concern 
than I thought previously. Still 
not sold? Ask Central Michigan 
University students how they felt 
on Friday, March 2.

Each CSG election cycle, 

students complain about the 
governing body’s inability to 
impact important issues, like 
minority enrollment, and its 
fixation 
on 
seemingly 
less 

important issues, like Wi-Fi 
on the Diag. This year, the 
campaigns for CSG can address 
an issue of national and local 
importance: school shootings.

Yet, 
since 
the 
Parkland 

shooting, 
the 
MVision, 

momentUM, 
True 
Blue, 

eMpower and aMplify campaigns 
have not even acknowledged 

the tragedy Marjory Stoneman 
Douglas High School, let alone 
proposed any ideas for gun 
violence prevention. The current 
leadership has done marginally 
better, sharing the March for 
Our Lives Ann Arbor event 
happening later this month, but 
without mention of any steps to 
ensure a tragedy like Parkland 
does not happen on this campus. 
 

Why the deafening silence 

on the issue? Is the University 
of Michigan, one of the most 
prominent public universities 
in the nation, immune to school 
shootings? Of course it isn’t. The 
threat to the lives of students is 
very real. It is the duty of our 
future campus leaders to protect 
our hoMe from gun violence.

In Florida and across the 

country, students have risen 
up. 
They 
organized 
school 

walkouts, 
protests 
and 
the 

March for Our Lives. These 
efforts joined movements like 
Moms Demand Action for Gun 
Sense in America, the Center 
for American Progress, Dick’s 
Sporting 
Goods 
and 
many 

other non-profits, government 
officials 
and 
businesses 
in 

demanding policy change. CSG 
campaigns must join these brave 
students and organizations to 
take a stand for the safety of the 
University’s students.

CSG campaigns can start 

by talking about the issue. 
Incorporate 
student 
safety 

and gun violence prevention 
measures 
into 
campaign 

platforms 
and 
messages. 

Demonstrate 
we, 
as 
at-risk 

students, are taking a stand 
against gun violence. Explore 
preemptive 
measures. 
Arm 

educators 
and 
students, 

not with guns, but with the 
knowledge of what to do in 
the event of a shooting. Then, 

require professors share this 
information with their students 
at the beginning of the semester, 
as they do with campus mental 
health 
resources. 
 
Explore 

advanced infrastructure, such 
as safety-communication apps 
or bulletproof doors, which can 
prevent or mitigate the effects 
of mass shootings. Take a stand, 
as representatives of the student 
body, and lobby University and 
government officials at all levels 
in favor of policies ensuring the 
safety of University students. 

Campaigns should also take 

a stance on policies that do 
not work. Arming professors 
increases the risk of accidents 
in the classroom by allowing 
potentially 
dangerous 
and 

untrained individuals to carry 
weapons in the very classrooms 
we seek to protect. Arming 
educators also perpetuates the 
unrealistic idea of a teacher 
saving the day, demonstrated by 
the armed sheriff deputies hiding 
during the shooting at Marjory 
Stoneman Douglas High School. 
Armed faculty creates more 
problems than solutions.

If this year’s CSG campaigns 

truly 
seek 
to 
improve 
the 

livelihood of students, let us start 
by ensuring no one is lost to gun 
violence here on campus. To all 
those pursuing a position within 
CSG, the time to talk about this 
issue is now. Take a stand, speak 
out and pursue changes that will 
protect the student body and save 
lives. Take this opportunity to 
give light to and impact an issue 
of local and national importance. 
I would say campaigns can keep 
their thoughts and prayers, but 
it seems like those aren’t on the 
table either.

Charles Callis is a Senior in the Ford 

School of Public Policy.

Robert Dalka can be reached at 

rbdalka@umich.edu.

Stephanie Trierweiler can be 

reached at strier@umich.edu.

HANNAH MYERS | CONTACT HANNAH AT HSMYERS@UMICH.EDU. 

