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.