Despite the reluctance to
establish PFAS limits, a draft
of the EPA chemical plan
states PFAS will be listed as a
hazardous substance, a move
that will make it easier to hold
companies
accountable
for
their waste. In January, U.S.
Reps. Debbie Dingell, D-Ann
Arbor, Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph,
and Dan Kildee, D-Oscoda,
introduced legislation to declare
PFAS chemicals as hazardous.
By listing PFAS as a hazardous
chemical, the PFAS Action Act
would allow the EPA to devote
federal resources to clean up
water in contaminated areas.
Dingell stated in a press
release that PFAS are a threat to
Michigan residents, and it was
her desire by introducing the
PFAS Action Act to urge the EPA
to clean up Michigan’s drinking
water.
“Michigan has been hit hard
by PFAS,” Dingell said. “It’s clear
it’s a threat to human health and
our environment. It’s been found
in our drinking water, air, food,
and consumer products.”
Ann Arbor water treatment
manager Brian Steglitz said
he was confident Ann Arbor
could easily meet new EPA
standards if PFAS were listed
as hazardous. Many states have
acted independently to set limits
on PFAS and Steglitz said Ann
Arbor is currently planning
to meet some of the strictest
standards set by other states.
“The
position
in
Ann
Arbor we’re taking so far is
attempting to meet the most
stringent
requirements
that
currently exist around the U.S.
on regulating PFAS because
many states have already taken
that initiative,” Steglitz said.
“So I think we would be well-
positioned to meet any standards
if they were legislated at the
national or even state level.”
Steglitz said Ann Arbor’s
current goal is to have levels of
PFAS below 10 parts per trillion.
According
to
Steglitz,
Ann
Arbor is on its way to meeting
that goal, and because no states
currently have any PFAS limits
at that level, he believes Ann
Arbor would have no issue with
meeting any potential national
limits.
“This
is
an
emerging
contaminant, so I feel very good
about the work we have done
to stay ahead of the regulatory
curve,” Steglitz said. “But there’s
a lot of research going on. Based
on the information we know,
we’re in a very good place.”
Gov.
Gretchen
Whitmer
issued
an executive order Monday to
establish the Michigan PFAS
Action Response Team as a
permanent
organization
to
continue to identify sources of
PFAS and protect Michigan’s
water. Created as a temporary
team in 2017, MPART has
already
identified
numerous
contaminated sites in Michigan.
Councilmember
Jeff
Hayner, D-Ward 1, said he was
thrilled to see many Michigan
officials respond to the threat
of PFAS, despite the national
administration’s reluctance. He
explained Ann Arbor continues
to monitor its water and to
work with county and state
officials to provide clean water
for residents, but said more
legislation will need to be passed
to hold companies accountable.
“If you want the polluter to
pay (to do the clean-up) then
these standards are set, but if
these standards are set real high,
then they don’t have to do any
clean-up,” Hayner said. “The bar
is set very low for clean-up.”
Hayner believes more local
control is needed to help protect
environmental resources. He
hopes legislation can change at
either the state or federal level
so cities can have more of a say
in environmental issues.
“One of our big policy goals
is to continue to work with
our state representatives and
our federal representatives to
change these laws to allow local
control
over
environmental
Amir
Baghdadchi,
senior
associate
director
of
University
Housing,
explained the intricacies of
dealing with housing spaces.
While the policy does not
extend to community areas,
such as housing notice boards,
student doors are deemed
personal
spaces,
and
the
individuals whom they belong
to have the right to express
themselves in almost any way
they please.
“Housing spaces are unique
for a couple of reasons,”
Baghdadchi said. “One is that
they actually are a balance
between
being
community
spaces — places that we all
share and we want those to be
inclusive. At the same time,
individual rooms — those are
personal spaces. Of course,
the building has to balance
both of those, and that means
in every housing building
you’ve
got
at
least
two
different kinds of spaces.”
He further emphasized the
University’s dedication to the
First Amendment, and noted
how even if some individuals
find speech on a student’s
door upsetting, the student
still has a right to express
themselves.
“It’s
the
University’s
commitment as a whole to
be very clear about how we
do not suppress speech, even
when it is an opinion we
find detestable,” Baghdadchi
said. “We don’t censor that
speech.”
Though not all speech can
be removed, there is a process
in place for RAs and DPEs to
follow if racist statements
are present on an individual’s
door. Baghdadchi said the
first response to potentially
harmful speech is reporting
it to a professional staff
member who then takes the
information to the Housing
Diversity and Inclusion unit,
which directs the incident to
the Division of Public Safety
and Security, the hall director
or another University official.
There are also conversations
held with the student who
was the source of the speech
as well as with those who
are impacted by the speech.
Additionally, if any speech
threatens
violence
against
another individual or group,
the threat is handled by DPSS.
Along with filing reports,
Baghdadchi explained how
RAs can use their connection
to hall residents to help
guide them through difficult
situations.
“Now on the other hand,
one of the most important
things RAs can do is support
their residents,” Baghdadchi
said.
The RA also explained how
they would go about handling
a situation involving a racist
or derogatory comment on
a door, and emphasized the
importance
of
taking
the
impacted student’s lead as to
how to resolve the issue.
“One thing I’ve been a
big proponent of is treating
people how they want to be
treated,” they said. “Let’s say
someone who was impacted
by this situation, I may want
to take this action, but first
you need to talk to them and
see what they want to do
and see how they feel. It’s
important to take care of
them first, whether that be a
conversation or connecting
them with other resources
because as RAs, you can’t do
everything.”
While the RA has a plan
for responding to a situation
where
a
resident
posts
an
offensive
comment
on
their door in a manner that
coincides with the policy,
they also admitted it would
be difficult to watch their
residents go through these
types of situations.
“I think it’s hard,” they
said. “I see something and
say, ‘That’s obviously not
right,’ or, ‘That’s obviously
going to have some sort of
implication on the resident.’
I don’t want them to see
that. It’s not like I walk
around like, ‘That’s not my
problem, that’s on you.’ I feel
bad, too, but understanding
on several ends of things
people have reasons for why
they do things and there are
other mechanisms to create
understanding.”
Baghdadchi acknowledged
how even though immediately
removing
harmful
speech
may seem like the right
way to handle a situation,
it is not always the most
permanent
solution.
He
explained
while
the
University is demonstrating
its
commitment
to
free
speech, he also believes they
are
demonstrating
their
commitment
to
students
impacted
by
racial
slurs
through
providing
the
appropriate responses.
“The
responsibility
(to
impacted
students)
lies
in responding in a timely,
effective way to that student,
giving that student support,
making it clear that the
message they see, that they
may find harmful to them,
does
not
represent
the
University’s point of view,”
Baghdadchi said. “... Taking it
upon ourselves to do a follow-
up with the source of that
speech.”
Moving forward, the RA
explained how even though
the inability to immediately
remove racist speech may
make some residents feel like
nothing is being done, the
housing staff is working to
make sure the right reports
are being filed so the right
steps can be taken to handle
the situation.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Tuesday, February 5, 2019 — 3
SPEECH
From Page 1
PFAS
From Page 1
“If we look at the death
rates over the past 10 or 15
years, we see that firearms
are the second leading cause
of death among children and
teens in our country … we’re
not allowing the children
in our country to become
18-year-olds.”
Cunningham
claimed
guns are never going away
and it is important to work
together
on
preventing
future deaths and injuries
from firearms.
“Guns are going to exist
in our culture, cars are going
to exist in our culture,”
Cunningham said. “And now,
together, we have to work
towards how those things
are going to be more safe and
how we’re going to have less
children dead.”
The
conversation
transitioned to discussing
the
importance
of
understanding
other
people’s experiences with
guns.
Panelist
Jane
Coaston,
senior politics reporter at
Vox, said people often lack
an accurate understanding
of how others think about
firearms — even between
different pro-gun groups.
“When you talk to some
folks in the conservative
movement, how they think
about guns is very different
from how they think people
that own guns in other
communities
think
about
guns,” Coaston said. “So
their guns are very much
their means of self-defense,
whereas
they’re
(other
communities)
using
guns
to be terrible and shoot
everyone. Whereas if you
go and talk to people who
are living in Baltimore or
elsewhere, they’re interested
in owning guns for the same
reason as people in Iowa. In
the interest in self-defense
or because they want to go to
a gun range at some point.”
Coaston continued and
claimed showing different
communities
their
gun
usage and beliefs are not
as different as they think is
crucial to altering policy.
“We need to make sure
communities
understand
they’re not as dissimilar
as they think when we’re
talking
about
these
particular issues,” Coaston
said.
Coaston then discussed
how one’s views on firearms
may appear to be an accurate
depiction of one’s political
beliefs as a whole, but she
claimed the two can be
entirely separate.
“Polarization
and
how
guns have become a slang
way of getting to know
someone’s
politics
when
it really shouldn’t be, is
something
that’s
been
a
really big hindrance to this
conversation,” Coaston said.
Cunningham
said
the
main focus of firearm policy
going forward should be a
deeper
understanding
of
gun accessibility and why
families feel the need to own
guns.
“Whose
responsibility
is it in our society to have a
4-year-old not have access to
a loaded gun?” Cunningham
said. “And why is this young
family with a 4-year-old and
a pregnant mother feel they
need to sleep with a loaded
gun under their bed?”
The
panelists
then
discussed
how
some
of
the
current
perspectives
surrounding gun policy are
not effective.
Panelist Jonathan Metzl,
professor
of
psychiatry
and sociology at Vanderbilt
University,
discussed
barriers between activists,
academics and politicians.
“I do feel that part of the
issues that are happening
are tied to the relationship
between the activism realm
and the legal realm,” Metzl
said. “The legal realm is
really where those everyday
practices are being shaped.”
Coaston
ended
the
discussion by adding that
gun safety is only mentioned
after a mass shooting, but
it should be talked more
frequently if real change is
going to happen.
“We start talking about
gun policy when something
terrible
has
happened,
specifically a mass shooting,
and
we
saw
that
after
Parkland and we see it after
pretty much every well-
known
mass
shooting,”
Coaston said. “That is the
time to have a conversation
about gun policy when we
should be talking about gun
policy at all times.”
Public
Health
student
Jane Smith said a priority in
gun safety should be really
trying to understand why
people
and
communities
own guns in order to figure
out the next step.
“I think really getting at
the root of gun ownership
and why are people owning
guns, and understanding the
cultural aspect behind, it can
help us in identifying where
to go next,” Smith said.
SNOW
From Page 1
“We want to let our
bargaining unit members
know that this does not
apply to employees who
are ‘covered by the terms
of a collective bargaining
unit,’ which includes GSIs
and GSSAs under the GEO
contract,” the statement
read. “However, if you
hold an RA position in
addition to a GSI or GSSA
appointment, this new
policy does apply to you.”
Some
faculty
have
expressed concern about
the new policy.
The
Daily
obtained
an email sent by Rowell
Huesmann,
professor
of
communication
studies and psychology,
to the Senate Advisory
Committee on University
Affairs.
Huesmann
claimed
the
policy
disregards the rights of
all faculty and staff to
due process by requiring
disclosure of charges and
not just convictions.
“To me, it seems like an
outrageous violation of
faculty, staff, and student
rights,” Huesmann wrote.
“The
policy
not
only
requires one to report
‘convictions,’
(which
would be bad enough),
but it also requires one
to report simply ‘being
charged’ with a felony
which often involves no
‘due process.’”
In response to these
concerns, Thomas stated
the University upholds
legal
procedures
and
respects the rights of all
community members.
“The
due
process
continues,” Thomas said.
“If we make a decision
that the individual wants
to appeal, the normal
appeal
processes
at
the University will be
available.”
Thomas
said
the
University
is
not
stripping
faculty
of
due
process,
and
the
wellbeing of the campus
is most important.
“Felony
charges
are
very serious; it means
that they wwhave found
enough evidence to do
the charge, and so we will
review charges in order
to ensure the safety of
our community,” Thomas
said.
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
EMPLOYEES
From Page 1
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
“One of the initiatives we
are working on is based on
Vision Zero, which is really
successful,” Lin said. “I live
in New York City and that’s
where it’s based, so it’s
interesting to see how New
York is really successful in
this and Ann Arbor is not.
I’m trying to work with
the CSG assembly to work
on a resolution to get the
school to support issues
that Kathy Griswold has
for pedestrian safety.”
At
the
meeting,
the
Resolution to Encourage
Transportation
Collaboration
initiative
passed, allowing the city
of Ann Arbor to work
closely with members of
the University of Michigan
and
other
appropriate
collaborators
to
create
innovative
solutions
for
the urban transportation
landscape of Ann Arbor.
Griswold
sponsored
the
resolution.
Following the discussion
of
transportation,
the
Resolution to Encourage
Ann
Arbor
Community
Members to Support Farm
Workers
Rights
and
to
Boycott Wendy’s and Other
Food
Service
Providers
not
Supportive
of
the
Fair Food Program was
passed.
This
resolution,
which
advocates
the
boycott of the fast-food
chain
because
of
labor
concerns, was sponsored
by
Councilmembers
Elizabeth Nelson, D-Ward
4, Jack Eaton, D-Ward 4,
and Griswold.
Kimberly
Daley,
a
postdoctoral
fellow
in
Public Health, spoke during
the
public
commentary
section of City Council. She
works to spread awareness
about labor justice in the
food system and explained
the history of the Wendy’s
boycott to the council.
“The Fair Food Program
(has signed) with 14 multi-
billion-dollar corporations,
which
has
virtually
eliminated exploitation for
hundreds of thousands of
farm workers,” Daley said.
“Of these 14 corporations,
McDonalds,
Subway,
Chipotle, Taco Bell, Burger
King and Walmart have all
signed on. Wendy’s refuses,
which is why workers have
asked consumers across the
country to boycott them.”
Councilmember
Jane
Lumm, I-Ward-2, did vote
to pass the resolution but
expressed some hesitations
with the political message
that this boycott would
give.
“For me, resolutions like
this, there needs to be a
direct local connection,”
Lumm said. “Otherwise it
becomes a more political
message
or
statement-
with all due respect to
the cosponsors. But I just
think in the future I’d
like to focus on making
positions and statements
like this that have a direct
local connection.”
Next,
the
council
passed
the
Resolution
to
Strengthen
Nuclear
Emergency Planning for
the Population of the City
of Ann Arbor, Michigan.
This
resolution
would
support the stockpiling of
nonprescription potassium
iodine
in
communities
located within 50 miles
of an actively operating
nuclear power plant, for
the preservation of public
safety. In the instance of
a nuclear accident, Ann
Arbor residents would be
encouraged to take the
nonprescription potassium
iodide (KI) pills in order to
prevent thyroid cancer.
Ann
Arbor
resident
David
Schonberger
spoke during the public
comments
and
highly
recommended
preparing
for a nuclear emergency
for
health
reasons
and
financial reasons.
“Even if public health
officials do not recommend
it, the demand for KI will
be high following a nuclear
emergency,”
Schonberger
said. “The KIU should be
a part of an emergency
plan including evacuation,
sheltering, and avoidance
of contaminated food in
the event of a nuclear
emergency.”
Councilmember
Ali
Ramlawi,
D-Ward-5,
approved of the spending,
and
brought
forward
President
Trump’s
withdrawal from nuclear
treaties as reasoning for
supporting the policy.
“I
think
this
is
a
very
forward
thinking
resolution that is being
brought
forward
and
appreciate
the
efforts
to bring it to council,”
Ramlawi said. “We have
a
president
right
now
that is withdrawing from
the nuclear treaties with
Russia. We’re entering a
new arms race possibly
with nuclear weapons, so
for the cost of less than a
dollar per person this is a
sound investment.”
WENDY’S
From Page 1
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com