Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, October 31, 2019
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
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
SAMANTHA SZUHAJ | COLUMN
Indecision kills
I
n NBC’s popular sitcom,
“The
Good
Place”,
main
character
Chidi
Anagonye
finds
himself
in
the
show’s form of an
afterlife as a result
of
his
crippling
sense of indecision.
Chidi,
a
moral
philosopher, always
grapples with what
the
most
“moral”
decision would be.
He finds himself in a
personal stalemate,
which
often
has
negative
repercussions — in his case,
death — due to his inability to
make a split-second decision.
In the show, Chidi often
wastes time deciding which
outcome may be the best for
himself and those around
him
and
often
ends
up
frustrating everyone. Though
my indecision has not reaped
such serious consequences,
I find myself in a perpetual
middle ground between one
choice
or
another.
From
having a hard time deciding
which restaurant to go to,
to deciphering where I see
myself after college, I have
this crippling inability to
make decisions.
This sense of indecision,
for me, is often coupled
with the looming nature of
uncertainty.
I
personally
struggle with the grayness
or lack of clarity that some
decisions pose. If I go this
route, will others be upset?
If I choose this way, will
others
be
happy
at
the
expense of my discontent? I
know I am not alone in this
feeling. As students on this
campus, we find ourselves
making decisions that have
the ability to impact our
lives further down the road:
what we want to study, what
jobs we apply for, what clubs
we join, how we choose to
spend our free time and with
whom. These are all choices
that we make as students on
this campus that have the
ability
to
further
impact
our livelihoods, friendships,
relationships,
experiences
and
interests.
The
sense
of
gravity that comes
with the decision-
making
process
often weighs on me.
Some choices have
been
incredibly
clear,
such
as
deciding what to
major in (political
science). Others have been
faced with uncertainty — the
constant back and forth, such
as weighing the decision to
venture across the country to
go to school with no familiar
faces or stay closer to home.
There are times when I want
to just randomly select one
choice just to have a sense of
finality on the issue at hand.
Obviously, these problems
are not just left to the moral
philosophers in sitcoms, but
to all of us, whether we are
hyper-conscious like Chidi
or not.
Being an indecisive person
can pose difficulties. Most
of the time, we just need
someone to suggest one of
the options and say how
they feel about it for you. Or
maybe we need to use a pros
and cons chart, if that can be
an oversimplified, temporary
solution. At the end of the
day,
though,
a
decision
usually must be made. It
cannot sit on the backburner
forever, wilting away due to
purposeful neglect.
As I have found for myself,
this indecision can lead to
what I call a “double loss”
situation, in which both you
and those around you are
frustrated or discontented
with your decision — or lack
thereof. It is evident with
Chidi in “The Good Place”,
as he missed out on so much
due to the copious amounts
of time he spent trying to
figure out what to do about
something or in regard to
someone. His friends, his
family and even his students
come to see his obsession
with making the best choice
all the time as a hindrance
instead of a strength. I do
not want to be a Chidi.
Sometimes
I
need
to
have faith that, despite not
knowing how one choice
may catalyze and influence
future outcomes, it will work
out. At the end of the day,
we all face difficult choices
at this pivotal point in our
lives. I strive to be unlike
Chidi, to not look back on the
past with a sense of regret
due to the amount of time
spent toiling over decisions,
instead of being able to find
satisfaction with whatever
I pick. I want to look back
knowing that despite how
tough one thing may have
seemed in the moment, it all
worked out in the end.
I was recently asked for
a piece of advice that I
wish I could give my past
self. Without hesitation, I
said, “Everything will work
itself out in the end,” which
surprised me. I hold this
to be true, and hope that
others who struggle with the
big and little decisions on
our campus and within our
community can find this to
be true as well.
Samantha Szuhaj can be reached
at szuhajs@umich.edu.
MARY ROLFES | COLUMN
How “exporting culture” could help China
T
he NBA’s recent dispute
about Houston Rockets
General
Manager
Daryl
Morey’s
Hong
Kong
tweet
made
the
headlines
as an example of a Western
company bending the knee
to China’s Communist Party,
but it was less the exception
than the rule. A number of
Western companies have made
alterations
to
appease
the
Chinese: Paramount removed
the Taiwanese flag on Tom
Cruise’s jacket in the “Top Gun
sequel” and Disney scrubbed
the heritage of a Tibetan monk
from “Dr. Strange.”
Clearly, when Bill Clinton
said in 1994 that continuing to
grant China the most-favored
nation status in trade was “the
best opportunity to lay the
basis for long-term sustainable
progress on human rights,”
he was wrong. China has not
made progress in the areas of
freedom of speech or human
rights and today, in addition to
the unacceptable militarism in
Hong Kong and toward Taiwan,
China is running concentration
camps holding upwards of a
million people in Xinjiang —
which is also the location of
some NBA training camps.
The expectation was that as
American culture was shared
worldwide, things like respect
for democratic principles and
support for liberty would be
exported along with it. Just
like
Levi’s
Jeans
became
commonplace,
eventually,
tolerance
and
respect
for
democratic
institutions
and
principles
would
as
well.
However, this hasn’t happened.
In an ironic twist, American
companies getting involved in
China have not made China and
the Chinese people more free
but have instead made America
and Americans seem less free.
What to do about this? There
are
two
options:
continue
to do nothing until we get
to the point where Stephen
Curry and LeBron James are
playing
exhibition
matches
in concentration camps after
delivering
sermons
about
the importance of cultural
tolerance,
or
show
other
countries why they should value
liberal democracy and lead by
example. The first option has
the bonus of demonstrating
how
your
cultural
betters
tend to be hypocrites chasing
the almighty dollar, while the
second would be better off for
American power in the long
run.
America
didn’t
win
the
Cold War with military might
and President Reagan’s lasers
alone — though those were
both big parts of it. A big part
of it was another Ronald — one
who showed that while eternal
vigilance was once the price for
freedom, it was now 3.75 rubles
and came with a side of fries.
Does this mean that the USSR
fell because of McDonald’s?
No — but it did fall because of
what McDonald’s represented:
a uniquely American strand of
culture. McDonald’s (and other
American cultural vanguards)
were important because they
were exporting the best of
America rather than importing
the worst of the authoritarian
world. This cultural subversion
helped us win hearts and
minds.
Another
organization
with a much less welcoming
mascot also did a lot to export
American culture and try and
turn the hearts of citizens
of
authoritarian
countries.
During the Cold War, the CIA
exported American cultural
icons and Western art abroad
to fight communism. The CIA
was instrumental in launching
the
Congress
for
Cultural
Freedom, one of the most
influential
advocacy
groups
supporting the West during
the Cold War. They supported
a number of artists, writers
and more abroad until finally
dissolving in 1979 (the CIA’s
relationship ended with them
in 1966). However, this was
not the only time Western
intelligence
fought
cultural
wars — artists like Dizzy
Gillespie and Louis Armstrong
went abroad on goodwill tours
to help the CIA. The tours were
successful, and this type of
cultural influence should get a
second look from policymakers
today because it helped both
America and the countries
targeted by the visits. Those
on
the
policy’s
receiving
end got to see the value of
pluralistic
democracy
and
the beautiful cultural content
it
created,
and
America
benefitted and gave itself a
better name. We projected
ourselves as a beacon of
hope and liberty, leading us
to believe we had a duty of
higher causes.
The
CIA’s
propaganda
efforts wound down after
the fall of the USSR perhaps
because capitalism itself was
meant to fill in for cultural
export
efforts.
However,
this fill-in has not occurred.
Capitalism has done much
to raise the global standard
of living and deserves more
than two cheers, but every
economic
system
has
its
limits. At a certain point, there
has to be external pressure on
countries to address human
rights issues — and while it
would be nice if it came from
a united front of Western
companies and governments
standing up for basic decency
(and
clearly
saying
that
concentration camps are bad),
it clearly will not.
The CIA should step up to
the plate once again. Though
it has had failures like any
other
intelligence
agency,
its value-based efforts in the
past did a lot of good and are
needed again in today’s world.
Finally, it is worth thinking
about how amazing the stories
that will come out via the
Freedom of Information Act
process in 30 years will be if
the CIA restarts the process.
The last time the FOIA process
happened, it was found that
the CIA funded activist Gloria
Steinem. This entire enterprise
can be easily justified by the
laughs we’ll have when it
comes out that CIA Director
Gina Haspel chose to fund
Lena Dunham because the
latter’s writing is more painful
than waterboarding.
Anik Joshi can be reached at
anikj@umich.edu.
ANIK JOSHI | COLUMN
Unwrapping the conversation about wrapping it up
M
y high school sex-
ed
experience
wasn’t
great
—
probably not a controversial
statement. But living in a
country where only 18 states
require information about
birth control to be part of
the curriculum, I consider
myself lucky to have received
at least some information
on how to practice safe sex,
even if it was delivered by
a guy who taught kickball
next period. The education
included
the
delightfully
cliché
pin-the-condom-on-
the-banana demonstration in
front of a group of squirming
high
school
sophomores
unsuccessfully
attempting
to stifle their giggles. This
performance was nearly the
sum total of the condom
discussion: Don’t have sex,
but in case you do, use a
condom and use it correctly.
Aside from the abstinence
encouragement,
I
was
satisfied with the knowledge
provided. Condoms are a
necessity for safe sex — use
one every time. How much
more complicated can it be?
A lot more complicated,
as it turns out. As I took
my
education
outside
of
the classroom, I discovered
wrapping it up wasn’t as
simple as I had believed it
would be. I’ve experienced
and heard countless stories
of something Cosmopolitan’s
Julia
Pugachevsky
calls
“rubber-stalling”: hesitation,
avoidance and even surprise
surrounding
the
question
of
grabbing
a
condom.
Eventually, this resistance
became somewhat expected,
despite how uncomfortable
and insecure the behavior
made me feel. I accepted this
aversion to condoms as a part
of my society’s particular
sexual script. But looking
back on my experiences and
others’ stories in the wake
of the #MeToo movement,
I
recognize
how
serious
and
unacceptable
these
behaviors are. In many cases,
resistance to a partner’s safe
sex requirements is a form of
reproductive coercion — and
reproductive coercion is a
form of abuse. Furthermore,
condoms are imperative to
sexual health on a private
and public level as they
are the only form of birth
control to offer protection
against sexually transmitted
infections. It is crucial to
acknowledge the necessity
of
condom
use
and
the
implications of resistance to
it, and to empower everyone
to speak out against all forms
of reproductive coercion in
order to mitigate its effects
and to prevent it in the first
place.
While
encouraging
safe sex is important for
everyone, it is especially
pertinent to college students
— after all, nearly half of
newly diagnosed STIs per
year
occur
among
young
people aged 15 to 24. Yet
over 15 percent of college
students report never using
a condom, with another 14
percent
only
using
them
sometimes. This isn’t just
a
matter
of
monogamy,
either: Those who reported
always using condoms had
the second-lowest average
of sexual partners, while
those in the ‘never’ category
averaged
the
most.
Of
course,
there
is
nothing
wrong with having many
sexual partners, but non-
monogamy and unprotected
sex do not make a cute
couple. So why is it they are
paired so often? For one,
there
are
misconceptions
and
excuses
surrounding
condoms,
including
that
they’re all the same, they
ruin the mood and — my
personal favorite — condoms
are simply too small. The
overall
attitude
seems
to be they just don’t feel
good. And while there is no
denying condoms do remove
some
sensation,
many
of
the protective measures we
take to maintain a healthy
lifestyle
have
undesirable
side effects — case in point,
hormonal birth control. Yet
taking the pill does not face
nearly as much opposition as
using a condom does. In fact,
it’s often used as a reason not
to wear a condom. But having
another form of pregnancy
prevention in place is not
a
sufficient
justification
for
going
unprotected.
Condoms are a necessary
measure
to
prevent
STIs
that range from unpleasant
to life-threatening. When it
comes to promoting public
sexual health and individual
wellness, condom use is a
no-brainer.
Of course, practicing safe
sex is not just about using
protection. Although it is
rarely discussed in even the
best American high school
sex-ed courses, mental and
emotional factors play a huge
role in healthy, enjoyable
sex. Defining and upholding
a culture of consent is crucial
to sexual health on college
campuses. This is especially
true at the University of
Michigan, where a striking
34.3 percent of women in
the undergraduate student
body
have
reported
non-
consensual
contact
since
enrollment.
The
physical
and emotional aspects of
sex are not separate, and
condoms and consent often
go hand-in-hand. According
to the Sexual Assault and
Prevention
Awareness
Center,
U-M’s
definition
of consent includes that
consent
is
unambiguous,
mutually understood and
freely given. This definition
certainly
applies
to
the
decision to use a condom,
and begging, pleading or
guilt-tripping someone into
sex without a condom is
absolutely not consensual.
These behaviors are not
exclusive to men, either.
In a 2017 survey by The
Journal of Sex Research,
roughly half of the women
surveyed reported taking
action to avoid condoms,
including
seduction
tactics and manipulation.
Everyone needs to be held
accountable in practicing
consensual sex, including
when it comes to grabbing
a condom — and everyone
needs to be empowered to
control their sexual health.
There
are
individuals
who may genuinely struggle
with
condoms,
which
is
completely valid. It is not
valid,
however,
to
use
that struggle as an excuse
to
coerce
someone
into
unprotected sex. There are
many healthy, productive
strategies
for
improving
condom
experience,
such
as
trying
out
different
kinds. Condoms are not
one-size-fits-all
and
it
may require some trial and
error to find the perfect
match. Another approach is
taking the condom outside
of an intimate setting by
masturbating
with
one,
which
can
help
break
potential
psychological
associations
between
condoms
and
negative
sexual
experiences.
And
if external condoms really
aren’t working out, do not
fret.
Internal
condoms,
sometimes
called
female
condoms,
provide
similar
STI protection. With that
in
mind,
there
certainly
are
circumstances
where
it’s
OK
to
stop
using
condoms,
but
such
a
decision should be reached
through conversation and
consideration, not coercion.
A safe, consensual sex life
is a human right, and the
experience of resistance or
refusal to safe sex behaviors
should not be normalized.
By acknowledging rubber-
stalling for what it is —
coercion and abuse — we
can
empower
individuals
to
speak
about
their
experiences
and
prevent
it from happening in the
first place. Let’s wrap this
up: wrap it up. It’s not that
complicated.
Mary Rolfes can be reached at
morolfes@umich.edu.
Condoms are
imperative to sexual
health on a private
and public level
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
I find myself in a
perpetual middle
ground between one
choice or another
SAMANTHA
SZUHAJ