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

