Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, November 1, 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
DIVYA GUMUDAVELLY | COLUMN
A single narrative’s danger
RILEY DEHR | COLUMN
F
rom preserving peace
in war-torn countries
to providing a forum for
diplomacy and helping to build
a more sustainable future, the
United Nations is a critically
important
organization.
However, the U.N.’s ability
to do this work is threatened
because the United States is
refusing to pay its share of the
U.N. budget.
The secretary general of
the United Nations, António
Guterres, announced that the
U.N. is facing a severe budget
shortfall that will impact it in
a many ways. He warned that
the U.N. might not be able
to continue to pay its staff
members and will have to
cut back on many important
programs and services.
The U.N.’s annual budget
is supposed to be funded
by the 193 member states.
Unfortunately, many members
have not paid their annual
dues and are pushing the
U.N. toward financial crisis.
The United States owes about
$1.055 billion in past and
present dues.
The Trump administration
has been a major factor in
the
accumulation
of
these
debts. President Trump has
repeatedly targeted the U.N.
budget and has tried to cut
funding in the past. One of his
main complaints is that the
United States pays too high a
percentage of the U.N. budget.
The real contribution to the
U.N. of each country depends
on GDP, population and other
factors. As the nation with
the highest GDP in the world,
it is only reasonable that
the United States is asked to
supply the largest share of the
U.N. budget.
Additionally, the argument
that the United States pays too
much for the U.N. is undercut
when looking at how much
money the U.S. government
spends on other things. The
roughly $1 billion that the
United States owes the U.N.
is 0.1355 percent of the U.S.
military’s $738 billion fiscal
year 2020 budget. If we can
commit so much money to our
military, there is no excuse
for not committing such a
proportionately small amount
to foster peace and prosperity
around the world.
One of the most costly and
disruptive cuts the U.N. is
facing is the slashing of the
hours when meetings can be
held. International crises do
not run on a 9-to-5 schedule.
If committees needed to meet
after hours, they would have
to do so without the necessary
support staff, as there would be
no money to pay for overtime.
One
of
the
key
global
issues the U.N. works on is
the
fight
against
climate
change.
They
have
done
everything
from
promoting
sustainable development goals
to hosting a youth climate
summit with youth activist
Greta Thunberg. The U.N.
also
runs
other
important
programs, such as the World
Health Organization, which
helps
fight
the
spread
of
disease. The ability to run
these important programs is
severely threatened by the
U.N.’s budget crisis.
In addition to withholding
funds for the U.N. general
budget,
the
U.S.
is
also
withholding
some
funds
for the U.N. peacekeeping
program. The peacekeeping
program is one of the most
important U.N. initiatives,
sending experts to promote
peace in some of the world’s
most volatile regions. The
United States is supposed
to provide over 28 percent
of the annual peacekeeping
budget. However, the United
States is now only paying 25
percent. While this 3 percent
difference may not seem like
much, 3 percent can translate
to a significant amount of
money.
Moreover,
even
though
the United States is asked to
give the largest amount to the
peacekeeping budget, other
countries pay by contributing
peacekeepers. In 2019, only
35 peacekeepers came from
the United States. This is a
minimal amount compared to
many other nations, such as
the 7,052 from Ethiopia and
the 5,668 from Nepal. These
peacekeepers put themselves
in harm’s way, and at least
3,866 peacekeepers have been
killed since the founding of
the program in 1948.
As
students,
there
are
many things that we can do
to try to push the United
States to meet its full funding
commitment to the U.N. You
can call your congressional
representative and ask them to
commit to advocating for U.N.
funding. You also can also join
the University of Michigan
UNAUSA club, which works to
promote the work of the U.N.
on campus.
Isabelle Schindler can be reached
at ischind@umich.edu.
ISABELLE SCHINDLER | COLUMN
End the ban on gay blood
T
he confused and mildly
embarrassed
nurse
rushed out of the tent.
“I’ve never seen this before.
Let me go get the doctor.”
The computer I was doing
my health evaluation on the
minute
before
now
read,
“Error.”
I had clicked through a few
mundane questions to see if I
could give blood in our high
school’s annual blood drive,
something of a senior class
ritual.
“Male,
Female,
Other.”
Male.
“Are you on antibiotics?”
No.
Then, it asked me a rather
personal question.
“Have you been sexually
active in the past twelve
months?”
I thought it was an oddly
kinky
question
for
the
Red Cross, but I answered
honestly.
Yes.
The computer then began to
hit on me: “Were you sexually
active with men or women?”
I knew it wasn’t a good
sign that they were asking
the
question.
But,
I
had
recently learned to be proud
of my gayness (a skill in rural
Nebraska) and clicked the
“Men” box with butterflies
in my stomach. Immediately,
the computer punished my
honesty with “Please wait for
a nurse.”
Now, as I sat waiting for the
doctor, I wished I would have
lied. After 10 minutes, a young
blonde woman in a crisp,
white uniform walked into the
tent. “I’m sorry it took so long,
we’ve been swamped.” She
looked at the computer and
then down at me. I blushed at
my answers and tried to hide
my nervousness as I prepared
myself for her reaction.
Luckily,
she
was
sympathetic and explained
to me the government’s ban
on drawing blood from men
who have sex with men. “It’s
stupid. I know.” I nodded,
pretending to listen as I
panicked over what I was
going
to
tell
my
friends
and
classmates
waiting
outside. She apologized and
ushered me back out into
the gymnasium, temporarily
converted into a makeshift
blood bank. My friends and
classmates
flocked
around
me, curious as to why I
wasn’t
giving
blood
after
enthusiastically talking about
it all week.
“I
forgot
I’m
on
antibiotics!” I stammered as I
chose a suitable lie to save me
from the embarrassing truth.
I felt like I had been punished
for trying to do a selfless deed.
Even so, I couldn’t help but
laugh at the ridiculousness of
the situation as I remembered
an episode of “Degrassi: The
Next Generation” (the one
with wheelchair Drake) I had
seen as an angsty tween that
almost perfectly reflected my
situation. The synopsis of the
episode
Moonlight
Desires
reads, “Marco is upset when
he discovers he is unable to
donate blood at the blood
drive because he is gay and
then catches Dylan in bed
with another guy.” I couldn’t
believe
that
my
life
had
temporarily become a 2005
episode of a Canadian teen
drama.
The
situation
eventually
lost its humor though, as it
became replaced by a feeling
of disbelief. Why was the
government banning a high
schooler
from
trying
to
donate blood? The ban’s roots
can be found in today’s decade
of problematic nostalgia: the
’80s.
In order to stop the spread
of AIDS, then a mysterious
epidemic
disproportionally
affecting gay men, the federal
government enacted a lifetime
ban on drawing blood from
men who have had sex with
men, also known as MSM.
Intended
as
a
temporary
policy, it became a permanent
rule as the AIDS epidemic
continued to rage on through
the ’90s, killing hundreds of
thousands. By 2015, the U.S.
replaced its lifetime ban with
a ban on men who had been
sexually active with other men
in the past 12 months. While it
seems like a giant leap in the
right direction (12 months is
a lot shorter than a lifetime),
it
barely
increased
the
number of eligible donors
and amounted to a lifetime
ban
for
most
gay
men.
After the Pulse Nightclub
shooting in 2016, Orlando’s
LGBTQ community rushed
to donate blood for their
friends and family only to
find themselves barred from
doing so. They protested the
ban and pushed the Food
and Drug Administration to
review it, but as the article
states, the FDA ultimately
decided to keep it in place
after deciding there “wasn’t
enough evidence supporting
the
change.”
While
proponents of the ban tout
it as necessary for public
health, it is an archaic rule
that harms more than helps.
With
mandatory
HIV
screening for all donated
blood, modern technology
has made the odds of a
contaminated donation going
undetected
astronomically
small. A blood transfusion is
needed every two seconds in
the United States, and with
only 38 percent of Americans
eligible to donate under the
current ban, and other rules,
blood shortages have become
a frequent issue. Lifting the
ban would alleviate this issue
and increase the donor pool
by about 130,000, potentially
saving up to 390,000 lives
every year.
As nations like Russia use
bans like ours to further
discriminate
against
their
LGBTQ
communities,
the
concept of limiting blood
donations from MSM has
become less of a public health
issue and more of a civil
rights
one.
By
needlessly
“otherizing” gay and bisexual
men, the United States is
continuing its tradition of
making HIV a point on which
to stigmatize our community
and perpetuate dangerous
stereotypes. It is time for
science to drive the policy
behind this issue, not only
saving
lives,
but
saving
students like me needless
shame
and
humiliation.
Like mullets and Long Duk
Dong, the government’s gay
blood ban belongs in the
’80s.
Riley Dehr can be reached at
rdehr@umich.edu.
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.
This is an archaic
rule that harms
more than helps
The United States
is refusing to pay
its share of the
U.N. budget
The need for UN funding
SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK
The Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan
Daily for first-person accounts of sexual assault and
its corresponding personal, academic and legal
implications. Submission information can be found at
https://tinyurl.com/survivespeak.
T
he
power
of
storytelling
needs
no
introduction.
Stories
are
the
intergenerational
links
that
keep
culture
alive
and
transcend
our
existences
beyond
the
biological
reactions
that
hold
us
together.
Stories
make
us
multidimensional
creatures — human
in the truest sense.
They
also
allow
us
to
transmit
information
that
cannot
be
communicated
through charts or graphs.
We’ve used stories to shape
and
build
perspectives,
assemble and dismantle beliefs
and influence and control
behaviors over the course of
history. But what happens
when stories (plural) become
story (singular), and a host
of intersectional narratives
and stories are reduced to
one facet of an individual’s
identity? While the power of
storytelling can be explained
by
basic
neuroscience,
its
tremendous effects on our
perception and understanding
of the world are the result of
sociology. But both of these
elements provide insight as
to why propagating a single
narrative
is
dangerous,
specifically with regard to
today’s sociopolitical climate.
Storytelling
is
powerful
because it incites emotion
and
empathy.
Words
—
when presented as facts or
information — are processed
by regions in the temporal
lobe
called
Broca’s
area
and Wernicke’s area. Here,
words are simply decoded
into their meaning. When
strung with emotions and
distinct
imagery
however,
the brain behaves completely
differently. Then, the sensory
cortex is activated. As a result,
multiple regions of the brain
are
utilized
in
processing
a story. Word choice and
rhetoric can all influence the
extent to which information
is processed in our brains,
making it more important
to
deliver
comprehensive,
multidimensional stories that
are representative of people,
and not just the idea of them.
The power of storytelling lies
in the fact that narratives
capture our hearts by first
attracting
our
brains.
As
they
continue
to
be
processed
in
multiple
cortexes,
they stick with us
forever.
The
pitfalls
of
this
phenomenon
emerge
when
we
misuse
it.
While
some
may
know
that these stories
are fake or misrepresentative,
our subconscious may believe
them to be real, which in turn
influences how we perceive
and behave.
As
celebrated
author
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
artfully describes, “The single
story creates stereotypes, and
the problem with stereotypes
is not that they are untrue, but
that they are incomplete. They
make one story become the
only story.” Each individual
life contains a heterogeneous
mix of stories. If people are
reduced to one, they are
stripped of their humanity.
Though
this
point
was
made nearly 10 years ago,
the notion of perpetuating
a single story is relevant
amid the current political
climate, specifically with the
platforms of President Donald
Trump
and
Sen.
Bernie
Sanders,
I-Vt.
Both
have
systematically
reduced
the
complexities of the American
political landscape by either
fixating on the perils of the
“other” or on the tyranny of
the banks. Both candidates
have essentially disregarded
storylines that complicate the
core stance they are assuming
and contribute to a larger
political issue linked with
civility.
Polarization
limits
our ability to understand how
multiple
narratives
about
issues from immigration to
universal health care may be
simultaneously true.
The
value
of
multiple
narratives
is
that
the
stories begin to form an
interconnected
web
and
offer
dimensionality
to
complicated
issues.
They
allow us to see a larger
picture, one that is beyond
any individual discourse or
opinion.
Civility
requires
individuals to take each other
and the narratives they bear
seriously, to be perceived as
fully realized global citizens
with identities, needs and
beliefs that deserve to be
accommodated. Stories come
with an immense neurological
power, one unlike any other
method
of
communicating
information.
As
a
result,
those with the privilege of
presenting
other
peoples’
stories are morally bound to
do so representatively.
When
narratives
are
solidified as the ubiquitous
norms, or policies of society,
there is a cascade of effects
unleashed in the form of bias,
prejudice and discrimination,
which becomes exceedingly
difficult to overcome. While
individuals
can
renounce
their prejudices, they are
inevitably vulnerable to the
habits of the mind. Intentions
are
not
impact,
and
ultimately, what is neurally
engrained is achieved. One-
dimensional stories are often
rooted in biases, and when
consistent, they help shape
prejudiced mindsets. When
these are the only narratives
that
are
represented
systemically,
they
become
acts of discrimination that
are passed down to further
generations.
The molecular mechanism
of storytelling demonstrates
just how powerful stories can
be. It is a uniquely human
ability that we have, and
when given the opportunity
to
represent
stories
systemically, it is important
to make sure that we are
encompassing of a variety of
different dimensions.
Divya Gumudavelly can be
reached at gumudadi@umich.edu.
One-dimensional
stories are often
rooted in biases
DIVYA
GUMUDAVELLY