Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Lola Yang
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
BRITTANY BOWMAN | COLUMN
Why are men so obsessed with their daughters’ virginity?
SOLOMON MEDINTZ | COLUMN
U-M has $1 billion invested in fossil fuels. Let PCNN talk about it
30 years on, has German reunification hit a wall?
R
ecently,
musician
and
singer T.I. went on a
podcast called Ladies Like
Us on Nov. 5, and boasted about how
his daughter’s hymen is still intact,
and he knows because he forcibly
takes her to the gynecologist. Here’s
why that is problematic, and frankly,
sickening.
When Deyjah, T.I.’s daughter,
turned 16, her father posted a
note on the fridge stating they
would be attending the doctor’s
office within the next few days.
When I first heard this story, I
was straining to be optimistic,
hoping this would be a case of
teaching children and teens about
sexual wellness and awareness
by taking the time to familiarize
them
with
their
reproductive
health resources. Instead, Deyjah’s
father
is
inherently
obsessed
with maintaining his daughter’s
socially-constructed
purity
and
her virginity. Every year since she
turned 18, he’s been driving her to
the gynecologist as a post-birthday
tradition.
The
American
College
of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists
recommends that girls first see a
gynecologist between the ages of
13 and 15, with a yearly checkup
every year post initial exam.
However, if reproductive health
and overall health are maintained
smoothly, there may not be a need
to attend a specialized branch of
medicine like the gynecologist.
Many women’s health needs can
be fulfilled by a primary care
provider or even on the third floor
of University Health Services
at the University of Michigan,
the Women’s Health Clinic. The
Women’s Health Clinic provides
comprehensive care for patients of
any gender, and any patient seeking
gynecologic
information,
STI
treatment or post-sexual assault
services can surely find some
degree of help on the third floor.
Granted, if the financial resources
are available, it can be important
to have a gynecologist. However,
due to the potentially invasive
nature of medical procedures
or practices, gynecology visits
can be intimidating. Some of
the top reasons people make a
gynecologist appointment are for
overall physical health check-ups,
pregnancy-related visits, irregular
menstruation, breast or pelvic
exams, pap smears, birth control,
etc. Even then, the idea of making
an appointment or going to the
gynecologist is intimidating.
For this reason, gynecologists
and other medical professionals
tend to stress the importance
of not performing unnecessary
procedures.
One
of
these
unnecessary medical procedures
is a virginity assessment, or
hymen check. There is no factual,
scientific or medical basis for
determining
whether
or
not
someone has experienced vaginal
penetration, and therefore has “lost
their virginity.” In cultures where
female virginity is prized, many
women and girls are subjected to
these invasive examinations in
order to ensure that they are still
“pure.” In addition to there being
no scientific or medical evidence
of virginity, these examinations
can
be
psychologically
and
even physically harmful to girls
and women. Examinations are
oftentimes done without proper
patient consent, normally when
the patient is coerced into the
procedure by an elder family
member or even a partner.
It is the physician’s job to ensure
patient safety and not violate
commonplace HIPAA guidelines.
When the physician seeing T.I.’s
daughter attempted to get her
consent for the procedure with
her father knowing the results,
the exchange was frighteningly
forceful. T.I. stated, “Is there
anything you would not want
me to know? Oh, OK. See doc?
No problem.” Madeline Brewer,
an actress on “The Handmaid’s
Tale”, tweeted, “This makes me
feel physically ill. It’s abhorrent
… The level of toxicity and malice
and control he’s exerting on his
own daughters (sic) life and bodily
autonomy and privacy. I’m sick.”
T.I. was then informed again that
there are other ways to tear the
hymen, such as riding a bike or
horse, running on the playground,
playing sports, etc. Furthermore,
sometimes people can be born
without a hymen entirely — so
the presence or absence of this
thin piece of mucosal tissue is not
indicative of one’s virginity. Each
person is different. Presented with
this information, T.I. promptly
responded, “Look, doc, she don’t
ride no horses, she don’t ride no
bike, she don’t play no sports.
Man, just check the hymen please
and give me back my results
expeditiously.” You can notice in
T.I.’s language that he objectifies
his daughter by saying “the
hymen” and “my results,” not a
single mention of his daughter or
the control she should have over
her own body.
If virginity is not measured on
a factual nor medical basis, what
is it? First, virginity is strictly a
heteronormative concept based
on the first episode of vaginally
penetrative sex, which excludes
anyone who does not participate
in
heterosexual
intercourse.
It’s a social construct that was
ultimately manifested to control
women and to make them feel
bad about being sexually active.
This ideal is ingrained in religion
and cultures around the world
and is almost always harmful to
women and girls. From the time
we are young girls, we are told
that if we do not “wait for the
right man” or “save ourselves for
marriage,” we are committing
a sin, or we are ruined or we
are not worthy. This certainly
led to the patriarchal double
standard where it’s perfectly
fine, even encouraged, for boys
to lose their virginity and gain
sexual experience, but girls who
are sexually active are considered
damaged, ruined, used or slutty by
the exact same standards. Why is
something so different to everyone
— this thin mucosal tissue that can
be compared to an earlobe — so
important in determining a young
woman’s worth?
T.I.’s
behavior
towards
his
daughter
and
her
body
is
possessive,
sickening
and
controlling. He is deeply invading
her privacy by making her attend
the gynecologist with him, but
the fact that he also went on a
podcast to talk about it showcases
his gross sexism and misogyny
toward women and, ultimately,
his own daughter. T.I. is obsessed
with saving his daughter, but from
what? This idea of psychologically
manipulating and ruining his
daughter to “save” her from an
evolutionarily
and
physically
normal process is profoundly
disconcerting. What’s even more
frightening is the possible reaction
when and if he learns that his
daughter’s hymen is, for whatever
reason, not intact. T.I.’s daughter
is not his property, nor is any other
human being. Young women are
fully capable of making their own
informed choices about their bodies
and their sexuality and certainly do
not need to have their sexualities or
bodies policed.
ZACK BLUMBERG | COLUMN
Brittany Bowman can be reached
at babowm@umich.edu.
T
his month, November 2019,
marks the 30th anniversary
of the fall of the Berlin
Wall, one of the most momentous
events of the 20th century. In many
regards, the German reunification
was an unbridled success: After
being divided for more than four
decades, the nation was able to come
together quickly and peacefully,
bridging major divides. On the
surface, this reunification appears to
be a miraculous success story. Since
1990, all of Germany has cheered for
the same national soccer team, used
the same currency and operated
politically as one united nation.
However, below the surface,
there are many signs that Germany’s
seemingly
smooth
reunification
process failed to address significant
political, social and economic divides
between the former East and West
states. In recent years, increasing
political polarization and rising
cultural tensions have highlighted
this problem, and in order to move
forward, Germany and the world at
large must critically re-evaluate the
successes and failures of reunification.
Currently,
the
most
obvious
concern for Germany is the large-scale
inequality that still exists between
the affluent former West and the
comparatively less well-off former
East. Though the gap has shrunk in
absolute terms since 1990, at which
point the former East produced only
8 percent of Germany’s GDP, a large
chasm still exists. Today, Germany’s
six poorest states (measured in GDP
per capita) are the six that formerly
composed East Germany.
Furthermore,
the
disparity
between disposable incomes in
the former East and West states
has
actually
increased
since
reunification. In 1991, former East
Germans averaged 61 percent of what
West Germans made in disposable
income. Today, that difference has
increased. Unsurprisingly, people
from both the former West and
East believe the two regions still
have unequal living conditions —
66 percent from the West and 74
percent from the East.
Though the German government
has
poured
money
into
the
former East since reunification,
it has not been able to effectively
bridge the economic gap between
Germany’s two regions. In the years
immediately
after
reunification,
the German government used the
poorer former East as a testing
ground for new neoliberal policies.
Unfortunately, this experiment did
not promote increased economic
growth in the former East to the
degree many had hoped for. Today,
only 7 percent of Germany’s 500
biggest companies are based in
the East. Historically, the most
effective method of overcoming
Germany’s economic chasm has
been direct state expenditure into
the former East in the form of
solidarity payments, but these were
largely used in the years immediately
following reunification, and are not
a particularly sustainable way to
develop the East. It is imperative that
Germany finds a way to address this
wealth gap, since it ties into nearly all
of the other divisions that exist today.
A major cultural wedge still
exists between the former East and
West, which has been highlighted
and worsened in recent years, most
particularly by an influx of refugees
and migrants into Germany. This
divide, which is descended from a
larger debate on what constitutes
being “German,” is in part derived
from Germany’s history of “jus
sanguinis”
inherited
citizenship
policy, which prioritizes German
ancestry — not German residency
— in determining national status.
This ideology was thrust into
the spotlight after the fall of
communism, particularly after a
number of Russians with German
ancestry were granted citizenship,
while ethnically Turkish German
residents, who lived exclusively in
the former West, were not. In 2000,
Germany finally adopted a more
modern citizenship system, but the
sentiment that citizenship should be
tied to ethnic background still exists,
particularly in the former East.
This internal conflict was again
reinvigorated when Germany began
accepting large numbers of refugees
in the early 2010s. Today, the six
states composing the former East
have far fewer migrants than the rest
of Germany and are categorically
less supportive of Germany’s liberal
immigration policies. Though the
former West’s prevailing sentiment
is that Germany should present
itself as a bulwark of liberalism, this
view is not particularly popular
in the former East. Instead, many
Germans in the former East
believe
refugees
and
migrants
are dangerous and should not be
welcomed. In many ways, this belief
is rooted in Germany’s geographic
inequalities: Many residents of
the former East think they have
received insufficient support from
the modern German government
and feel it is unfair that Germany
devotes energy and resources
to resettling migrants as they
continue to suffer. Considering
Germany’s
political
systems,
institutions and parties descend
from the former West, the former
West’s outsize population gives
it more electoral influence —
hence why the former East feels
somewhat put-upon.
Zack Blumberg can be reached at
zblumber@umich.edu.
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
A major cultural
wedge still exists
between the former
East and West
A
couple
weeks
ago,
my
colleague Timothy Spurlin
wrote
a
great
article
explaining why fossil fuel divestment
is necessary and why the University
of Michigan should divest. He is
right, but I want to go over some
of the logistical barriers that are
preventing U-M from divesting.
In the column, Spurlin says that
divesting is complicated. He’s not
wrong that the process of divestment
would be difficult, but President
Mark Schlissel could take the clear
and obvious first step of letting the
President’s Commission on Carbon
Neutrality discuss divestment.
On Oct. 4, 2018, President Schissel
created the PCCN. He charged the
commission to recommend a path
for the University to achieve carbon
neutrality and to contribute to a
“sustainable and just world.” While
the commission’s charge is nominally
ambitious, it is also contradictory;
the PCCN was created to get the
University to carbon neutrality, but
it cannot engage with some of our
biggest sources of carbon, including
the expansion of the Central
Power Plant and investments in
fossil fuels. Schlissel has explicitly
banned
the
commission
from
discussing these issues. This ban
is especially egregious because the
University has at least $1 billion of
its endowment invested in fossil
fuels extraction. And that number
is rapidly increasing. Our tuition
money is directly bankrolling the
very industry creating the climate
crisis. Refusing to even discuss the
possibility of extricating U-M money
from the fossil fuel industry means
the University, even if it achieves
carbon neutrality on its campuses,
will continue footing the bill for the
extraction and burning of fossil fuel
around the globe. For this reason,
Schlissel should let the commission
discuss divestment.
How do we know the University
has $1 billion invested in fossil
fuels? Of the University’s $12.4
billion endowment, 8.2 percent
of that money is devoted to
“Natural Resources,” which brings
the total to over $1 billion. The
University is somewhat secretive
about where the money from its
endowment is going. We only have
access to the most recent years of
investments, but here are some of
the highlights: In April 2018, the
University invested $75 million
into Kayne Private Energy Income
Fund II, L.P., a natural resources
private equity fund that “will take
advantage of increased long-term
demand for natural gas … and … will
acquire large, long-life gas assets.”
They also committed $50 million to
PetroCap Partners III, L.P. to invest
in “strong operators in oil and gas
projects.”
The University also says that the
“Natural Resources” category of the
endowment is not just oil and gas.
They recently changed the section
name from “Energy” to “Natural
Resource” to suggest they are
transitioning their investments to
renewable energy sources. However,
when
comparing
the
relative
returns
of
U-M’s
investments
to market-wide standards, they
compare it to “the MSCI World
Energy Sector Index, as energy is
by far the largest component of this
asset class.” “Natural Resources”
really just means “Oil and Gas.”
And the transition from oil and gas
to renewables, if it is happening
at all, is going slowly. The recent
endowment reports show that of
the 11 recent “Natural Resources”
investments, 10 are in oil and gas
and one is in renewables.
Why should the University
divest? Besides the University’s
own goal of carbon neutrality,
the most recent reports from
the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change say that humans
need
to
nearly
halve
global
greenhouse gas emissions by 2030
to avoid the worst consequences
of the climate crisis. If we trust
these
scientifically-based
limits
on greenhouse gases, it makes no
sense to continue investing in fossil
fuel projects that only encourage
further extraction and burning of
fossil fuels for the next 30 years. We
need to undo these investments,
stop
making
the
investments
altogether or at the very least have a
conversation about it. But President
Schlissel won’t allow the PCCN to
have the conversation.
Also, fossil fuels meet the
University’s
own
criteria
for
divestment. When asked about
divestment by both faculty and
students at the President’s Special
Town Hall on Carbon Neutrality on
April 9, Schlissel said, “Essentially,
we don’t divest,” and ended the
conversation. He is mistaken. The
University has actually divested
twice and even has an explicit
policy for divestment, though it is
insufficient and unclear, as I wrote
last April. Despite this lack of clarity,
fossil fuels meet the policy’s three
criteria for divestment.
The
first
criterion
is
that
“The concern to be explored
must express the broadly and
consistently held position of the
campus community over time.”
There is absolutely broad student
and faculty support for divestment
right now. On the student side,
more than 10,000 people came to
the Washtenaw County Climate
Strikes in March and September,
respectively.
After
the
March
15 strike, students conducted an
extended study-in at the Fleming
Administration Building for three
weeks, calling for — among other
things — divestment. On the faculty
side, more than 300 staff members
signed a letter last year calling
for the University to divest from
fossil fuels. Not only is there broad
consensus right now, but there has
been consensus for a long time. The
Daily wrote editorials calling for
fossil fuel divestment in 2014 and
2015.
The second criterion is that,
“There must be reason to believe
that the behavior or action in
question may be antithetical to
the core mission and values of the
University.” The only way that
fossil fuel investments do not meet
this criterion is if you believe that
investing in fossil fuels does not
accelerate the climate crisis, or
that contributing to the climate
crisis is not antithetical to the
University’s core values. Schlissel
created the PCCN to recommend a
path to carbon neutrality for U-M
and to contribute to a sustainable
and just world. This mission
statement shows that the University
recognizes its contributions to
the climate crisis as antithetical
to its core values. The University’s
investments in fossil fuels are one
such significant contribution, and
should be treated as incongruent
with its core values.
The third criterion is that,
“There must be reason to believe
that the organization, industry
or entity to be singled out may
be
uniquely
responsible
for
the
problems
identified.”
One
hundred fossil fuel companies are
responsible for 71 percent of global
emissions. Furthermore, fossil
fuel companies like Exxon Mobil
were aware of climate-changing
risks from burning fossil fuels as
far back as the 1970s, but concealed
that science while undertaking
massive, expensive disinformation
campaigns to sow doubt in our
society about the independent
scientific
evidence
of
climate
change. This industry is uniquely
responsible both for creating the
climate crisis and for concealing its
risks for decades.
So, the University has reason
to divest from fossil fuels to follow
its divestment policy, accomplish
its goal of carbon neutrality and
help the world meet the IPCC’s
scientifically-required
reductions
in
greenhouse
gases.
The
University also has experience with
divestment. When the University
divested from South Africa during
Apartheid and from the tobacco
industry, it created committees to
discuss and recommend whether or
not to divest. The commission could
serve a similar purpose, but U-M
explicitly forbid its members from
discussing divestment.
Finally, Schlissel should let the
commission
discuss
divestment
because it is a reasonable thing to
do! Schlissel says he is no expert
in carbon neutrality, which is why
he
appointed
the
commission.
And to members of the Climate
Action Movement, he says that
we
should
trust
the
process
and
recommendations
of
the
commission. But by silencing the
commission on divestment, Schlissel
shows that he does not trust it and is
not committed to the political and
financial steps required for U-M
to achieve full carbon neutrality.
The University should trust its
experts on the commission to make
decisions about our entire carbon
footprint, not just the carbon sources
that are convenient to eliminate.
What is frustrating about this for
me personally is that it would not
be logistically hard to allow the
commission to discuss divestment.
All Schlissel has to do is give the
order and the process would start.
And while I don’t know this for sure,
I speculate the expert members
of the PCCN would be excited to
hold productive discussions on
divestment.
The PCCN could even look to
peer institutions for guidance. Many
universities have already divested,
both for moral and financial reasons.
In September, two officials from the
University of California co-authored
an op-ed explaining they are
divesting
for
financial
reasons
(though it was more likely organized
pressure from students and faculty).
They said, “We continue to believe
there are more attractive investment
opportunities in new energy sources
than in old fossil fuels.”
Syracuse University, which also
moved towards divestment from
fossil fuels in 2015, reported that
divesting from fossil fuels did not
hurt the endowment. The University
of Massachusetts, University of
Maryland
and
Smith
College
have also divested. Letting the
commission talk about fossil fuel
divestment would align with the
University’s stated value of carbon
neutrality. This would allow the
University’s divestment guidelines
to work as intended, give appropriate
weight to the severity of the
scientifically-established,
ongoing
damage from the climate crisis and
bring U-M into alignment with
peer institutions working on carbon
neutrality.
The University should
trust its experts on the
commission to make
decision about our
entire carbon footprint
Solomon Medintz can be reached
at smedintz@umich.edu.