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.