7-Opinion
A
s a columnist for The Michigan Daily,
I’m not supposed to discuss internal
Daily issues in my work. However, the
debate frequently reignited at our elections has
arisen yet again, and I feel the dilemma is too
important to keep from our readers. So, to our
audience, I pose the question: Is it acceptable to
urinate in the shower?
Perhaps I will receive backlash for this position,
but, nonetheless, I must remain loyal to my morals
and proclaim that I take the affirmative stance
in this debate. Peeing in the shower promotes
environmental consciousness and personal
hygiene, and those who do so should not be
viewed in a negative light.
To do your part in protecting the environment,
save a trip to the toilet for your shower. While a toilet
flush uses between 1.28 and seven gallons of water,
a shower urination only uses around .875 gallons
of water, which means substituting a toilet flush
for a minimally longer shower saves somewhere
between 0.405 and 6.125 gallons of water. It may not
seem like much, but that slight change in behavior
could support the average person in Mali for up to
two days. Unlike those in Mali, though, the average
American uses around 156 gallons of water each
day. Given the average person urinates six to eight
times per day, we can assume that between 7.68
and 56 of those gallons are used in toilet flushes.
Eliminating one daily toilet flush, then, could
reduce daily water consumption significantly,
prolonging our dwindling water supply and saving
you money on your water bill.
For many of us, emptying the bladder
constitutes the use of toilet paper. On average, we
use between eight and nine sheets of toilet paper
per trip, meaning we flush 48 to 72 sheets each
day. Saving a trip’s worth of toilet paper each day
by peeing in the shower can significantly reduce
deforestation by making each roll of toilet paper
last longer, reducing the need for as much toilet
paper production. So, by peeing in the shower, we
not only save water, but we save the trees.
Despite the environmental benefits of relieving
oneself in the shower, it seems as though the
primary argument against the practice is that it’s
somehow unsanitary. However, most medical
experts dispute this claim. Urine is mostly
water, so rinsing it down the shower drain is not
dissimilar from rinsing soapy water down the
drain. Urine is not actually sterile, but the bacteria
it contains is safe for the body, like the bacteria
found in one’s mouth or intestines. Peeing in the
shower is only a risk if you have a urinary tract
infection, and a very low one at that, as the bacteria
can spread to the surrounding environment. In a
normal, UTI-free circumstance, however, saving
a toilet trip for the shower is perfectly safe.
In my experience, though, some are less
concerned about the medical safety of peeing
in the shower and more about the general
“grossness” of it. To put it bluntly, they don’t like
the idea that, by peeing in the shower, they’re
peeing on themselves. However, I would argue
that if you pee in the shower prior to cleansing
your body, urination is less “gross” when done
in the shower than when done in the toilet.
Depending on one’s anatomy, when peeing in
the toilet, one generally either uses toilet paper to
rid the body of any remaining urine, or they do not
use anything at all. Conversely, by peeing in the
shower, one fully washes their body with soap and
water after urination, which is arguably a more
effective method of cleansing than toilet paper or
nothing at all.
The reasons why peeing in the shower is
cleaner than peeing in a toilet do not end there,
though. Research indicates that only 31% of men
and 65% of women wash their hands after going
to a public bathroom, so one can only imagine that
these numbers are much lower in a private setting.
However, urinating in the shower essentially
forces you to wash your hands, as you follow the
emptying of your bladder with a thorough washing
of the entire body, hands included. Peeing in the
shower rids your body and hands of urine and
other bacteria more effectively than peeing in a
toilet does.
None of this is to say you should pee exclusively
in the shower — I would venture to guess that
would be inconvenient for most adequately
hydrated people. I am simply suggesting that you
relieve yourself each time you shower to minimize
toilet flushes. It’s good for the environment, it’s
good for your wallet and it’s perfectly sanitary, so
why wouldn’t you?
Given that this debate remains a heated one
in The Daily’s newsroom, I encourage any of my
fellow Opinion columnists with the opposing
viewpoint to write a response — some internal
issues deserve to be made public, especially ones
with such importance and urgency as this one.
O
ver two months into Joe Biden’s
presidency, his administration has
met challenges on multiple fronts.
The hurdle facing President Biden that has
perhaps garnered the most attention is the
troubling immigration crisis at the Southern
border with Mexico, but Biden’s problems
go far beyond his improper handling of the
border crisis. Less discussed but equally
concerning is the administration’s consistent
foreign policy mishaps. If not corrected, these
blunders threaten to undermine the United
States’ relations with our allies as well as
exacerbate tensions with adversaries.
The Biden administration’s foreign policy
got off to a shaky start almost immediately after
the president’s inauguration. By early February,
only weeks into Biden’s term, newspapers
reported the president had still not called Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu despite
phoning the leaders of numerous other nations
like Britain and Japan.
Although Biden finally called Netanyahu
in mid-February, the nearly one-month delay
sparked concern — and for a good reason.
The U.S.-Israel relationship is important for
stability in the Middle East as well as across
the world. While it is plausible to assume
that Biden was holding off because of his
differences with Netanyahu, as well as the
prime minister’s poor relations with former
President Barack Obama, he should have
established relations with the Israeli leader far
sooner in order to achieve both his personal
goals and diplomatic stability. The president
could
have
opened
relations
between
Netanyahu and his administration while still
disagreeing with him. This error may make it
more difficult for Biden to accomplish his goals
in the Middle East, including a potential two-
state solution between Israel and Palestine.
While Biden has left out some world leaders
from his phone conversations at times, he
himself has been completely left off other calls.
Media reports confirm that instead of Biden,
Vice President Kamala Harris has been on solo
calls with certain world leaders. The fact that
the elected president of the United States has
not been on some of these calls, for whatever
reason,
warrants
tremendous
concern.
Every past presidential administration has
established that the president, in addition
to being the commander in chief, is the
chief diplomat. The president is the figure
that represents the nation at all times and is
expected to be at the forefront of all diplomatic
relations and negotiations. If this trend in the
Biden White House continues, it may erode
confidence in Biden among our allies and
other world leaders.
Unfortunately, the administration’s foreign
policy blunders are not limited to these two
concerning incidents. Perhaps the most glaring
mishap has been Biden’s recent comments on
Russian leader Vladimir Putin. In an interview
with ABC News, the president accused Putin
of being a killer. These unexpected remarks
kicked off U.S.-Russian relations under Biden
on a strikingly bad note, and Moscow quickly
reacted with anger. A spokesperson for the
Kremlin said “there hasn’t
been
anything
like this in history,” charging that Biden had
no interest in improving the U.S.-Russian
relationship. Soon after the comments, Russia
made the decision to recall its U.S. ambassador,
and the true extent of the damage Biden
caused began to emerge.
There is no doubt Putin is a figure that Biden
shouldn’t praise. Russia is certainly not our ally
and has recently taken a number of problematic
actions, including likely interfering in the 2016
presidential election. Russia, according to
charges from the U.S. and European Union,
also poisoned Russian opposition leader Alexey
Navalny with a fatal nerve agent, an action
that is clearly reprehensible. But Biden’s words
threaten to stoke tensions further in our already-
inflamed relationship with Moscow, and will
only spell more trouble in the future. Rather
than making these remarks, Biden should be
acknowledging the wrongdoing of nations like
Russia while still trying to foster productive
conversations. These recent comments did the
exact opposite.
While Russia is undoubtedly an American
adversary, perhaps our greatest world
adversary is China. With a population of over
1.4 billion people, our relations with China
are critical for both political and economic
purposes. The COVID-19 pandemic and
questions surrounding the origins of the
novel coronavirus are the latest signs of how
vital it is that stable U.S.-Chinese relations
are maintained. But rather than move our
critical relationship with China in a promising
direction,
the
Biden
administration’s
preliminary talks with Beijing are off to a
concerning start. The White House held a
recent summit with Chinese officials in Alaska,
and while the two sides held conversations
about numerous issues, the talks broke down
as American and Chinese diplomats verbally
attacked each other.
Luckily, the Biden administration is
relatively young, and the president has many
more opportunities to improve American
relations with China. But the White House
must learn from this summit and change
its strategy. China has the potential to be a
defining issue in Biden’s presidency, with
some experts warning the U.S. is entering a
Cold War with China. Moving forward, our
negotiations with Beijing must be handled
more thoughtfully.
As President Biden enters the final stretch
of his first 100 days, his administration has
plenty of time to correct these foreign policy
mishaps. But the Biden White House has
considerable work to do if it wants to truly
“elevate diplomacy” and make America a
leader on the world stage. That work must
start immediately.
Opinion
Wednesday, April 14, 2021 — 13
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
SIDDHARTH PARMAR | COLUMNIST
L
ast week, University of Michigan
students started backpacking courses
for the spring, summer and fall 2021
terms and eagerly checked their registration
appointment times on Wolverine Access. Usually,
students have a fair idea of what to expect based on
past semesters, but this semester has been a little
different. The University recently announced
(via an email) a change in how they will assign
these appointments: Credit obtained via AP or IB
(International Baccalaureate) coursework is no
longer a factor in determining one’s registration
time slot. While it was an overdue change to
level the playing field, the sudden announcement
divided opinions on campus.
While students now know when they can
begin registering for courses, the true impact
of the change on course availability remains
unknown. For students studying computer
science, the uncertainty is problematic. CS is a
rare major in that it is offered both by the College
of Engineering and LSA. It is also one of the
most popular and fastest-growing majors — for
example, EECS 280, a required course to declare
the major, has about 1,200 students enrolled in
winter 2021.
This is no surprise given employers’ high
demand for CS graduates and the high starting
salaries of those positions. However, CS
departments across the nation are struggling to
keep up with demand. CS at the University has a
few required upper-level electives in high demand
but with huge waitlists due to limited space.
Here’s where the new change complicates
matters: Junior and senior CS majors with AP/
IB credits no longer know if they’ll be able to get
into their planned courses at all. This has reignited
another discussion on the overcrowding problem
within the major — and for good reason.
Whenever overcrowding gets brought up, a few
suggestions are made, like capping the number
of students in the major (by direct admissions
or a competitive admissions process, similar
to the Ross School of Business) or increasing
the prerequisite requirements (by increasing
the required grade point average cutoff). The
University of California-Berkeley has a 3.3 GPA
requirement across its prerequisite courses, which
includes all attempts, as opposed to our 2.5 GPA
requirement that only considers final attempts,
meaning you can take the class as many times
as you need to satisfy the grade requirements.
Additionally, the University of Washington has
a Direct to Major admissions process for CS and
advises students who aren’t admitted directly to
consider attending another university if they are
set on pursuing CS. Both are notable examples of
these suggestions in action.
The University of Michigan’s Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science department
takes a different approach — one based on a
commitment to keep the major accessible. Some
might argue that this stance is not pragmatic
enough. After all, there is a nationwide shortage
of CS professors, with departments short-
staffed at numerous universities. The small
percentage of people opting to get a Ph.D. in CS
and the competition for experts from the industry
contribute to this problem. In this context, is it
feasible for the University to continue like this?
Actually, yes. Dr. Westley Weimer, a professor
in the EECS department, provided an in-depth
analysis of the waitlist issue. The case of “over-
enrollment” where there aren’t enough seats for
everyone to graduate on time is the main worry
with an open major. The University’s CS program
finds itself in a place with “enough seats in
electives for people to graduate.” There is a caveat
of having long waitlists at the start of the semester
(a consequence of no limits on waitlisting
courses) and the possibility of not getting your
first preference all the time. Currently, everyone
who majors in CS can graduate in four years. The
University can continue like this for now, but this
begs another question: Should we continue like
this?
Berkeley and UW chose their measures to
reduce enrollment into the major and ensure they
can keep up with the demand. That approach
skews the accessibility of the major heavily in
favor of students with CS experience during high
school. High school coursework can cover parts
of the prerequisites, giving certain students a head
start, and direct admission into the major would
inherently favor those luckier few.
For a field notoriously lacking in diversity,
such a move would aggravate the problem. A
capped major would also deprive the world of
many exceptional computer scientists. Think
I’m exaggerating? University alum Bill Joy, a
co-founder of Sun Microsystems and creator of
the vi program, says in Malcolm Gladwell’s book
“Outliers” that he initially planned on majoring in
biology or math. He was enamored with CS in his
freshman year, changed majors and then went on
to change the world.
Any limit imposed on the major — direct or
indirect — is imperfect. Given the choice between
imperfect systems, one that prioritizes access is
perhaps the best. It is certainly the least disruptive.
Consequently, our focus should shift toward
improving the current system. Be it an increase
in faculty — which the department was pursuing
before the pandemic-imposed hire freeze — or
exploring remote/hybrid course options, many
measures can be taken to improve the student
experience. Until then, students can rest easy that
despite the registration policy change, they will be
able to graduate on time.
In defense of open majors
ILANA MERMELSTEIN | COLUMNIST
Go ahead, pee in the shower
Ilana Mermelstein is an Opinion Columnist and
can be reached at imerm@umich.edu.
ISABELLE SCHINDLER | COLUMNIST
The case for D.C. statehood
W
ashington, D.C., is home
to our country’s most
important
democratic
institutions. Yet, those living in our
nation’s capital lack both their own
representation in Congress and full
control over their local government.
Congress must address this issue and
push for statehood to ensure that D.C.
residents have the same representation
and autonomy as other Americans.
The issue of D.C. statehood is not new.
For centuries, residents of Washington,
D.C., have advocated for statehood
or some other form of increased
congressional representation. However,
the issue has brought more attention to
it over the past few years.
The arguments for D.C. statehood
are clear. There are nearly 700,000
people who live in Washington, D.C.,
which makes it more populous than
the states of Vermont and Wyoming.
People living in D.C. are citizens, pay
taxes and serve in the military, yet they
lack proper representation in Congress.
Washington, D.C., has one non-voting
delegate in the House of Representatives
and no representatives in the Senate.
This means that, despite being citizens
of the United States, residents of D.C.
do not have any voting representatives
advocating
for
their
interests
in
Congress.
Washington, D.C., also does not
have control over many aspects of its
local government because the federal
government has almost unilateral
control over it. The district cannot
control its budget or pass legislation
without approval from Congress. The
role that the federal government plays
in D.C. has been demonstrated through
recent National Guard responses. In all
other states and territories, the governor
can call up the National Guard during
times of crisis. However, in Washington,
D.C., the National Guard is controlled
by the executive branch, specifically the
president.
During
the
violent
Jan.
6
insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, D.C.
Mayor Muriel Bowser wanted to
call in the D.C. National Guard to
assist capitol police in subduing the
violence. However, former President
Donald Trump refused to send in the
D.C. National Guard. The fact that
citizens of D.C. who are serving their
nation in the National Guard were
not allowed to protect one of their
district’s most important landmarks
is reprehensible and demonstrates
the lack of autonomy that D.C. should
rightfully enjoy.
Washington,
D.C.’s
lack
of
representation has often been referred
to as a clear form of disenfranchisement
against minority voters. Over 50% of
the residents of Washington, D.C., are
people of color, with 46% being Black
or African American. Bowser recently
mentioned the statehood issue in
relation to the demographics of the city,
saying statehood is “one of the remaining
glaring civil rights issues of our time.”
Past attempts to establish D.C. as a
state have been thwarted by Republicans
in Congress. During a recent hearing
on statehood, many Republicans in
Congress came up with bizarre reasons to
argue why D.C. should not be made into a
state. Some claimed that D.C. did not have
a car dealership or landfill. Others argued
that D.C. residents already have influence
over members of Congress through their
political lawn signs and bumper stickers.
If this was indeed the case, you would
think that the D.C. license plates, which
read “no taxation without representation”
would have already moved the needle on
the statehood issue.
Another colorful argument against
statehood came from Sen. Mike Rounds,
R-S.D., who argued that the Founding
Fathers did not intend for D.C. to be a
state when they created the country.
This argument was especially comical
given that South Dakota — the state
that Rounds represents — was also not
around when the U.S. was founded and
is therefore not part of the Founding
Fathers’ vision either.
A more serious argument against
D.C. statehood is that voters in D.C.
are overwhelmingly liberal, meaning
turning D.C. into a state would likely
lead to two more Democratic senators.
This would help Democrats keep control
of the Senate. While it is important
to consider the partisan lean of D.C.,
a community’s political preference
is no reason to deny it the right to be
represented in its government.
It is ludicrous that there are 700,000
people living mere miles from our
Capitol who have no representation in
an entire branch of our government
or true control over their own local
government. Politics and this issue must
be addressed through the admission of
D.C. as the 51st state.
Isabelle Schindler is an Opinion
Columnist and can be reached at
ischind@umich.edu.
EVAN STERN | COLUMNIST
The Biden administration needs to up its game on foreign policy
Evan Stern is an Opinion Columnist and can
be reached at erstern@umich.edu.
Design by Man Lam Cheng
MADELYN VERVAECKE | CARTOONIST CAN BE REACHED AT MIVERVAECKE@UMICH.EDU
Siddharth Parmar is an Opinion Columnist and
can be reached at sidpar@umich.edu.