R

ecently, I pursued a very 
exciting 
opportunity, 

one 
that 
afforded 
me 

the chance to work in an industry 
I’ve loved since I can remember: 
sports. Of all the extracurricular 
opportunities I’ve involved myself in 
this year — professional fraternities, 
sports business groups, writing for 
this awesome paper, etc. — this felt 
different. This was the chance of a 
lifetime, one that could define my 
college career.

One thing you should know about 

me is that when I go after something, 
I go all-in. I’m sure many of you do 
as well. It’s one of the traits which 
defines the student population here: 
when we want something, we go 
after it with a vengeance. So, that’s 
exactly what I did. Networking calls, 
emails, talking to people who held 
the position formerly — everything 
you’re supposed to do, by the book, 
to position yourself in the best way 
possible.

Yet, as I stubbornly pursued this 

opportunity, I found myself growing 
more doubtful. This doesn’t feel 
right, I told myself. What the heck 
is wrong here? As I asked more and 
more questions, I received answers 
which didn’t necessarily excite me. I 
kept scrambling for the right inquiry, 
one that would unlock my lost 
enthusiasm (my original motivation 
for the position). Unfortunately, it 
never came. I realized, throughout 
the process, that more is not always 
better. I chose to affiliate myself with a 
couple of select student organizations 
already; I liked the people I met, the 
objectives of the organizations and 
believed in their respective potentials. 
Quite honestly, I thought I had struck 
gold when, in reality, this should be 

the standard across the board. 

No one should have to feel like they 

are settling. This exact sentiment 
made my emotions all the more 
troublesome. On the surface, this 
athletic opportunity should be my 
dream. However, I turned it down 
because it wasn’t the right fit for me. 
Now, a few days after, I still feel in 
shock. I question whether it will turn 
out to be the right decision. Right 
now, in my gut, I think it is. 

Frictional 
unemployment, 
as 

defined by Professor Ed Cho, is 
“workers taking the time to search 
for jobs that match their skills or 
tastes.” Granted, at first, this seems 
like an overwhelming, intimidating 
concept. No one should want to 
turn down employment if they need 
it, right? True, although I propose 
that frictional unemployment may 
actually be a positive idea. 

Quite simply, we should pursue 

opportunities that are not only 
engaging, but those that achieve 
this quality without forcing us to 
compromise our well-being. Our 
desire to be involved is one thing; 
seeking commitments which are 
enriching, re-energizing and leave 
us fulfilled after putting in work is 
another. Scott Dust, professor of 
management at Miami University, 
notes that “person-organization fit 
is a strong predictor of whether or 
not someone will be committed to 
an organization in the long-term.” 
Additionally, 
individuals 
who 

experience “higher levels of this type 
of fit typically enjoy being at work 
and connecting with colleagues.”

In my short two years here, I have 

been told to take informal, informative 
interviews seriously as “you are 
interviewing them for as much as they 
are interviewing you.” For the longest 
time, I never understood this advice or 
how to determine whether a position 
is a healthy fit. To do so, I started to 

break down what a responsibility 
entails into comprehensible questions. 
How does this obligation agree 
with my personality and morals? 
Will it allow me to balance my other 
competing 
interests? 
Does 
this 

opportunity provide adequate benefit 
for the time I will put in?

These may seem like basic inquiries 

at first glance, but I discovered that 
answering them truthfully requires 
intricate, complex rationalization. I 
don’t always like my answers, but at 
the very least I know they are sincere. 
Therefore, I believe there is power in 
introspection and, more importantly, 
self-honesty. While the demands of 
our ‘dream job’ may at first seem too 
glorious to pass up, it is important to 
understand who we are as evolving 
individuals; we need not jump at 
our first offer, our second, but rather 
the one which speaks best to our 
personality and lifestyle. 

The sooner we learn to prioritize 

our well-being over what we believe 
to be ‘professionally outstanding,’ 
the better off we will be in the long 
run. Granted, when Fortune 500 
companies are offering six figures 
upon graduation, I understand this 
might be easier said than done. In 
my anecdote, it is not like I would be 
unhappy working within sports. In 
fact, I’d be over-the-moon ecstatic. 
In this role, however, I just would not 
be as excited as I could be, and that, 
personally, is a red flag. If I can’t be 
fair to myself, how can I be fair to the 
organization?

Thus, I encourage you to keep 

digging, keep soul-searching for 
the ‘perfect’ opportunity. Refuse to 
compromise the first few years of 
your professional career for a better 
one later on. Ideally, you should not 
have to accept mortgaging your 
future. Trust yourself now, in the 
moment, and know that everything 
is going to be alright.

L

ooking 
back 
on 
my 

childhood, it’s exceedingly 
apparent that Big Dairy 

propaganda was omnipresent in 
my daily life. My parents always 
reminded me that drinking milk 
makes for stronger bones. Both 
chocolate and regular milk in cute 
cartons with cartoon cows filled 
my school lunches, “Got Milk?” 
campaigns filled the newspapers I’d 
flip through while waiting in line 
at Safeway and my school cafeteria 
decorated its walls with colorful 
USDA dietary guideline posters that 
encouraged students to consume at 
least 3 cups of dairy every day. 

According to these guidelines, our 

government maintains that regular 
consumption of dairy is “associated 
with positive health outcomes” and 
is an excellent source of protein and 
nutrients. While this widely accepted 
“truth” appears to hold merit, there’s 
a concerning amount of information 
being withheld from this argument. 
So, let’s break it down. 

Within 
this 
half-truthful 

argument, 
the 
government 

conveniently forgets to mention that 
the dairy industry is incontestably 
one of the most abusive and 
exploitative toward animals in the 
United States. The image that Big 
Dairy has fed the American public 

of a quaint farmer milking a cow 
while sitting on a pail is intentional 
disinformation, to say the least. 

When female cows are just two 

years old and newly able to give 
birth, they are forcibly inseminated 
by machines. They carry their calves 
for nine months, living in pens with 
concrete floors and hundreds of 
other dairy cows and sleeping in 
piles of manure. Hours after delivery, 
the calf is robbed from the mother; 
if it’s male, it’s sent to a beef farm to 
be raised for meat products, and if 
it’s female, it’s sent to another dairy 
farm to be raised for dairy products. 
The mother would typically produce 
just enough milk for her calf, but with 
the help of hormones pumped into 
her body, she unnaturally produces 
a surplus for market consumption. 
She is connected to a machine with 
suction tubes on her udders and 
milked for weeks until her body stops 
producing. When she can give birth 
again, she is similarly artificially 
inseminated, 
and 
the 
process 

continues until she cannot breed 
anymore. Now, useless to the dairy 
farmers, she is killed and sold for beef 
products. 

Because 99% of U.S. livestock are 

raised in disease-ridden feedlots, 
factory 
farms 
or 
concentrated 

animal feeding operations (CAFOs) 
as previously mentioned, cattle must 
be injected with high amounts of 
antibiotics to fight rampant infection 

within 
these 
heavily 
confined, 

germ ridden spaces. Consequently, 
numerous 
studies 
have 
found 

antibiotic “residue” from dairy cattle 
in a majority of our dairy products.

The human impact of this practice 

cannot be understated. Antibiotics 
in our day-to-day dairy products 
can lead to antibiotic resistance in 
the general public, resulting in more 
costly and prolonged treatment 
of infections, allergic reactions 
(especially if the antibiotic contains 
penicillin), carcinogenic impacts, 
mutagenic effects on female fertility 
and destruction of microflora in 
the intestines — which help to fight 
infection. Inarguably, the inorganic 
practices within Big Dairy that 
translate into its products are 
incredibly costly to human health. 
After being presented with this 
information, the alarming lack of 
transparency within our pro-dairy 
government health organizations 
becomes staunchly evident. 

And even still, the American 

public is urged to consume dairy by 
government health organizations, 
even though all of dairy’s speculative 
positive impacts can be debunked 
by opposing studies. For example, 
though 
government 
health 

organizations like the USDA claim 
that dairy makes your bones more 
resilient, a study conducted by 
New Zealand scientists found that 
there was no association between 

calcium intake from dairy products 
and a reduction in bone fractures. 
Moreover, the perceived nutritional 
benefits of consuming dairy, like 
fulfilling our daily recommendations 
for phosphorus, calcium and protein 
intake can be satisfied through 
increasing our intake of certain 
green vegetables. According to a 
2020 nutrition review published 
by scholars at Oxford Academic, 
“focusing on more nutrient-dense, 
plant-based foods would allow 
greater latitude in food choices 
to meet mineral requirements by 
allowing a greater number of choices 
from a variety of plant foods while 
reducing 
kilocalories 
consumed 

(from dairy products).”

This brings us to the ultimate 

question of why our government 
pushes pro-dairy rhetoric to the 
American public despite its obvious 
lack of merit. As it turns out, this 
entire system was constructed 
during the first World War, when 
the U.S. government began sending 
milk products overseas to nourish 
impoverished European soldiers. 
This created a booming market for 
newly specialized dairy farmers 
who invested heavily in raising dairy 
cattle. When the war ended, dairy 
farmers ended up with a plenitude 
of milk products and little demand, 
leading the U.S. government to 
sponsor 
milk 
campaigns 
that 

encouraged consumers to buy dairy 

products. This, lined up with the 
creation of the National School 
Lunch Program, which required 
public schools to serve milk as a part 
of complete meals for students. 

After Reagan cut U.S. spending, 

which included buying excess dairy 
products, Big Dairy discovered its 
ability to exert market influence 
through lobbying efforts in Congress, 
which incentivized congresspeople 
to continue including dairy in 
national 
health 
organization 

guidelines. These lobbied members 
of Congress also assist Big Dairy 
by involving dairy corporations in 
partnerships with restaurant chains, 
like Domino’s and Starbucks, where 
they can help to create dairy-heavy 
menu items for consumer use. 
The dairy industry — made up of 
companies such as Land O’Lakes and 
Dairy Farmers of America — spent a 
total of $6.7 million on lobbying in 
2021 alone. Essentially, in order to 
serve the personal interests of some 
of our government officials, pockets 
get fuller with Big Dairy money for 
the sake of their personal interest 
and they sacrifice the health of their 
nation.

There are numerous concrete 

actions that people can take to 
combat the corruption of our 
government’s 
department 
of 

agriculture. While veganism and 
vegetarianism can be far-fetched 
goals, a simple reduction of dairy 

use on a day-to-day basis can help to 
sizably decrease the dairy industry’s 
impact on our country’s people, 
animals and environment. Dairy 
alternatives, such as oat milk and soy 
milk, are just as delicious and far less 
saturated with unhealthy fats and 
excessive calories than traditional 
dairy. Oat milk pairs harmoniously 
with cereal, coffee and even baked 
goods — I personally recommend 
Chobani Vanilla Oat Milk for a 
dulcet, thick milk alternative, and 
Planet Oat Original Oat Milk for a 
light, mellow milk alternative. 

Shopping local for dairy products 

is another great alternative to 
buying from Big Dairy corporations 
because 
it 
supports 
small 

businesses, bypasses the excessive 
processing of dairy products and 
allows the consumer to know 
where their dairy is coming from. 
On a political level, it is crucial to 
support policies that take a stand 
against special interest lobbying in 
Congress and that fight to expand 
lobbying disclosure so that our 
constituency can be informed about 
what representatives are selling 
themselves to corporations. 

It is time that the American public 

stop COWering at the investment 
into healthier dairy alternatives, 
for the sake of our public health, 
environment and trust within our 
democratic system. 

A

s the fate of Ukraine teeters 
on the brink, President 
Biden has been tasked with 

a grave decision that has tremendous 
international consequences: cave 
into Russia’s demands or threaten 
to fight to defend Ukraine. The 
first option would preclude Russia 
from any attack, destroying their 
diplomatic 
reputation 
if 
they 

advanced their troops. The second, 
though it heightens the risk of a 
confrontation between the United 
States and Russia, two nuclear-
armed nations, would likely scare 
President Vladimir Putin away 
from invading in the near future. 
This would ultimately show that the 
United States means business when 
it comes to defending freedom. 

Unfortunately, Biden has chosen 

a third, murkier option that neither 
ends the conflict nor stands up to 
Russia. By continuing to support 
diplomatic channels with Russia 
while explicitly stating that his 
administration would never agree 
to Putin’s demands or send troops 
into Ukraine, Biden has made the 
United States look geopolitically 
weak, a nation uncommitted to its 
allies and unable to foster productive 
diplomatic discussions. Though it 
still remains unclear when Russia 
will choose to attack, Biden’s choices 
have permanently diminished the 
United States’s negotiating power and 
might prove catastrophic when Putin 
inevitably forwards his expansionist 
agenda.

Though Putin has been angling 

for a mainland invasion of Ukraine 
since his 2014 takeover of Crimea, 
the current conflict was instigated 
when he demanded that Ukraine be 
prohibited from ever joining NATO. 

While a drastic demand, the request is 
understandable and could even serve 
to reduce future provocations. Having 
NATO on Russia’s doorstep would be 
tantamount to having Russian troops 
permanently stationed across the 
Ambassador Bridge. Realistically, it 
would serve neither the interest of 
the U.S. nor Russia to have Ukraine 
join NATO, as it would dramatically 
increase the tension of an otherwise 
relatively stable relationship.

Beyond 
international 
security 

implications, Ukraine is unlikely to 
even be a strong fit for the NATO 
alliance. With a sizable sect of the 
population supporting the Russian 
separatist movement, Ukrainians 
would likely be wary of taking actions 
against Russia. The ongoing conflict 
in the Donbas region, which has 
been decimated by trench warfare 
between over 75,000 separatists 
and government forces since 2014, 
is evidence of just how unstable 
Ukraine’s national security was even 
before the recent spike in tensions. 
Attaching NATO backing to a region 
with tremendous turmoil could lead 
to the unnecessary involvement of 
Western troops in civil warfare and 
bloody internal conflicts. 

While meeting Putin’s demands of 

curbing NATO’s eastward expansion 
would temporarily weaken our 
standing, in the long-run, it could 
serve to ease international tensions 
and increase our goodwill amongst 
European nations currently reluctant 
to sever their economic ties with 
Russia or risk sending in troops to an 
unstable region.

The other path that Biden could 

have taken was to hang the threat of 
war or harsh sanctions over Putin to 
deter him from engaging. Though 
Biden has threatened sanctions if 
Putin were to attack, the prospect 
of future sanctions might do little to 
dissuade a Russian administration 

that has erred on the side of 
recklessness with regards to long-
term threats. If Biden had instead 
preemptively imposed sanctions on 
the Russians, he could have forced 
Putin back to the negotiating table on 
American terms and coaxed Russia 
into pulling its troops back from the 
border.

Another misstep came in Biden’s 

declaration that the U.S. would not 
engage militarily in Ukraine. Though 
the nation would clearly never send 
in American troops, the past century 
of U.S. foreign policy has shown our 
willingness to support proxy wars, 
with the U.S. training and backing 
forces throughout the Middle East 
and Africa. With three decades of 
built-up tension between the U.S. and 
Russia since the collapse of the Soviet 
Union, Putin would be wise not to 
risk any military action. By giving 
up this option, Biden has made clear 
that while the U.S. opposes Russia’s 
actions, it would never go to war 
with them, tacitly approving Putin’s 
decision to move forward with little 
U.S. military opposition.

Unfortunately, Biden is likely too 

late to fully avert a Ukrainian crisis. 
Whether Russia attacks now or waits 
until a later date, Putin is clearly set 
on expanding Russian influence 
in the region. While diplomacy is a 
viable negotiating tactic with other 
nations, as an ex-KGB officer, Putin 
seems far more likely to respect 
threats of force. With China rising 
as a global power, the U.S. can’t 
afford to stay distracted by Russia, 
so going forward, Biden would be 
wise to negotiate from a position of 
power to ensure that Russia doesn’t 
pose a future threat. If he is serious 
about 
reestablishing 
America’s 

commitment to its allies, it’s time for 
Biden to stop reacting to Putin and 
start proactively asserting American 
interests.

 The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
10 — Wednesday, February 23, 2022 

War and peace: an administration 

that has chosen neither

NIKHIL SHARMA

Opinion Columnist

SOPHIA LEHRBAUM

Opinion Columnist

The downside of Big Dairy’s big influence

February 15th

Expectations vs reality: prioritizing 

ourselves over profession

SAM WOITESHEK

Opinion Columnist

Design by Ambika Tripathi

