The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
Wednesday, April 6, 2022 — 9
PAIGE HODDER
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.
JASMIN LEE
Editor in Chief
JULIAN BARNARD
AND SHUBHUM GIROTI
Editorial Page Editors
ficial position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Julian Barnard
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Andrew Gerace
Shubhum Giroti
Min Soo Kim
Jessie Mitchell
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Nikhil Sharma
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Devon Hesano
Rushabh Shah
Alex Yee
Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky
A
s war rages in Ukraine,
inflation
skyrockets
to
unprecedented
highs
and businesses brace for possible
cyberattacks,
Republicans
and
Democrats alike have their work
cut out for them. While solutions
to these issues remain elusive,
Congress has been able to take
action on a seemingly less urgent
topic: daylight saving time. In a rare
show of bipartisanship, the Senate
unanimously passed the Sunshine
Protection Act. If signed into law
by the House of Representatives
and President Biden, the bill would
permanently
move
the
entire
country (except for Arizona and
Hawaii) to Daylight Saving Time
(DST) and do away with the four-
month annual period of Standard
Time that moves clocks one hour
earlier from November to March.
The Sunshine Protection Act,
sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio,
R-Fla., has obvious appeal. It would
end the decades-long custom of
“springing forward” every March
and “falling back” every November.
This practice, which is disruptive
to sleep schedules and may even be
bad for our health, forces people to
groggily adjust their internal clocks
twice a year.
The bill, as its name suggests,
would also “protect” the country’s
sunshine by delivering another hour
of daylight every afternoon during
the fall and winter months. On Dec.
21, 2021 — the shortest day of the
last calendar year — the sun set in
Ann Arbor at 5:05 p.m., before most
people usually eat dinner. Night fell
over New York and Chicago even
earlier, by around 4:30 p.m. Under
the Sunshine Protection Act, sunset
would have come a full hour later,
giving people more daylight in the
evening for outdoor activities and
commuting home from work or
classes.
But the Sunshine Protection Act
isn’t all good. The bill has a dark
side that most people either don’t
understand or fail to acknowledge.
Despite its broad support, passing
this bill into law isn’t in the best
interest of the American people.
The Senate has jumped the gun on
protecting our sunshine without
weighing the massive drawbacks
such a move would entail.
What’s the problem with the
Sunshine Protection Act? First
and foremost, its supporters only
tell half of the story. While the sun
would set an hour later every day
between November and March
(when we revert to Standard Time
under current law), the Sunshine
Protection Act wouldn’t actually
protect our sunshine at all. It would
merely shift our daylight from the
morning to the evening, effectively
pushing the sunrise each morning
an hour later. Later sunrises might
not seem like a huge problem at first.
But a closer look at the impacts of one
hour less of sunlight every morning
reveals deep problems with this bill
that should have prevented it from
passing in the Senate.
Instead of rising on Dec. 21 at
8:00 a.m. here in Ann Arbor, the
Sunshine Protection Act would’ve
pushed sunrise to a startling 9:00
a.m. For a student or worker here
who wakes up at a traditional time
like 7:00 A.M. they’d be greeted
by two full hours of complete
darkness before the sun comes up.
The problem is exacerbated for
communities located on the western
edges of their respective time
zones. In Marquette, in Michigan’s
Upper Peninsula, sunrise on Dec.
21 wouldn’t have come until 9:30
a.m. Some communities in western
North Dakota, which is located in
the Central Time Zone, wouldn’t see
daylight until almost 10:00 a.m.
Rather than protect sunlight, the
Sunshine Protection Act guarantees
that people near the western edges of
their time zones around the country
wake up every day in darkness.
This
isn’t
just
irritating
and
inconvenient for the people in these
areas who wake up at a reasonable
hour. It’s deeply problematic for
the health and safety of society.
Perhaps the group that will be most
disadvantaged by the Sunshine
Protection Act is students. School
starts at 8:00 a.m. at the average
public high school, and many schools
start even earlier. Proponents of
the Sunshine Protection Act cite
the benefits of universal DST for
students, such as the added daylight
in the afternoon for after-school
sports and extracurriculars. But
these benefits are unclear since most
activities are already held indoors
during the winter months outside
of some southern states like Florida
where the weather is warm enough
for them to be held outside.
Even if a successful case can be
made for the health benefits of the
additional afternoon sunlight, these
benefits are far outweighed by the
safety hazards students would face
every morning walking to school
or waiting at the bus stop in total
darkness. We need not look far back
in history to see that this bill would
put students in harm’s way on a
daily basis. In the 1970s, America
tried the same thing proposed
in the Sunshine Protection Act,
and the results were disastrous.
Children heading to school were, on
numerous occasions, struck by cars
on dark winter mornings, resulting
in injuries and deaths. In Florida
alone, eight children were killed
in accidents soon after the change
took effect. Between December 1973
and February 1974, public support
for the nationwide experiment
nearly dropped by half, from 79%
to 42%, leading Congress to repeal
the measure and return the clocks
to normal. Fast forward 50 years,
there’s no reason to believe anything
will be different the second time
around.
While
students
would
face
unacceptable
risks
under
this
proposal, they’re far from the
sole group affected. A growing
number of experts are sounding
the alarm over the health impacts
of permanent DST for people of all
ages and backgrounds. The current
practice of “falling back” and
“springing forward” is already bad
for our health, but doctors argue the
Sunshine Protection Act would make
matters even worse. Researchers
say permanent DST could lead
to “a more sustained negative
health impact” and greater risks
of cancer as well as metabolic and
cardiovascular disorders, according
to the Wall Street Journal. If one of
the primary aims of universal DST
is eliminating the dreaded biannual
time change, it’s unclear why the
Senate hasn’t considered permanent
Standard Time instead. This option
hasn’t received enough attention and
deserves serious consideration.
Ultimately, daylight saving time
may have some benefits, but the
drawbacks of switching to DST
permanently
are
overwhelming
and clear. Before the Sunshine
Protection Act becomes law, it’s
critical our lawmakers pump the
brakes on this legislation and weigh
the real costs of transforming how
we keep time.
Here’s why we should pump the brakes
on universal Daylight Saving Time
T
here is a lot of fiction to
the NBC comedy The
Good Place. If you are
unaware of the plot of the show,
it is essentially a testimony to
one theory of what happens
after we pass. The show begins
with
the
main
character,
Eleanor Shellstrop, believing
she has reached “The Good
Place” (i.e. heaven) by mistake,
and in a desperate attempt to fit
in, she asks an ethics professor
named Chidi Anagonye to teach
her how to be good. Though
there are a lot of humorous
aspects and storybook elements
to the show, one aspect of it that
I thought was pretty realistic
was the emphasis on people’s
capacity to change.
Perhaps you feel a television
show is not a good testament
to real life, and I completely
agree. But watching Eleanor
over time grow to be a morally
better person still made me
think about the way our society
is structured. Is it impossible
to teach people how to be a
good person? If we spend years
learning math, science, history,
English, etc. in school, then
why can’t we spend a little more
time learning about morals?
Thinking
about
this
concept led me to do some
self-reflecting. When did I
learn the difference between
good and bad or what doing
the right thing even means?
I certainly was never given
a
PowerPoint
presentation
describing different scenarios
and testing me on what the
“right thing to do” was, so
when
were
those
values
instilled in me? Personally I
think it has a lot to do with how
we are raised. In the debate of
nature versus nurture, studies
of genetic twins have shown
that anywhere from a quarter
to a half of our tendency to be
giving and caring is inherited;
that still leaves a lot of the
responsibility
on
nurture.
Some studies attribute it to
the parents’ or legal guardian’s
sense of empathy and injustice,
while others believe it has to do
more with modeling and how
the guardians act and respond
to certain situations. On the
other side, there are those who
don’t believe the responsibility
lies on the parents at all and
that some kids are just simply
bad seeds.
Whichever
theory
you
believe, it is hard to dispute that
to some extent, what you learn
as a child definitely plays a part
in your morality. So doesn’t it
follow that if your immediate
environment
doesn’t
teach
you those important things
there is the potential to learn it
elsewhere?
This question of whether
teaching
ethics
would
be
effective at achieving any good is
one that I have grappled with for
quite some time. This is also the
exact question a Stanford Panel
sought to answer. Reading about
their debates within the panel,
it became clear that there are
definite benefits but also valid
reasons to be cautious about
teaching ethics to kids. For one,
many scholars participating in
the panel “expressed discomfort
with the idea that they have
any moral authority over their
students.”
The
professors’
perspective is that they are in
no position to tell their students
what is morally virtuous and
what is not as it would imply
that they are on some higher
moral ground when in reality,
many view their students as just
as virtuous, if not more virtuous,
than them. Therefore, to have
that control over their behavior
is seen as an abuse of power that
many dislike. Moreover, it is
definitely difficult to understand
how one college course has the
power to magically transform
students into a more virtuous
version of themselves in only
one semester. But, in the end, I
would argue that making ethics
a mandatory class could only
positively benefit students.
From that same panel, many
of the professors agreed that
such classes help teach students
how
to
engage
in
ethical
dialogue, assist in widening
their tolerance and create a
space where they can talk about
their
moral
disagreements.
And through such discussions,
the Stanford professors admit
that the impact on students
can
be
huge:
including
helping
them
understand
more about themselves while
also improving their critical
thinking skills and academic
performances. Again, though
the chances of one throwing
their previously held mindset
out the window after one ethics
class is unlikely, opening up the
floor for such conversations has
the power to broaden peoples’
minds.
Linda
Flanagan,
an
advisory board member for
the Ethics Institute at Kent
Place School has said that by
posing students with ethical
dilemmas they must reflect
on, it forces them to answer
tough questions and as a result
adapt better ethical decision
making. In the process, by being
forced to explore an issue from
different sides — as Flanagan
encourages kids to do — it also
works to help kids understand
and become more empathetic
toward others as well. Such
evidence
shows
that
while
ethics can be a hard topic to
address, if done correctly it can
be very beneficial and effective
in shaping people’s minds.
If
you
are
still
feeling
doubtful, I will end by leaving
you with a simple question: to
some extent, people are just the
products of their environments.
And so doesn’t it stand to
reason that if we force people
out of their comfort zone, away
from the mindsets they are
used to, and make them engage
with new perspectives, a new
product might emerge?
If humans were all angels
PALAK SRIVASTAVA
Opinion Columnist
Content warning: this article contains
mentions of sexual assault
C
ome to the back room, girls,
I’ll show you around.”
Right away, his words
set off a thousand different alarm
bells in my head. My gut is telling
me to get out, but he’s holding the
ice cream we just ordered, and we
can’t really leave without looking
crazy, or possibly offending him. He
keeps talking, asking us questions
about where we go to school, how
old we are and what our plans are for
today. I make eye contact with my
friend, praying she picks up on my
panic. Thankfully, she does, and we
manage to pay and leave without a
problem. Still, I’m shaken up.
Every woman on this campus
can probably think of a situation
bearing some similarity to that one.
When a woman — or anyone female
presenting — is out in public, there’s
a lot they have to keep in mind: travel
in groups, carry pepper spray, share
your location with your friends and
don’t leave your drink unattended, to
name a few. The fear is omnipresent,
a background hum in the music of
our lives, and even if you check off all
those boxes, the danger remains. Last
March, 33-year-old Sarah Everard
was raped and killed on her walk
home in London. She was on the
phone with her boyfriend, wearing
bright clothing and walking in a well-
lit neighborhood. Not only was she
familiar with her surroundings, but
several people knew her whereabouts.
Seemingly, she did everything right,
but it wasn’t enough.
Tragic cases like these make it
hard not to assume the worst. As a
woman, letting your guard down
can have disastrous consequences.
A recent study by anti-harassment
organization
Hollaback!
and
Cornell University showed that
85% of women reported their first
experience of harassment before
the age of 17, and a shocking 12%
reported harassment before the
age of 11. Seventy-seven percent of
women reported being followed at
some point, and — perhaps most
concerningly — half of U.S. women
under the age of 40 reported being
groped or fondled in public.
These statistics speak volumes
about the disturbing reality women
face in places such as public transit,
parks and college campuses. It’s
not a choice. From a young age, we
are forced to be wary of the men
around us, and when incidents of
harassment and assault do occur,
the blame is often pinned on the
woman herself. Questions like,
“why didn’t she fight back?” or “why
didn’t she say no?” get tossed around
without ever actually addressing
the problematic double standard at
play. Women are socialized to fear
strange men, yet are also expected to
ignore this fear and be assertive and
aggressive when targeted.
By the time a woman has reached
adolescence, she has most likely
internalized one important fact:
You
should
never
intentionally
make a man angry. Be polite and
understanding, even when you feel
unsafe, because you do not know how
they will react. We avert eye contact
with those catcalling us so as not to
encourage them, and we certainly
don’t holler back. We tell men who
hit on us that we have a boyfriend, not
that we’re just not attracted to them.
When the man in the ice cream
store began to make me feel
uncomfortable,
I
found
myself
scrambling for a way to escape the
situation without coming off as rude.
Not a single part of me ever considered
telling him off or storming out of the
store, simply because I feared his
reaction — and rightly so. Aggression
can have violent consequences. Just
recently in Detroit, 27-year-old Mary
Spears was approached by a young
man hoping to get her number. She
rejected him several times before
her fiancé intervened. The encounter
eventually ended in a shootout that
left Spears dead and five others
wounded.
These incidents are obviously
rare. It is a minority of men who
harass and assault women, let alone
who commit murder. Still, these
stories send a message to women
everywhere
about
what
could
happen if they choose to stand up for
themselves in the face of harassment.
A Tumblr page entitled “When
Women Refuse” is dedicated to
sharing the stories of those who have
faced violence after rejecting sexual
advances. Take just one minute to
scroll, and you’ll find story after story
of harassment and assault directed
at women who simply said no. How
can women be expected to shrug
off these advances if these are the
possible consequences?
Many want to chalk up women’s
fear in public to sheer paranoia. Some
even believe that women should
take forms of sexual harassment
like catcalling as a compliment. I
mean, why be afraid? Most men are
great, right? Except the ones that
aren’t. A study from The National
Coalition Against Domestic Violence
found that one in three women have
experienced abuse from an intimate
partner, and that one in seven women
have been stalked by an intimate
partner to the point that they feared
for their lives. If the people closest
to these women are capable of that,
why would wariness of absolute
strangers be deemed paranoia?
Maybe the man in the ice cream
shop was harmless, but even if he
was, I cannot say that I would react
differently a second time around.
Though it’s amusing to entertain
the idea of telling him off, it is much
more likely that my fear of the
consequences would prevail, and
the same is true for many women
around the world. We are taught to
pacify the men who are a threat to
our safety because standing up for
ourselves poses a greater risk than
benefit. Women everywhere are
forced to reconcile with the idea that
when alone in public, some men —
even if only just a fraction — view
them as something to be objectified,
and they must navigate the world
accordingly.
Our wariness isn’t a personal
insult to all men, but instead a
defense mechanism. All of society —
men in particular — have the power
to change this. Many do not realize
that they are inadvertently making
women feel unsafe, but there are
things that can be done to prevent
this: keep your distance, don’t
flirt if the woman is not showing
interest and recognize that their
reserve is most likely not a reflection
of you, but instead a reflection of
their desperation to get home safe.
Perhaps most importantly, teach
boys and young men that women
in public spaces are not public
property, but instead people who
are just trying to go about their day.
Constantly living engulfed in a cloud
of fear is exhausting, but together we
can begin to ease this burden and
make women everywhere feel safer.
Perhaps not all men, but certainly all women
REBECCA SMITH
Opinion Columnist
Roommate woes
Design by Opinion Cartoonist Maddy Leja
EVAN STERN
Opinion Columnist