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