I
f you’ve been away over
the summer, you may have
missed some exciting new
developments here on campus!
Did you hear about the new
protected bicycle lanes on campus?
Oh, sorry, I got mixed up. That’s
Michigan State. Here in Ann Arbor,
the world-class separated bike lane
on William Street mysteriously
dead-ends at campus.
What about the exciting new
solarization initiative to add solar
panels to 90 locations around
campus?
Wrong
again,
that’s
Arizona State University. With the
exception of a few arrays built by
DTE over a decade ago on North
Campus, not a solar panel or wind
turbine can be seen. Maybe we
should ask ASU how they did it?
Have you looked into renting an
apartment at the new 15-acre project
on North Campus containing 2,500
student beds located over 104,000
square feet of shops, restaurants
and services? Sorry, that’s the
University of Southern California
Village project; our North Campus
features open fields and strip malls
despite years of calls for a denser,
more vibrant campus.
Although some new dorms
are helping, a concerted effort to
produce even more housing near
campus is needed to stem the ever-
increasing number of students,
faculty and staff forced to commute
into Ann Arbor by car due to a lack
of regional transit. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau’s Longitudinal
Employment
and
Household
Dynamics dataset, the number of
people employed in Ann Arbor who
commute into the city has increased
from 72,972 in 2002 to 90,651 in
2019, a 24% jump.
Finally, did you hear about the
new rapid transit system running
through campus? Oh, sorry, that’s
the University of Maryland at
College Park, which is preparing
for construction of the Purple
Line light rail line, which will tie
their campus even more closely to
regional buses and trains. At the
University of Michigan, giant diesel
buses lurch around spewing fumes,
and there is minimal coordination
with the city bus system. The
concept of a “connector” to serve
the city and campus was abandoned
years ago.
What’s my point? The University
of Michigan’s physical campus in
Ann Arbor is outdated, and does not
exemplify the sustainability goals
we claim to have. Dropped into
campus, an alum from the 1980s
would feel right at home, except for
a few shiny new buildings here and
there, and the eye-popping rents
advertised for off-campus housing.
Of course, some things have
changed, but our campus is far from
boldly illustrating our sustainability
ideals and spirit of innovation.
Given
recent
leadership
changes at both the University
and the city, Ann Arbor faces a
unique opportunity to rethink
the U-M campus and broader city
through coordinated planning and
implementation. With the selection
of Santa Ono as the new University
president, he and his team have
an unprecedented opportunity to
make some big changes to catapult
our physical campus into the 21st
century. The election of a slate
of progressive, pro-development
City Council candidates during
the August primary means he’ll
find ready collaborators in city
government.
On campus, the President’s
Commission on Carbon Neutrality
(PCCN) was a model for cross-
campus
collaboration
and
generated a report containing lists
of many good ideas. At the city
level, A2Zero demonstrates robust
support for carbon neutrality, but
also leaves many unanswered
questions about how and where
the ideas will be implemented.
What we need now is planning
and implementation that bakes
these principles into key plans and
bolsters our capacity to act.
Both the University and city
need new Master Plans, and they
should be ideally prepared through
a joint project, to serve as a concrete
vision for implementation. The
University Master Plan has not seen
a major update since 1998, over 20
years ago. The PCCN described
good ideas, like a campus connector
and electric car charging, but not
specifics about where and when
they should be implemented that a
plan could address.
On
the
city
side,
the
“Comprehensive Plan” is simply a
giant stack of often contradictory
plans and studies. There’s no single
map showing priority areas for new
growth. Recently, City Council
became interested in upzoning
transit corridors, but nobody has
done a study about where and how
density can be best added. Luckily,
the planning commission started
work this week to hire a consultant
for a new comprehensive plan. It’s
not rocket science — the urban
planning methods to create growth
scenarios are widely used by cities
as diverse as Madison, Cleveland
and Salt Lake City.
Why a single plan? University-
owned land is spread throughout
the city, and our transportation,
housing,
electricity
and
other
infrastructure
are
tightly
integrated. Key University-owned
parcels, such as along Plymouth
Road,
are
opportunities
for
innovative mixed-use development
that would serve both University
and City goals. A unified plan
would also allow both communities
to consider their histories of racial
and economic exclusion, from
admissions to racial covenants and
single-family zoning, and consider
how future planning decisions
could address injustice and foster
greater inclusion.Good planning
works at the scope of problems,
not merely political boundaries.
Writing plans collaboratively can
help get all the key stakeholders on
the same page and build consensus.
But a good plan is not enough.
Although collaborative planning
can
lay
the
groundwork
for
implementation,
it
requires
capacity for follow-through. Here
the University can learn from the
city, where staff leadership from a
dynamic Office of Sustainability
& Innovations and the Planning
Services
Department
are
a
big reason so many exciting
sustainability proposals have been
approved recently, like work on
electrification and solar power,
parking reforms, changes to rules
for accessory dwelling units and
the transit-oriented development
zoning district. The University’s
planning function, operating with
a small staff deeply embedded in
Facilities & Operations, lacks the
capacity and institutional mandate
to lead.
L
ast semester, I was able to
study abroad in Barcelona,
Spain.
While
most
of
my classmates and roommates
were American, I did get the
chance to learn about foreign
perspectives on the U.S. from
my Spanish professors and other
international
students
(from
countries
including
Lebanon,
Ireland and Egypt) living in my
dorm. One of the most prevalent
opinions of the U.S. was that
Americans love to work. This
became more apparent to me as
my classmates and I experienced
the summer internship recruiting
process and are now considering
our post-graduation options.
One of my professors shared
that while people in Barcelona
“work to live,” Americans “live to
work.” He continued to explain
that with the value Americans
put on work come stereotypes
and social-influence levels tied
to career paths. Instead of feeling
valued for being a good person
or spending more time with
family and friends, Americans
value working as hard as possible
and making as much money as
possible. Workism, the belief
that work is not just a means to
economic production but is also
the center of one’s identity and
purpose, is the cultural norm in
the U.S., increasing overall stress
and decreasing overall happiness.
One of the best examples of this
is the way American employers
treat new parents. The United
States is the only industrialized
country in the world that doesn’t
require employers to offer paid
parental
leave.
The
average
paid parental leave is 12 weeks
globally and 20 weeks in Europe.
While most wealthy countries’
governments guarantee health
care, the majority of insured
Americans are insured through
their
employer.
The
1996
Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act
pushed Americans even more
towards workism by replacing
most of the welfare system with
programs that made benefits
contingent on employment.
These gaps in the U.S. system
have
resulted
in
Americans
working 184 more hours annually
than Japanese workers, 294 more
hours annually than U.K. workers
and 301 more hours annually
than French workers. Eighty-five
percent of male employees and
66% of female employees in the
U.S. work over 40 hours per week.
However, working more hours
does not increase productivity.
Some research estimates that
out of an eight-hour work day,
workers are only productive for
three of those hours.
Further, the pressure that
American workers face to put
all time and energy into their
careers leads to higher rates of
burnout,
disappointment
and
stress. According to research
by the American Psychological
Association, burnout in the U.S.
is increasing every year, with 79%
of employees experiencing work-
related stress in the month before
the survey. Symptoms of work-
related stress reported included
lack of interest, lack of energy,
cognitive weariness, emotional
exhaustion and physical fatigue.
Opinion
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.
PAIGE HODDER
Editor in Chief
JULIAN BARNARD AND
SHUBHUM GIROTI
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
Aya Salim
Elizabeth Cook
Dominic Coletti
Kristina Zheng
Jared Greenspan
Nick Stoll
Sabriya Imami
Lillian Pearce
Grace Beal
Tess Crowley
Sophie Grand
Erin Shi
Grace Tucker
Caroline Atkinson
Ethan Patrick
Dora Guo
Eric Lau
Hannah Elliott
Julia Raguckas
Jessica Kwon
Eliya Imtiaz
Doug McClure
Max Rosenzweig
Evan DeLorenzo
Zoe Storer
Akshara Koottala
Julian Wray
The toxicity of American work culture
Wednesday, September 7, 2022 — 5
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Collaboration on planning, innovation
the key to a more sustainable Ann Arbor
ELIZABETH PEPPERCORN
Opinion Columnist
U
nder the direction of Russian
President Vladimir Putin,
Russia invaded Ukraine in
February 2022 creating a chain of
events that destabilized the region
and threatened global democracy. In
the intervening months, questions
surrounding Putin’s precise motives
for attacking Ukraine, his potential
next maneuvers and his treatment of
Ukrainian civilians have plagued the
global community.
Putin’s strategy in conducting
his full-scale invasion of Ukraine
seems to follow a distinct pattern.
The Russian president will launch
a planned attack with quantifiable
outcomes followed by a subtler, more
insidious goal. A prime example of
this phenomenon is Putin’s intention
to first capture the Ukrainian capital,
Kyiv, as the planned attack and later
ensure Ukraine’s “neutral status” as
the insidious goal.
The first element of Putin’s
aforementioned plan is fairly simple
to model and predict. Putin clearly
seeks to depose Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Analysts have
estimated that the war has destroyed
approximately
$10
billion
in Ukrainian business assets and
damaged 14,788 miles of road. Putin’s
war-path to capturing Kyiv (and
his pivot to Donbas) is littered with
discernible, calculable destruction.
The ability to assess the damage
Putin’s
invasion
causes
helps
galvanize the public against these
aggressive attacks. President Joe
Biden has even gone so far as
to publicly release intelligence
reports regarding Russian military
strategy in an effort to increase
transparency.
However, the second element
to
Putin’s
original
plan,
to
demilitarize
and
neutralize
Ukraine, cannot be described by
specific metrics. Beyond toppling
Ukrainian democracy (which has
a quantifiable impact, such as
deposing Zelenskyy, adding to the
mounting $600 billion in overall
economic losses and increasing
the already high rate of civilian
casualties), Putin proposes a vague
ideological takeover whose impacts
remain unknown.
“Neutralizing”
Ukraine
and
absorbing it into the monolithic
Russian territory would require Putin
restructuring the socioeconomic and
cultural fabric of the country. It is
extremely difficult to quantify the
widespread impact of a weapon that
dismantles Ukraine’s core identity as
separate from Russia.
Infiltrating
long
standing
institutions like Ukrainian schools,
currency and agriculture does not
have an estimated impact like that
of a ballistic missile or an artillery
rocket. However, it can be just as
devastating, and regarding the food
supply, more catastrophic than any
other Russian offensive.
In 2018, the U.N. Security Council
passed a resolution preventing the
use of starvation as a weapon of war.
Despite this action signaling a global
condemnation of wartime hunger,
Putin continues to leverage the
food supply against Ukrainians by
closing ports, blocking trade routes
and decreasing the wheat harvest
by an estimated 40%. Not only does
disrupting
agriculture
catalyze
widespread famine in Ukraine, it
deepens global food insecurity and
plunges the country into biological
and economic collapse that could last
far beyond the end of the invasion.
Hunger is Putin’s most devastating weapon of war
AVERY CRYSTAL
Opinion Columnist
Moving Blues
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
ROBERT GOODSPEED
Opinion Contributor
VANESSA KIEFER
AND KATE WEILAND
Managing Editors
AMBIKA TRIPATHI | OPINION CARTOONIST