Bio for point writer:

Kyle Eggerding is a Junior from Cincinnati, Ohio. He will be graduating a year early in April 2012 and is majoring in Econ and Political Science. He hopes to go on to work in consulting, Wall Street, or wealth management fields.

COUNTERPOINT

Every student graduating this year from the University of Michigan undoubtedly knows that jobs are hard to come by. Every student graduating this year has surely poured over applications in a desperate search for scarce jobs. And every student graduating this year certainly knows that the threat of a “double dip” recession looms from problems both domestic and abroad. Congress remains deadlocked over budget issues, and it is doubtful businesses will begin to make major financial decisions until after the election. In Europe, S&P’s credit rating downgrade of nine Eurozone countries last week demonstrates that the Eurozone crisis is far from over. This uncertain economic future is preventing businesses from expanding and hiring new workers, even as economic indicators trend positive in the U.S.
Although the unemployment rate will continue to decline, it will do so slowly, and expectations reveal that the unemployment rate will remain above 7.5% by the time we reach the end of 2012. For graduates just entering the job market, the unemployment figure is even higher. With this in mind, it seems a foregone conclusion that something drastic must be done. Yes, financial figures demonstrate that the economy is slowly improving, but this doesn’t help recent graduates with little work experience in search of their first real job. The scarcity of jobs means that there will be far more applicants per position, making it extremely difficult as graduates attempt to find stable economic footing.
The economic problems facing the entire nation are even more severe in Michigan. The job market for graduates around the country is still bruised from the recession, yet college graduates in the state of Michigan are still leaving in droves to search elsewhere for what scarce employment does exist. Go into any classroom at the University and ask students if they plan on remaining in the state after they graduate, and few would answer in the affirmative. The state’s unemployment rate is higher than the national level, and weak economic situation has caused 50% of college graduates in recent years to leave the state. This “brain drain” has been hampering the state’s recovery as Michigan attempts to restructure its economy. The problem with Michigan’s economy at the moment is a circular conundrum: graduates leave the state because they cannot find jobs, but there are no jobs in the state because the majority of graduates leave. It is irrelevant whether the economy has improved slightly or not: the most relevant measure of economic health is job availability.
Until most graduates are confident that they can go out into the ‘real world’ and find a job, the government must be more proactive with creative solutions to improve both the economy and Michigan’s graduate retention rate. We cannot continue on the same course and expect employment prospects for college graduates to improve as substantially as will be necessary to rebuild a healthy economy.
One proposed solution is a tax credit for graduates of Michigan’s public universities, which would allow them to write-off part of their loan payments. This plan would ease the burden on students and increase the amount of human capitol in the state. Students would pay less in taxes but they would contribute more to the economy overall. Businesses would return to the state as a result of the increase in the resource of valuable college graduates, improving Michigan’s employment rate and economic condition. The state government would also reap benefits from this plan. A similar plan was implemented in Maine in 2008 and will cost $50 million over 10 years, but then is projected to bring the state $30 million in revenues each year after. Clearly, such a plan would be beneficial to Michigan. In the long run, the state would have more people paying taxes, a better-educated work force, and more financial security for graduating students.
Empirically the economy has pulled out of the recession. Factors indicate that production is increasing and consumers are more willing to spend. However, realistic employment rates are lagging behind the positive economic news. Europe’s economy is still in shambles, the United States has barely recovered, and Michigan’s economy has yet to see many positive effects. Recent college graduates still face an uncertain job search and crushing debt unless the government acts with strong fiscal policy, i.e. spending. This fear has resulted in a majority of college graduates leaving in search of employment. This vicious cycle hurts both the state economy and recent graduates. A proposed plan to offer tax credits to relieve part of student debt would help to reverse this problem. Students would be more financially secure, contribute more to the economy, and be more inclined to stay in-state. Through this entire debate one thing is clear: the government must do something to help struggling college students, regardless of what certain statistics may say about the overall state of the economy.

As you may have noticed, the Consider website has a brand new look. Here are some of the new cool features you may notice:

• Brand new aesthetic style
• Facebook integration in the sidebar
• Facebook, Google+, and Twitter integration on every post
• A brand new way to look at issues, separating the point and counterpoint into separate tabs
• Covers page with a new slick gallery of past Consider covers

This has been in development for some time, but we are always looking to improve our look and aesthetic. Over the next few days, the website will be making a complete transition to this new look. You may notice occasional glitches or bugs. If these don’t sort themselves out shortly, please let me know by contacting our Webmaster at jonahsch@umich.edu. If you have any general comments or suggestions on the website, feel free to email him or comment on this post below. Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated.

We will keep updating the website so look forward to more exciting features in the coming weeks. Enjoy!

The Power of Science

by Adam Becker

Why does science produce facts about the world? What’s special about the scientific method? Sure, scientific facts are generally approximations to the truth, and we don’t have complete knowledge of nature, but science has an astonishingly impressive track record nonetheless. How does the scientific method produce approximately true knowledge of the world around us? The self-correcting nature of the scientific method plays a role, as does the overwhelming value it places on empirical data. But these both spring from a deeper and more important truth about the scientific method: it relies on inductive reasoning applied to the world around us.

Inductive reasoning is the idea that the more often something has happened before, the more likely it is to happen again. So, for example, we all think it’s extremely likely that the sun will rise tomorrow, since it rose yesterday, and the day before, and throughout all of history. Similarly, every time you’ve been hungry and you’ve eaten, you’ve felt less hungry, so eating will probably make you less hungry in the future as well. Ultimately, this is how we know everything that we know about the world, and we use inductive reasoning so often that we hardly ever think about it. It doesn’t have to work, though: just because something happened before doesn’t mean that it’ll happen again the same way, nor that it’s more likely to happen again at all. After all, as every investment banker knows, past performance does not guarantee future results, and statisticians have been dolefully chanting “correlation is not causation” for centuries now. Yet we do use induction quite frequently and very successfully.

The scientific method rests on an untestable belief: applying inductive reasoning to our perceptions can actually give us knowledge about the world. We shouldn’t hold that against science, though. It’s a basic fact of logic that you can’t draw any sort of conclusions without taking some statements for granted; logicians and mathematicians call these unproven statements axioms, and you always need a few of them, even for basic stuff like addition and multiplication.

Of course, the fact that all systems of belief have fundamentally untestable statements at their core must mean that they’re all equally arbitrary and none of them should be taken as a more legitimate way of looking at the world than any of the others, right? Well, not quite. There’s a way out of this: not all axioms are created equal. We may have to pick some axioms without logical justification if we want to get somewhere, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no way at all to pick out our axioms.

There’s that great untestable belief up there, that belief in the power of induction to tell us about the world. As untestable beliefs go, it’s the best one available. Forget science for a moment here — that claim is the weakest one you can make that will still allow you to stumble through this world with some hope of understanding what’s going on. To see what I mean, try to imagine not believing that perceptions and inductive reasoning can tell you about the nature of reality. How does your day look?

You wake up, and you go to the kitchen and pour out some cereal into a bowl. Except that you’re not sure that the bowl will hold your cereal — sure, it seemed like it did yesterday, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Hell, you don’t even know that your cereal is in the box at all. For that matter, how do you know that the floor will support your weight? Or that there is a floor? In fact, you aren’t even sure that eating the cereal will make you less hungry…

Still not convinced? Think I’m being silly by making judgments about statements that are untestable in principle? Fine. Have a look at this pair of untestable statements:

Statement A: Applying inductive reasoning to our perceptions gives us pretty good information about the world around us.

Statement B: There is a unicorn in my basement that hangs out there, but only when nobody is looking, and it never leaves any evidence that it’s been there.

If you don’t think that it’s possible to make judgments on the relative merits of untestable statements, then you have to say that Statement B is just as good as Statement A — and that’s just strange. It certainly seems like Statement A is much more plausible than Statement B, even though neither one can ever really be “tested.”

So science is based upon an untestable belief, just like everything else! But it’s got the best untestable belief — one that you already believe, and that you could hardly afford not to believe. And that’s really the only core belief that we need in order to start doing science, whereas other systems of belief seem to require a lot of bells and whistles in addition to a belief in the power of induction. The scientific method, in short, is special because it is based on a lack of faith relative to other systems of belief: we take as little on faith as we reasonably can when we do science.

COUNTERPOINT:

Where Our Minds Fall Short

by Ryan Dougherty

The scientific method is a human-made miracle. It has maximized our ability to understand the universe in such a simple way, and it is mind-boggling that it took hundreds of centuries for humans to develop scientific methods. Any aspiring scientist does not pursue a field of research merely because he or she is interested in the mechanisms of certain phenomena. As humans, we are constantly looking for an ultimate explanation, itching to answer the great “Why?” We want to find the narrative that will show us how the physical world works and where the universe is heading. Developing this worldview through scientific methods is limited.

To explicate this, it’s critical to understand the limits of the human mind. Neuroscience is useful here for two reasons: (1) it gives us the grounds to understand what in the universe we can perceive and, consequently, understand, and (2) it approaches the subject of consciousness-an area the scientific method cannot grasp.

To understand our brain’s limits in understanding the universe, it’s helpful to consider the brain of a bat. Although we can never know “what [it is] like to be a bat” (as philosopher Thomas Nagel concluded), we can certainly speculate that its conscious experience is drastically different from ours. For starters, a bat has very poor eyesight. It must rely on echolocation in order to navigate its environment. From this alone we can conclude a difference in our respective perceptual worlds. If a bat were to evolve so it could design something similar to our scientific method, it certainly could not use vision as the basis of observation (observation being the first step in the scientific method). There is an entire field of physical phenomena in the universe that lies outside the bat’s comprehension. Simply because our hypothetical bat cannot use the scientific method to understand visual phenomena, these phenomena are not any less “real” or less worthy of study.

Such perceptual worlds are known as umwelts. Because they vary by species, we can conclude that there is no objective way to observe the universe. Some animals see more or fewer colors; others can smell from impressive distances and some even detect magnetic fields. Our brains constrain what we are able to infer about the universe; to this end, we are very limited by our senses. We cannot go around proclaiming that the scientific method is a find-all cure-all; we have to acknowledge the bounds of the human umwelt. For example, dark matter – a mysterious substance that composes a majority of the universe – lies completely outside the human umwelt.
As we desperately try to assert our beliefs in the world, either for some existential comfort or when scrambling to form a research presentation, the human mind is bound to be biased. Yes, inductive reasoning (which characterizes scientific rationality) is an extremely powerful tool; however, it is far from perfect. Three types of biases show up in any research. First, scientific researchers (or any curious being) will use whatever information is most accessible—the availability bias. Confirmation bias arises when people seek out information that fits with prior beliefs. Think of Robert Anton Wilson’s quote, “What the thinker thinks, the prover proves.” (And see what I just did here? I found a quotation that confirms my own belief.) Lastly, similar to the confirmation bias, there is the predictable-world bias: individuals seek to find order and patterns in phenomena, even if there are none.

Induction also troubled philosopher David Hume. He argued that it is impossible to be certain that assumptions we base on previous experiences will ever hold true in the future. Furthermore, our only basis for justifying inductive reasoning is inductive reasoning itself, a disturbing regression that undercuts the project altogether.

So what is there to do when our methodology hits a brick wall?

Consciousness—the experience and sum of mental processes—is an elusive concept, lying outside the scope of the scientific method. We cannot study consciousness inside other people because it is a subjective experience. There is no region in the brain that is responsible for creating the unified experience, and so far there is no explanation as to how a physical process can give rise to the experience of a thought, emotion or sensation. This is where reconsidering the scientific method is vital. If we wish to fully explore the basis of our reality—consciousness itself—we must be ready to employ a new, rigorous paradigm that allows for the study of the subjective experience. And don’t be fooled by the scientists who have made metaphysical assumptions about consciousness, be it reductionism (the mind is reducible to the physical brain) or dualism (the mind and brain exist on two different planes). Nobody knows, and our current model certainly won’t answer it.

If we want to predict the trajectory of a rocket or the behavior of a crayfish, the scientific method is appropriate. But as our understanding of the world grows, we’ll find that the current scientific method no longer fits us. We must adapt and be ready for great shifts in our thinking.

edited by Lexie Tourek and Melanie Kruvelis

Bleeding Discrimination

by Casey Pence

            There are around 130,150 men in the United States who may want to give blood annually, but are currently unable to. This could amount to an extra 219,000 pints of blood per year, with the ability to save an additional 657,000 lives. Unfortunately for the people who need this blood, these men have had sex with other men, and consequently, are banned from donating their blood by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This policy arose in the midst of the AIDS crisis of the 1980s and was designed to limit the spread of HIV. There was cause for concern; blood testing technology was less advanced than it is today requiring a stricter initial screening process., As time and technology have progressed, however, every ounce of blood is now being tested for HIV, guaranteeing new levels of safety. In addition, the Red Cross and the American Association of Blood Banks support lifting the ban on gay men from donating blood. The ban still exists since it is supported through two avenues: culture and science.

Any and all other sexual orientations are not prevented in any way from giving blood. Only men who have sex with men are affected. This perpetuates the stigma that gay men are largely responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS. While, in some cases, gay men do have the highest infection rate, many other populations are at an increased risk of HIV that is unrelated to sexual orientation. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2006, black men were six times as likely to contract HIV than white men, and more than twice as likely than black women. Black women were also more likely to contract HIV—about fifteen times more likely than white women.

As one would expect, there are no restrictions to donating blood based on race. To implement such a restriction would be a gross generalization of a community as a whole. But gay men are generalized, lumped together, and excluded from donating based on a common cultural misconception arising from sexual deviance. Certain groups will always be at a greater risk for disease, whether divisions are based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other aspect of a person. To pinpoint and exclude only some of these groups is both insulting and hypocritical.

Under the current policy, men who have had sex with another man prior to 1977 are still permitted to donate blood. Before the AIDS epidemic began and prior to 1977, if you had lots of gay sex, go ahead and donate! Get a tattoo in a dingy parlor 13 months ago? Have at it! Had a bad case of gonorrhea a year ago? Who cares! Hire a prostitute in the year 1976? The FDA says your blood is still great! These asinine restrictions undermine the cause of collecting needed blood, and when compared to one another, only highlight the ridiculousness of the ban on gay men who have had sex after 1977.

Even men who have the same male sexual partner for years or consistently practice safe sex are not allowed to give blood. The FDA states that while they realize this is not ideal, better questionnaires during the initial screening process may be useful in the future; but according to the FDA, “this cannot be assumed without evidence.” How can the FDA ever gain evidence that any of its donors are true to who they say they are? What’s to stop a heroin junkie from donating, or someone who has lived in the Congo for their entire life? They can simply lie during the questionnaire. These are groups who are restricted from giving blood, and yet the Red Cross takes their word when they go in to donate. Gay men can lie too. But for them, they are not lying about tattoos or drugs; they are lying about who they are, forced to sacrifice dignity in order to save lives.

The scientific support for the ban is, in reality, mostly a scare tactic. There is a disease test failure rate of 1 in a million. I’m not going to say that this is not significant: any transmission of disease through blood transfusion is a tragedy. But gay men are not the only ones spreading HIV, and it is not going away. There will always be disease slipping through the cracks and creeping into the blood supply. The FDA should not make assumptions about what will happen if gay men give blood without putting it to the test or entrusting gay men to know when they are safe to donate.

In the meantime, all privileged with the ability to give blood should regularly do so, in order to make up for the millions of pints of blood lost as a result of this ban.

COUNTERPOINT

A Commitment to Safety

by Max Warhol

            Blood donation is a noble act of charity, a practice that saves millions of lives every year.    The US blood donation system is one of the best in the world, and the speed, efficiency, and safety that exemplify it result from careful regulation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  The FDA’s primary role in this process is to keep our blood supply free of infectious diseases, ranging from hepatitis B and C to HIV and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a fatal condition caused by the same protein at the root of “mad-cow disease.”  One plank of the FDA’s blood donation policy involves preventing men who have had sex with men (MSM) from donating blood, and critics claim this policy is outdated and discriminatory.  However, this policy is founded on solid scientific evidence that has not been refuted, and it remains a crucial practice in improving public health.

To better understand the reasons for the deferral policy towards MSM, we must examine its history.  This policy arose in 1983 in the midst of the HIV/AIDS crisis.  FDA research concluded that in order to prevent the spread of HIV and other infectious diseases through the supply of donated blood, men who had had sex with other men at least once since 1977 would be indefinitely deferred from donating blood.  This information is obtained via a survey question.  This policy has been reviewed a number of times in the following decades, most recently in June 2010 by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability (ACBSA), and repeatedly HHS and the FDA have upheld this policy.  ACBSA did find that current donor deferral policies are suboptimal and established a working group to determine ways to improve the policy, but this only means that deferrals must be reformed, not scrapped.  This policy undoubtedly reduces this risk of disease transmission through blood transfusions, and it is essential that it remain in place.

Now that the HIV/AIDS panic has subsided, many believe that the FDA’s deferral policy is outdated and should be removed altogether.  But this view ignores the particular risks posed by blood donations from MSM.   HIV prevalence among MSM is 60 times higher than in the general population, 800 times higher than among first-time blood donors, and 8000 times higher than among repeat blood donors.  Men who have had sex with men are also the largest donor group found HIV-positive by blood tests, and MSM still account for the largest number of new HIV infections.

Indefinitely deferring MSM blood donation therefore clearly reduces the risk of HIV transmission, and it is particularly useful for reducing the number of people who donate during the “window period,” the time during which no symptoms of HIV appear in HIV-infected individuals.  Critics object that donations are tested for HIV anyway, but testing on each donation still fails 1 in 1 million times.  There are 20 million total annual transfusions, and as the FDA website notes, “even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.”  Finally, gay men are also at a greater risk of contracting other diseases, such as hepatitis B and C, and FDA policy is designed to stem the transmission of these diseases as well.

It is important to note that the indefinite deferral policy for MSM is not, in fact, unfairly discriminatory.  This policy is not based on prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuality but on scientific fact, and it passes no judgment on any individual’s sexual identity or gender expression.  Scientific research demonstrates that deferring donations from MSM simply increases the safety of the blood supply, and the FDA’s commitment to maximizing health and safety requires that the policy remain in place.

Other critics of the policy may express concern that MSM deferral also excludes health donors and limits the quantity of blood available for transfusion.  Certainly, not all or even most men who have had sex with men carry HIV, and the policy does to some extent reduce the supply of available blood.  However, this impact is small, and regardless of its size, quality of the blood supply is more important than quantity.  The FDA’s primary goal is to make the blood supply as safe as possible, and minimizing the risk of infecting someone with HIV through a blood infusion justifies eliminating even a large number of healthy donors.

As social practices and HIV detection technologies change and improve, a time may come when the MSM indefinite deferral policy can be significantly loosened or abandoned.  The FDA continues to review the scientific basis for this policy and is constantly looking for ways to improve it.  In the meantime, however, the FDA must fulfill its commitment to maintaining a safe blood supply.  Retaining this policy is in the best interest of America’s public health.

edited by: Aaron Bekemeyer, Mike Guisinger, and Leslie Horwitz

The Outrage Override

by: Carl Cohen

Should hateful speech be forbidden?

In Saskatchewan, just a few years ago, a man peacefully distributed pamphlets that denounced the introduction of homosexuality into the curriculum of the Saskatoon Public Schools as sinful. Currently in Canada, one has the right not to be offended. Their Human Rights Code prohibits speech that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons.” Four gay citizens complained to Canadian authorities, and (pace Leviticus 18:22) the pamphleteer was firmly punished and obliged to pay those complainants $17,500 because their feelings had been hurt.

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission tells us that it is permissible to express the opinion that homosexuality is sinful, but this message must be delivered in a way that does not come across as hateful to one’s listeners. In Canada, any speech is hate speech when some folks are offended by it. But consider, as Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote, “one man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric.”

Speech, no matter the content, should be protected.

Canada is not unusual: France, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Germany, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and many other countries have similar laws. Over most of the globe, what you may lawfully say or write is sharply restricted by the sensibilities of others. You may neither insult groups nor offend them. Being nice is held more important than being free.

If you find this disheartening, as I do, take some consolation in this: by formally defending the freedom of speech, our country is unique, even when what is said or written is truly hateful. The classic case was when the American Nazi Party in 1978 sought to march in the streets of Skokie, Illinois, a predominately Jewish city. The American Civil Liberties Union defended in court their right to march and ultimately prevailed.

Immediately, membership in the ACLU of Illinois fell by nearly half. Freedom of speech? Of course! We treasure it, but not for those obnoxious and outrageous opinions! The identity of the intolerably outrageous group changes over the years:  atheists, anarchists, Nazis, communists – and now the latest batch of scoundrels: racists, spewing hate speech. Freedom, yes – but not for them! I call this effect the “outrage override.”

But the freedom to speak on matters of public concern is not divisible by topic or party. There must be no outrage override. We must protect that freedom for everyone, including the nastiest and most disgusting folks, or we will lose it.

At the University of Michigan a few decades ago, three faculty members were famously dismissed for their hateful political views. Now, in self-punishment, we hold an annual lecture on free speech issues in their honor. More recently we tried to enforce a speech code here at Michigan to protect the sensibilities of vulnerable women against hateful words. If a male student were to remark in class “Women just aren’t as good in this field as men,” that remark (given explicitly as an example in the written code) would create a “hostile environment” and be punishable. The Federal court gave a very stern, well deserved, lecture on free speech to us when our speech code was struck down. (Doe v. University of Michigan, 1989).

But as a country we are not doing badly in this arena. Nowhere else in the world is there protection for speech as forthright and as forceful as that given by the First Amendment of our Constitution. This does have some rough consequences, because speech can insult, belittle, incite and offend. Our Canadian brethren are protective, but unwise. There can be no right, in a free and open society, not to be offended. If you think Jews are pushy, you are free to say that publicly in our country; and if you think blacks are lazy, or Polacks are dumb – and so on – you may say that too. You may publish views that are stupid and mean, and you may parade through public streets proclaiming your favorite hatred. This is a critical part of what it means to say, as we rightly do say, that “we live in a free country.” Freedom can hurt, and it often does – but it is far, far more important in the body politic than being nice.

In every generation that lesson must be re-learned. This very year our Supreme Court was obliged to teach it again, in a vexed dispute about some truly despicable public speaking that was protected here as it would have been protected nowhere else. For the Court majority Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

“[S]peech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. ‘If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because the society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.’”

(Snyder v. Phelps, 2 March 2011)

The best response to nasty speech is more speech, not laws or codes to restrict speech. Of course we don’t welcome hate speech, or commend it. But when we confront it Americans may take pride in the fact that even those outrageous views may be expressed in our country. We tolerate no override.

COUNTERPOINT:

End Hate Speech

by: Cristina Ley

Everyone knows how important freedom of speech is. Allowing both individuals and communities to express their opinions on any issue is one of our most celebrated constitutional rights. The presence of diverse voices allows for dynamic discourse that is essential in creating fair laws in our government.  However, with this right comes the danger of hate speech. Wikipedia defines hate speech as “any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic.”  We should no longer justify hate speech, under any protection, because doing so absolves conduct that has the effect of insulting or harming a specific person or people.

There are strong arguments as to why this kind of speech should remain legal and backed by the First Amendment—namely, to allow for all opinions, whether or not they are popular.  This is understood as a foundation of American democracy.  People may feel deterred from speaking their own point of view if restrictive hate speech laws and codes are in place, limiting the scope of discourse. Some don’t even believe that offensive speech can cause serious harm.

Hate speech should not fall under the protective umbrella of free speech. It incites violence and negativity, not civil discourse.

Permitting hate speech presents even greater perils to our democracy and safety. Contradictions in our legal code even reflect the danger of having no restrictions on speech by categorizing defamation as an illegal act. Defamation is defined as “the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, product, business, group, government, or nation a negative image.”  How is it that hate speech (which denigrates a particular individual or group) may be made legal, while slander (which also portrays a particular individual or group in a negative light) is illegal? This reveals the deep contradiction in our conception of what free speech entails. One cannot credibly argue that disallowing hate speech will dissolve the foundation of our democracy in a political environment in which we already disallow and punish some types of speech.

Moreover, we cannot quantify the differences in harm between the two.  There is little distinction between “unintentional harm” that one may associate with hate speech and the “serious harm” linked with defamation because no matter the intention, both types of speech cause damage.  To some, hate speech may appear to be a divergent category of speech separate from slander, which conveys false and negative statements, where as hate speech is just someone’s opinion. But is the difference really that clear?

Last year former Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell made vicious statements, “exercising [his] First Amendment rights,” against our then MSA President Chris Armstrong. Shirvell accused Armstrong of being Satan’s representative, a pervert, and a racist – all with no factual evidence. These statements are defamation, receiving no protection from the government. Shirvell’s speech, however, was protected under the First Amendment and the ACLU scolded the University for barring him from campus. So, how do we understand the difference between Shirvell’s statements as his own opinions (only as hate speech) rather than libel committed against Armstrong? In all honesty, there is no difference. Both should be banned.

If society continues to allow hate speech, a culture of negativity will only proliferate, impacting our global relations, domestic capital and general well being. Quality relationships are built on trust and the ability to share ideas without fear of being targeted because of one’s social or group identity. If we as a community cannot recognize the importance of this, we will continue to suffer. Organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union are based on an ideology of maintaining positive relationships.  There is no surprise they have been successful in promoting world order and peace.

Studies have shown that a negative work environment causes expensive problems for organizations.  A 2008 Gallup poll estimates that low productivity from 22 million “negative” workers costs the United States between $250 and $300 billion dollars every year.  Maybe instead of blaming people of color, Jews, or homosexuals for the economic crisis in America, as many social radicals do, perhaps those participating in hate speech should only blame themselves for smearing pessimism and bitterness everywhere.  It is time for citizens to exercise their right of free speech in a positive way and suppress hate speech parasites, slanderers, and the media for placing negativity everywhere.

The only reason that hate speech still exists is because the public tolerates intolerance.  In this day and age, people are generally becoming more aware of the varying cultures of the world.  Globally, we are becoming more tolerant and understanding.  If we aspire towards peaceful relationships with one another, hate speech cannot be tolerated in any way. We must overcome our differences and disarm hate speech.  We must cherish the fact that we are all human beings who have accomplished great things throughout history and who can achieve even greater things if we respect one another and work together.

edited by: Lexie Tourek, Rachel Blumstein and Melanie Kruvelis

A Moral Investigation

By: Colin Holmes and Karolina Papiez

It’s a telling sign that something is amiss when we derive logical justifications but struggle to overcome some indistinct objection lurking in the back of our minds.  I don’t think that I am alone in saying that I feel this way about prostitution – the rights of autonomy and self-ownership, and the resulting right to sell your own body makes sense, but there is a difficult-to-quantify feeling that keeps us from closing the matter. It seems that prostitution as an isolated idea, independent of the issues of human trafficking, violence, and poverty that surround the sex trade, presents a number of problems and concerns.

Why is this?  Do the historical moral codes of our society exert so much subconscious influence that they override our rational conclusions?  While traditional biases play an important role in the landscape of prostitution today, there are also a number of reasons for us to hesitate when confronting moral failures that exist – even in the most favorable hypothetical situations.

Even in a hypothetical arrangement in which prostitution did not influence the societal view of women (or transgendered, or homosexual people) as a whole, sex workers become a lower class that suffers from unequal treatment.  Consequently, even if the specific sexual practices in question may vary, the client is always in a position of control over the interaction due to their role as the initiator and the prostitute’s role as the subordinate worker. While the exchange of sexual services for money may be economically equal, even in a voluntary transaction, it is not socially, politically or morally equal.  In other words, prostitution turns sex workers into usable commodities, more goods than service.  As a result, prostitution can never be truly compatible with “the rights of autonomy and self-ownership.”

Although there are many legitimate service relationships that are initiated and dictated by the customer, prostitution is not equivalent to any other job.  A worker in a fast food restaurant must meet the demands of the rude clients and work in undesirable conditions, typically at minimum wage.  While we typically wouldn’t choose to do either job for minimal compensation, it is clear that sex work is orders of magnitudes less desirable than being a fry chef: it involves the routine violation of the very identity of the sex worker.  A fast food employee can take off a uniform at the end of the day, thereby separating workplace functions from his or her sense of self, whereas the degradation that constitutes a sex worker’s reality can’t be isolated or discarded from his or her identity.

Another consequence of the practice of prostitution is how it re-enforces the idea of sex as conquest, whether achieved through money, good looks, or charm. Accepting sex work as morally valid places a price on and thereby devalues intimate aspects of our beings.  We start to wonder: how much is my personhood worth?  If I can choose to sell part of it, is it still an important part of me?  We should trust our gut instinct on this question: such an intrinsic part of our being does not have a monetary equivalent, and the idea that we could “fairly” sell it operates under a corrupt (or at least inconsistent) set of morals.

So if prostitution is so morally abject, why does it still occur?  Kidnapping and physical coercion partially explain some individuals’ entry into sex work, but there are also individuals who do so voluntarily.  In the answer lies the reason that governmental (or societal) intervention is necessary: prostitution is a predatory system that leads to economic and social entrapment.  Before diving in, consider Merriam-Webster’s definition of a victim: “one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent.”

The economic angle is easy to see.  When individuals in need of financial support are unable to find conventional unskilled labor and have no way to learn marketable skills, they are forced into the jobs that nobody else will take as a means of survival.  These pressures can drive both men and women into sex work, but for men, the solution is more often undertaking exceedingly difficult or dangerous manual labor.  Women are denied these positions on grounds of the physical strength required or because many do not consider manual labor “women’s work.” That impoverished women are often under an obligation to raise children is only a further confounding factor. Prostitution becomes the job that any woman can get. Sex workers relinquish some or all ownership of their bodies and identities in order to meet a need that they can’t otherwise fulfill.

This should sound suspiciously similar to the definition of victim offered previously.  Sex workers are pulled into the trade for lack of alternatives and become subjugated as sexual objects, thereby devaluing their individuality in all aspects of life – not to mention the social problems like danger of physical abuse or inability to seek legal aid.  It is a complex problem, and our attempts to morally justify prostitution may spring from a desire for a simple solution.  But accurately identifying the problem is an important first step and essential in the search for a solution.

COUNTERPOINT:

Only Rights Can Stop the Wrongs

By: Carol Leigh

The sex workers’ rights movement, com­prised of diverse international and local grassroots campaigns, was launched in the early 1970s and has grown to include hun­dreds of thousands of sex workers and other activists, joined by allies such as health and social services providers, academics, femi­nists, attorneys, and human rights’ advo­cates around the world.

The principles of this movement are root­ed in a respect for self-definition and recog­nition of sex work as work. The sex workers’ rights movement also acknowledges diversi­ty of experiences, beliefs and circumstances of those who sell, trade, and survive through transactional sex. While some are “prosti­tuted people” or victims of trafficking, many others identify as sex workers, porn actors/models, hustlers, healers, body workers, erotic service providers, or simply individu­als who have engaged in sex for some pur­pose or exchange.

A fundamental principle of the movement is the recognition of sex workers’ human, civil and labor rights. The International Committee for the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe invokes “the right to freedom from slavery, forced labor and servitude” as well as a range of protections of prostitutes’ in­dependence, health and safety based on in­ternational law.

Laws that criminalize sex workers’ busi­nesses, clients (and even grown children and domestic partners) drive sex workers under­ground, exacerbate the danger and stigma, and limit protection against violence and discrimination. As a symbol of sexual op­pression, the sex worker is an easy scapegoat, on the receiving end of a backlash express­ing social anxiety about new sexual mores.

Most prostitution laws around the world have been based on abolitionist strategies that criminalize most aspects of prostitu­tion. Even when sex work is legal, advertis­ing, soliciting and maintaining a location to conduct business are usually illegal. Con­temporary prostitution abolitionists now call for the additional criminalization of clients. These campaigns purport to support decriminalization of prostitutes as well, but have been applied only where prostitution is legal for both parties. The result is an in­crease in the criminalization of commercial sex, and not the decriminalization of sex workers. As numerous reports have indicat­ed, these laws make sex work more danger­ous and isolating for sex workers.

Some anti-trafficking policies conflate trafficking with prostitution, increasing the arrest of sex workers and limiting women’s rights to travel. Sex workers around the world organize to protest laws influenced by these ideologies because rather than assist­ing sex workers, they only make them more vulnerable.

Despite current repressive trends, the sex workers’ rights movement has grown expo­nentially over the last decade with 65,000 sex workers organizing in West Bengal, doz­ens of organizations around the world and in the U.S. including SWOP-USA with chap­ters in many states. While engaged in an uphill struggle in a hostile political climate, the movement has been on the forefront of harm reduction and other human rights work. Sex worker activists have consulted on United Nations policy projects and advised local and national governments. During the recent United Nation’s Universal Periodic Review process, the U.S. acknowledged the prolific adverse effects of discrimination against sex workers.

Emerging from centuries when sexual health and pleasure were forbidden subjects, the discourse about prostitution is unso­phisticated and based on a puritanical un­derstanding of sex that is out of sync with changes in sexual mores. Anti-prostitution groups portray and define prostitution as “inherently oppressive.” This defini­tion of prostitution is extremely reductive and omits the realities of our diverse and complex experiences. Anti-prostitution discourse reproduces and relies on many misconceptions about the sex worker rights movement, maintaining that “pro-prostitu­tion” advocates claim prostitution is just like any job, or that it is always empowering.

Is sex work “empowering?” The empow­erment discourse itself invokes class-based assumptions. An individual can earn money for survival, rent, food, etc. One may or may not value the experience of sex work in other ways, but it’s a mixed bag when the cost of choosing to labor in a sexual economy is to lose one’s legal status and one’s safety and often live a double life. Despite these odds, I have known many courageous sex work­ers who are proud to have survived or even thrived.

Is prostitution a dangerous and predatory institution? As an institution within our current patriarchy, conditions in prostitu­tion reflect gender inequities in our societies. As an institution within our current racist and predatory capitalist system, those who survive through sex trade are subjected to the forces of those systems as in other work. This is compounded by criminalization and stigmatization.

Is decriminalization the solution to all the obstacles faced by sex workers? Clearly decriminalization of prostitution is not the complete solution to centuries of stigma, to current criminalization, nor to the econom­ic values that lead to poverty – discrimina­tion and exploitation. Decriminalization of commercial sex and anti-discrimination strategies lays the groundwork to support conditions that would allow us to organize and address these challenges. The solution to the problems and inequities of prostitu­tion is the same as the solution to problems of society in general, that is, promotion of social and economic justice, democracy, hu­man rights and peace on earth. As our allies at Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee in West Bengal remind us “Only Rights Can Stop the Wrongs.”

The author  has been a sex worker and activist since the late seventies and coined the term “sex worker” in 1978. She is a member of SWOP-USA, Desiree Alliance, a long time COYOTE member and co-founder of BAYSWAN. Leigh founded and directs the San Francisco Sex Worker Film and Arts Festival.Leigh won a settlement in 1993 from the University of Michigan Law School, for the censorship of the Porn’Im’age’ry: Picturing Prostitutes exhibit curated by Carol Jacobsen, which included Leigh’s video “Outlaw Poverty, Not Prostitutes.” Artists in the exhibition were represented by the ACLU. Unrepentant Whore, Collected Work of Scarlot Harlot (2004, Last Gasp, San Francisco) can be found at Amazon.com

Edited by: Lexie Tourek and Lauren Opatowski

Unilateral Action Won’t Work

by: Naomi Scheinerman

Unilateral action by Palestinians or Israelis will never yield peace; achieving peace in this complex situation requires negotiations in which both sides are willing to make concessions.

Because I cannot encompass the very wide spectrum of opinions on this topic, I intend the views conveyed in this piece to represent no one but myself.  Please resist the urge to categorize this article as an ideological manifesto that is “Pro-This” or “Anti-That”. I hope to shed light on my perspective, which is informed by my experiences of living in both Israel and the West Bank; studying, reading, listening, and observing, often from family and friends intimately involved in the conflict; and a passionate connection to Israel as the Jewish Homeland.

The recent Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations is an inappropriate course of action for two major reasons: (1) The UN is incapable of serving as an appropriate or objective arbitrator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and (2) this conflict will not be resolved by unilateral action by either party.

First, the United Nations record on matters relating to Israel and the Palestinian and Arab conflict has consistently been biased against Israel.  The UN Human Rights Council has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than all other states combined, which indicates a blatant double standard. It is one thing to pass warranted and accurate resolutions about Israel’s human rights situation and another to focus inordinately on Israel when concern for human rights should guide us to look to the more serious concerns in Sudan, India, China, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and many other places.  This clear and disproportionate bias renders the UN an entirely inappropriate arbitrator of the question of Palestinian statehood.

Second, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s attempt to acquire statehood status at the UN constitutes a unilateral demand for territory without a corresponding offer of peace.  As established at the Camp David Accords in 1978, the basis of the Middle East peace process has been Israeli offers of land for Arab promises of peace, but Abbas’s UN bid entails no such promise.  Unilateral action without promises of peace does not work.  When Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and gave over governance to the Palestinians, the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas violently took over in 2006, murdering and imprisoning hundreds of members of the Palestinian political party Fatah and proceeding to launch thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian populations around the Gaza Strip (a danger that continues today).

It is misleading to boil down the great complexity of the situation in the Middle East to that of Palestinian sovereignty. Though in 1947 the UN partitioned the land into a sovereign Palestine and a sovereign Israel, there never really was a sovereign state of Palestine to occupy.  The Arab states, rejecting the partition, waged war against Israel, resulting in the Jordanian seizure of the West Bank and Egyptian control of Gaza (both of which Israel retook in the defensive 1967 war)—neither being an instance of a sovereign Palestinian state. Furthermore, Palestinians have been given sovereignty both in Gaza (2005) and, since the signing of the Oslo Accords (1993), increasingly in the West Bank as well. However, failure on both sides to adequately comply with the provisions of the accords led to a Palestinian uprising known as the Second Intifada (2000-2004), which saw hundreds of tragic Israeli and Palestinian deaths.

This is why this situation is far more nuanced and complex than a power dynamic of occupier vs. occupied or oppressor vs. oppressed. Granted, the Israeli army is more powerful and advanced than Hamas. As a result of security threats, Israel constructed a security fence around the West Bank. Though often criticized as an Israeli land grab and as an instrument to divide and degrade Palestinians, the presence of the barrier and Israeli soldiers at the checkpoints has resulted in a drastic decrease in the number of suicide bombers and terror threats on Israeli soil.

In addition, there are too many issues on the table that need sorting out, such as the location of Palestine (which neighborhoods and Jewish settlements it would include), the citizenship status of the Jews living in the West Bank, how to connect the West Bank and Gaza, the location of Palestine’s capital (East Jerusalem includes the Old City and hence one of the holiest sites in Judaism, the Western Wall), and also Jewish access to Jewish holy sites in the West Bank. Negotiation is the only way to sort out these thorny issues.

Peace negotiations are dynamic and fluid and change with the political circumstances (such as the return of Gilad Shalit to his home after over five years in captivity) and with those in power.  In the world of global politics and diplomacy, it is illogical to conclude that because the negotiations have not worked in the past, they will not succeed in the future. I dream of a day when there is no security fence, no checkpoints, and no Israeli military presence in the West Bank or Gaza. I yearn for a day when the sovereign state of Palestine and the secure and Jewish state of Israel can shake hands, collaborate on environmental problems, and discuss education initiatives. That dream can only be attained through negotiations over the details, concessions on both sides, and a clear and explicit declaration of and adherence to peace.

COUNTERPOINT:

Negotiating With Your Oppressor

by: Bilal Baydoun

The peace process is a farce biased heavily in Israel’s favor.  Only unilateral action from a democratic Palestine will allow Palestinians to counter Israeli imperialism and achieve statehood and peace.

If it didn’t have such tragic implications for Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel proper, the so-called “Peace Process” would be one of the great jokes of modern history.  The question of the appropriateness of unilateral action, therefore, must begin with an assessment of this tired alternative, a process by which the U.S., the world’s leading imperial power, rejectionist state, and underwriter of Israeli crimes, attempts to mediate a settlement between an occupying power, Israel, and those who are occupied, the Palestinians.[1] Despite all the events, changes in leadership, and ideological shifts within these three parties over the last 44 years, this basic blueprint hasn’t changed, and, unsurprisingly, it has produced a lot of process and no peace.

Consider this carefully: ever since Israelis and Palestinians began negotiations for a two-state settlement, the Israeli camp has offered precisely and exactly zero concessions. All concessions have come from the Palestinians, who have seen their territory shrink rapidly since 1948. Many Israeli apologists, however, unable to recognize the deep sense of lawlessness and exceptionalism that has so rampantly infected Israeli political culture, often point to a long list of “painful concessions” made by Israel: the 2005 “withdrawal” from Gaza is a popular one; so, too, is Netanyahu’s ten-month “freeze” on illegal settlement building. In both cases, Israel did not offer a concession, but rather decided to temporarily obey the law (though the Gaza example is a bad one, since there was no complete withdrawal, but instead a redeployment of the Israeli Occupation Forces on the periphery of Gaza). Indeed, issuing a temporary freeze on illegal settlement building is much like telling the highway patrolman: “I’ll stop speeding for 90 days, but after that, I’m going drag racing in a school zone.”

Furthermore, Israel-Palestine, when viewed from a global perspective, is perhaps the least controversial and easiest “conflict” to solve; there already exists an overwhelming consensus on how to reach a two-state settlement. This year, the U.N. resolution calling for “peaceful Settlement of the question of Palestine,” which essentially reiterates the universally accepted realities of this issue—that the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, in their entirety, are “occupied Palestinian territory,” that the settlements are illegal, that the wall is illegal, that the blockade on Gaza has caused a monumental humanitarian crisis, etc.—received 165 “yes” votes and 7 “no” votes.[2] That is, over 95 percent of voting states agree that Palestinians should have a state in this form; the dissenters are the usual rejectionists – Israel, the U.S., Australia, and a few Pacific Island nations. That a solution hasn’t been reached with such incredible unanimity is proof enough of the crippling effects of U.S.-Israeli intransigence.

Meanwhile, proponents of the Peace Process insist that unilateral action in Israel-Palestine affairs can only hinder the prospects for peace. The truth is that the Israeli camp has only practiced unilateralism. After all, did the Palestinians bilaterally agree to have their homes demolished,[3] their land illegally colonized[4], their resources stolen, [5] and their families beaten and harassed on a daily basis?[6] Certainly they didn’t have a say in Israel’s construction of an illegal annexation wall that separates farmers from their fields, students from their classrooms, and the sick from medical care.[7] Indeed, there is only one type of bilateralism that the Israeli government has communicated: agree to let us do whatever we want.

I support the most recent unilateral statehood bid by the Palestinian Authority in principle because it represents a break from the farcical American Peace Process. The bid gives the nations of the world a chance to stand against Israeli occupation, which hopefully can pressure and isolate Israel in the same way that Apartheid South Africa was in the late 80’s and early 90’s. In the end, however, this bid can’t have a real impact on the situation in Palestine, and I have plenty of reservations about it. Most notably, I believe there is a dangerous precedent in Mahmoud Abbas—who hasn’t been elected and represents no one—speaking on behalf of the Palestinians. A democratically elected leader must represent Palestine.  The last time there were elections in Palestine, however, the U.S. and Israel punished the Palestinians for voting the wrong way in a free election. Thus U.S.-Israeli suppression of democracy must end as well, which includes unwavering support for Arab dictatorships like the Saudi and Jordanian kingdoms. Seeing that Israel isn’t likely to accede to such change voluntarily, it’s important for supporters of peace to practice targeted boycotts, divestments, and sanctions against Israel until it complies with international law and abandons its expansionist ambitions. If Israel truly wants peace and is serious about protecting its security, it should do one thing: end the occupation now. But as history has shown us, the Israeli government will ultimately choose expansion over peace—and then tell the world it wants to dialogue over whatever land it hasn’t already usurped.

The Israel-Palestine issue is not a conflict between two peoples who just don’t know how to share and get along. It is a struggle between poor and privileged, colonized and colonizer, occupied and occupier, victim and aggressor. Until this power structure changes, or a genuinely neutral party mediates the talks, the struggle will continue.

edited by: Aaron Bekemeyer and Rachel Blumstein

Patriarchy Dresses Women for Halloween

by: Katie Sauter

“Halloween is the one night a year when a girl can dress like a total slut, and no other girls can say anything about it” – Cady Heron, played by Lindsay Lohan, in Mean Girls.

Beginning in September, stores start setting up their Halloween displays. Candy and spooky decorations line the aisles of major party and grocery stores, and men and women can pick and choose from a vast array of costumes. For women, the options are seemingly endless, ranging from a devil to a Disney princess or even a nun. We could stop at the observation that men and women are presented with an equal variety of costume choices and conclude that women have equal rights, and thus, feminism has taken care of gender disparities in this department.  But we could also delve deeper. By looking critically at these costumes, we would quickly realize that all of them are made out of the minimum amount of material possible with at least one of the following: a short skirt, low-cut top, and/or skin-tight material (yes, even the nun costume).

I want to preface this discussion by stating that I recognize the hard fight for sexual liberation the women’s rights movement has been involved in for years. In addition, I fully believe women should be able to freely embrace their sexuality in any way they desire, including the option to wear a sexy Halloween costume. However, currently, women are not able to make this choice freely. Regardless of how many costume options women have to choose from, the predicament the feminist movement faces concerning Halloween attire is that their selections have been censored by a corporate America—one that is dominated by men. Without this free choice, we cannot say women have comprehensive sexual liberation.

Patriarchal control dictates and defines women’s Halloween costumes. There’s little room for freely chosen sexual expression.

Women’s lack of choices in Halloween costumes is a result of our still dominantly patriarchal society. Halloween costumes are used as a mechanism to control women’s sexuality. You may question my reasoning here and ask, “If stores are putting out ‘sexy’ costumes isn’t that the stores’ fault?” The answer to that question is yes.

So you then may ask, “How can we blame ‘patriarchy’ for this?” To understand the answer we must look at who owns these stores. Gerald Rittenberg is the CEO of Party City, Hank Meijer is the CEO of Meijer, Steven Silverstein is the CEO of Spencer’s (which owns Spirit Halloween), and Jon Majdoch and Jalem Getz own Halloween Express. These are some of the top stores consumers go to for their Halloween costumes, and all of them are owned and operated by men. This gives these men the authority to select which products make it to the shelves. The control that these men possess demonstrates that patriarchy still reigns as a powerful system policing the acts of women.

Not only do the limited options presented to women encourage them to dress like “sluts,” whether they feel comfortable with it or not, these costumes also mock the advances that feminism has made. In the second wave of the women’s liberation movement, both women and men fought for equal job opportunities and fair treatment in the workplace. Although today we still face inequalities in this market, great advances have been made. The skimpy costumes of nurses, doctors, pilots, and police officers deride this progress. These costumes send two main messages. First, the costumes show that while it is presently more widely acceptable for a woman to be employed in a traditionally male occupation, she is still primarily valued for her physical appearance. Second, these “sexy” professional costumes validate and reinforce the idea that it is permissible to sexually objectify not only the women in these costumes, but also the women who actually have these careers.

Sexual liberation is one of the rights for which feminists have fought hard throughout the women’s rights movement. One way women should be able to express this right is by wearing anything they please for Halloween. Their costume choices, however, have been predetermined by our patriarchal society which continues to objectify the female body. Again, I want to emphasize that I am not saying that women should not be able to dress in this manner; women should be able to dress how they want. The issue arises out of the limited options women are presented with, which in turn impairs them from freely making a decision. Cady Heron may be right in that Halloween is the one time a year that women can dress like “sluts” without suffering the scorn of other women (or of men for that matter). If a woman wants to wear lingerie and rabbit ears and call herself a bunny, as Cady did, more power to her. But I question her ability to have made this decision without the influence of our patriarchal society. Hence, a woman being able to dress sexy for Halloween is not enough proof that we have attained sexual liberation. While dressing up in these outfits may be empowering, sexy and fun for some, there is no room to independently explore these expressions in the context of our patriarchal society.

COUNTERPOINT:

Celebrating Our Inner Slut

by: Libby Howard

“I was like –‘am I gay, am I straight?’ And then I realized…I’m just slutty. Where’s my parade?” –Margaret Cho, actress and comedian.

What is the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the word slut? Maybe it is the girl in high school who slept with all your best guy friends but never got asked to prom. Maybe it’s a hyper-crossbreed between Pamela Anderson and Paris Hilton. Maybe you think of yourself. Regardless, the word “slut” leaves everyone with a bad taste in his or her mouth—unless it’s Halloween.

There has been much debate orbiting the concept of “appropriate” costumes for young women when it comes to Halloween. Some argue that the social pressure for women to dress themselves in promiscuous rags originates from patriarchy’s rule book; that this expectation alone ultimately lowers the standards of respect that women should hold for themselves. Others argue that the direct inverse relationship between seasonal weather conditions and square footage of clothing is impractical and ultimately ridiculous. However, most people just think that being a slutty firewoman is an easy and unimaginative way for a girl to show off just how hot she really is. And my question is, so what? If any guy with a killer body dressed up as a slutty fireman, the automatic reaction would be laughter—he is either supposed to be a stripper or a sexy calendar month. Pressure to dress in a certain way for Halloween is not exclusively felt by women – there are only differing manifestations of gender expectations. Women and men should dress to empower themselves and show off their bodies through whatever costume they choose.  Halloween is the beginning of a subversive sexual revolution.

Sexy Halloween costumes are a means to self-exploration and sexual empowerment.

We know Halloween as the one night a year when girls can dress like sluts without negative social consequences. Really, every day should be “the day” that girls can dress how they please without facing the inevitable judgment.  Sadly, there is rarely a single day when women are not judged and demoralized for wearing any kind of revealing outfits outside of the house.  In fact, Constable Michael Sanguinetti, a Toronto police officer, summed up this societal attitude when he so kindly suggested that if women want to remain safe, they should avoid dressing like sluts. This was spoken at a crime prevention safety forum at York University last April. His ugly words sparked a counter-movement, which spread across the globe, known as SlutWalks, where hoards of protesters rally in public space all while scantily clad. The movement argues that women should not have to constantly censor the way they dress in order to protect themselves from dangerous men. Instead, we should be attacking the framework of patriarchy that influences and perpetuates this “slut-shaming.” A woman, just as a man, should have the right to sleep with whomever she wants and whenever she wants without fearing emotionally destructive repercussions from society. Similarly, any woman should have the right to choose exactly how she wants to dress without the constant fear of being attacked. Everyone dresses certain ways for their own reasons and revealing clothing should be no exception.

Halloween is the perfect opportunity for us all to take part in the message of the SlutWalk movement. Wearing risqué costumes does not have to fall under the gaze of oppressive patriarchal objectifications of bodies. Rather, we can manipulate the message that our appearance sends.  Ladies (and guys), this Halloween, let’s proudly adorn ourselves in as little or as much as possible – it’s not about pleasing anyone else. It’s about making a statement to the Constable Sanguinettis of our society and letting them know that when we march out for parties and do the monster mash, it is a firm stance against patriarchy.

If you aren’t persuaded by this feminist call to bare arms, consider Halloween as a gentler opportunity to escape social ridicule while trying out different expressions of your body and sexuality. Long ago we traded in our Trick or Treat bags for the excuse to party at our college campuses. Along with this came the social pressures—to drink, dance hook-up, and wear certain clothes—that are basically unavoidable. We begin to experience the ones associated with Halloween once the October wind starts blowing and the shots start rolling. Despite the sexist undertones to these pressures discussed above, there is ground within these coercive social norms for really beautiful moments of character development and discovery for all genders.  Although these constraining social pressures might make some feel uncomfortable; all it takes is a lighthearted attitude, an instinct to survive, or a curiosity to experiment. This willingness is necessary for human survival and personal growth—just ask Darwin. Social pressures act as a right of passage from childhood into adulthood as kids learn who they are and which social norms they want to partake in. This process of natural selection helps each individual fall into his or her own specific niche.

Halloween can be a night of escape, a night where sexual power is reclaimed by costumed SlutWalkers, or something in between. So if a woman or a man wants to show off their assets in any way, we should all ask, so what?

-Edited by Lexie Tourek and Lauren Opatowski

Opportunities Despite Restrictions

Conversation with Dr. Afonso

U of M’s International Oversight Committee restricts University sponsored study abroad programs in countries under travel advisories issued by the US Department of State. Advisories are issued upon two condition: (1) when “long-term, protracted conditions […] make a country dangerous or unstable,” or (2) when the “ability to assist American citizens is constrained due to the closure of an embassy or consulate or because of a drawdown of […] staff.”

Dr. Janet Afonso of LSA Academic Advising, who specializes in study abroad issues, agreed to sit down with Consider staff to discuss this policy. She defends the U of M travel policy because she believes it champions the safety of students while offering a rich intercultural education, no matter the location.

She began by stating that studying abroad (anywhere) is a valuable tool in achieving intercultural education. Rather than merely reading a book or taking a class, students interact and engage with people of another culture and truly acquire a window into that culture. Seizing the opportunity to explore a different country and immerse oneself in the wide variety of aspects of its particular culture (such as food, music, language, humor, attitudes, and customs) culminates in experiences that go farther than any traditional class can even hope to offer.

U of M offers a wide variety of study abroad programs in both developed and developing countries, with programs including “full immersion,” where students are studying side-by-side with native students, arranging homestays and internships, and satellite campuses where study abroad students live and take classes together.

In addressing the current travel restriction policy, Dr. Afonso was quick to retort, “Quite literally, the entire world is open to U of M students.”  Despite U of M’s adherence to travel advisories, many other accredited universities hold programs in countries under alert, which students can attend and from which they can most likely transfer credit back to U of M. Dr. Afonso particualry singled out Israel as a country that, while not a U of M program destination, enjoys a very generous transfer credit policy under University guidelines. When reflecting on the symbolic and ethical nature of the restriction, Dr. Afonso sympathized:

“I can completely understand a university’s position […] to [not] wholeheartedly endorse sending a student to a place where there is knowledge that a student could be put in harms way. Today, we live in a more litigious society […]; people are scared about being sued. However, above all, it is about the student’s welfare and keeping them safe. A university has a responsibility that comes with endorsing a program.”

Dr. Afonso didn’t entirely discourage students from traveling to places under the safety advisory. She shared a personal account of one of her own study abroad experiences about being in Nicaragua in 1973 amidst the revival of the Sandinistas, a political party confronting, often violently, the federal government:

“In retrospect, I am shocked that anyone let me go to Nicaragua in 1973. However, I am glad they did. If I had been deterred by danger I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to go to many of the places that I did. We encourage resourceful students to travel anywhere in the world they wish to go regardless of whether there is a specific U of M program. I would like to think that a student who truly wants to go to a place like Nicaragua circa 1973 is resourceful enough to make it happen, and frankly they should be that resourceful if they are to be placed into such an environment. Most likely the student is going to face much greater challenges when they arrive in that country than trying to work around a non-U of M program.”

Given her own numerous and influential travels abroad, Dr. Afonso encourages all students who can to study abroad and to impart to their peers, future employers, and grad schools a coherent narrative of their cultural growth experience. Dr. Afonso implores all students to go “beyond awesome” and truly articulate what they have leaned from their experience abroad. True to Dr. Afonso’s mission, read on to learn about a student’s experience with U of M’s study abroad programs:

POINT (Part II):

A Student’s Experience

A conversation with Celine Smith

I was—and remain—bitten with the travel bug. Through U of M programs, I first went to Zambia to participate in workshops on HIV/AIDS in religious communities after my freshman year. During the winter semester of my sophomore year, I studied abroad in Buenos Aires, Argentina.  There, I took part in an internship with the organization Un Techo Para Mi Pais, which is similar to Habitat for Humanity. By directly working and living with Argentines, I gained a deeper insight into not only the diversity of the world, but also the similarities that unite us all. A unique aspect of studying abroad is that the majority of what you learn is outside the classroom. This is unmatched by any experience you could have on campus in Ann Arbor. These opportunities in Zambia and Argentina have had an incredible impact on me not only as a student but also in my daily life. I am more open-minded than ever before. Even though there may be drawbacks to the study abroad process at U of M, the personal growth that is cultivated during the experience outweighs any struggles.

COUNTERPOINT

Let Us Experience the World

by: Jonathan Lewallen

Last summer I had the opportunity to study abroad in China. The trip was arranged through the Global Intercultural Experience for Undergraduates (GIEU), and the goal of the month-long sojourn was to learn about Chinese nuclear energy policy. The internship was phenomenal, and it’s precisely for this reason that I’m compelled to confront U of M’s study abroad policy, which almost prevented my life-changing experience.

Our program was scheduled for the month of May, less than two months after the accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. As our travel group had a scheduled layover in the Tokyo airport, there was obvious cause for concern. The United States Department of State issued a travel advisory for the country of Japan soon after the incident. Luckily, some of the nuclear scholars assessing the level of danger in Japan were the Michigan professors set to lead our tour. It was with great relief that in the weeks after the accident they assured us that there was no threat in traveling through Japan. Our planned travel, however, remained in question due to the University’s policy to ban travel to areas with official State Department travel advisories in effect.  In late April an online statement from the University confirmed that with the lifting of the government’s travel advisory, all study abroad programs could proceed as planned in Japan. Although this particular conflict was resolved, it highlights the drawbacks of the school’s blanket approach to study abroad safety protocol.

The University has an obvious responsibility to ensure the welfare of its students, but in fulfilling this commitment, they have begun to curb the potential for meaningful cultural exchange. According to the State Department’s website, there are thirty-four travel advisories currently in effect. While the conditions in some of these countries do pose a substantial risk (for example, Somalia) other areas seem to have been included out of an abundance of caution (for example, Mexico). Last year, the Michigan Daily reported that the University’s travel ban on portions of Northern Mexico had forced two student groups to abandon their original plans. There are rising instances of violence in parts of Mexico, but to brand the country as “extremely dangerous” overlooks the fact that travel occurs in the country all the time without incident. In cases of moderate risk, the University’s restrictions create the false perception that portions of the world are practically uninhabitable and deprive students of the rich cultural insight such areas have to offer.

This precedent of erring on the side of extreme caution has negatively affected one study abroad group in particular. Last summer, a group of GIEU students working in El Salvador to promote water-filtering technology was sent home prematurely after only one week. The departure was prompted by the nighttime mugging of several of the students. Fortunately, none of the students were harmed.  According to a field site participant, however, the university was “thrown into a frenzy.” Despite the general sentiment (even amongst those who experienced the robbery) that the crime was an isolated incident that was not indicative of conditions in the surrounding area, the decision was made to abort the program. The final verdict was reached not by the team leader, but by administrative figures in Ann Arbor. The same student objected to the University’s actions, saying “[they] made it impossible to absorb and digest the new world that had opened up.” In addition to halting this cultural absorption and the service component of the trip, the decision leaves the country stigmatized as unsafe – a place of terror rather than a site of intercultural education.

Moreover, the University’s policy does little to combat long-standing trends in national study abroad patterns. The Institute of International Education released statistics showing that about fifty-five percent of approximately 260,000 American students who studied abroad between 2008 and 2009 elected to travel within Europe. There is no doubt that many students experience genuine growth in European travels. On the other hand, just as many students are insulated in what an article from the Detroit Free Press calls “American bubbles.” The article reports “hot spots like London, Barcelona and Florence […] feel like exclaves of […] Ann Arbor.” The report notes that, on average, students studying abroad in such locations spend over four hours a day on the Internet. The University has achieved a great deal in creating culturally enriching alternatives to this classic vacation equation; but as long as school policy allows safety concerns to define any trip out of the ordinary, trends are unlikely to change.

Any sort of travel involves inherent risk. When weighing safety concerns, it’s crucial to place reports of danger in their proper context and consider potential educational value. According to The Guardian, a student publication at UC – San Diego, during massive, often violent student protests in Chile, UC – San Diego students made the decision to remain in Santiago, arguing that  “witnessing the social movement is an important education in and out of itself.” U of M’s explicit adherence to State Department travel advisories and reflexive reactions to any possibility of danger undercuts its ability to facilitate meaningful cultural discourse.

Edited by: Lexie Tourek and Leslie Horwitz

Institute the Ban

by: Emma Erickson

We live in a world where we are at odds with our environment. For most people, day-to-day life is a race to see how much of this planet’s resources we can consume and how much we can contaminate the natural world. This accusation should take you aback. You probably don’t consciously perform these actions and would admonish a person for partaking in them blatantly. Our problem is that environmental degradation is built into the way our society functions and the cyclical systems in which we all operate. It is the desire to break these fundamental assumptions and status quo modes of operation that lead me to support banning water bottle use on the campus of the University of Michigan.

The idea for the ban originated last year with Maggie Oliver, an LSA senior and chair of the Michigan Student Assembly’s Environmental Issues Commission (EIC). Hoping to improve UM’s environmental impact by instituting a ban on the sale of plastic water bottles by the University, Oliver and the EIC circulated a petition in support of these goals during the Winter term of last year. The petition drive was highly successful, garnering thousands of signatures, and Oliver hopes to take her ban request to the Board of Regents to actually institute change in University policy.
So why should the regents support the ban? Most important, there is an overwhelming environmental case against the sale of plastic water bottles. The plastic used to make these bottles is manufactured from corn, petroleum, and other chemicals. Not only does the extraction of petroleum pose environmental risks (see the explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico last summer), but water bottles themselves also generate an enormous quantity of waste. In 2006, for instance, according to the Government Accountability Office, the United States produced roughly one million tons of plastic PET water bottles, three quarters of which ended up in landfills, and will take thousands of years to decompose.
There are also individual health risks entailed by the use of plastic bottles. Though most plastic in its finished form is not toxic, certain types—including phthalates, a variety found in many plastic bottles—can leach into food. The Environmental Protection Agency and independent researchers have suggested that these plastics may disrupt the endocrine system or act as carcinogens.

Given these arguments, though, you might wonder why we should specifically ban water bottles. Plenty of other soft drinks and beverages are packaged in plastic bottles; shouldn’t we ban them, too? In an ideal world, such a broad ban would be a perfect outcome, but given the constraints of the real world, there are a couple reasons why banning water bottles specifically is a good idea. One is that nearly half of all “purified” bottled water begins as municipal water. In other words, by buying this water we are paying for water that is readily available at our taps and drinking fountains. Additionally, according to the National Resources Defense Council, over 90% of the cost of a water bottle is not water related, like packaging, shipping, and marketing. It is cheaper and simpler for both water providers and consumers to deliver water at the tap, at fountains, or at refill stations. This argument, of course, does not apply to Gatorade or Red Bull, but it is a reasonable and workable solution for the delivery of water. Hopefully in the future we will develop a means of providing individuals with dispersed access to beverages in containers whose production has no negative impact; for now, banning plastic water bottles in order to reduce the environmental, health and economic costs of plastic bottle production and consumption is the best place to start tackling this issue.

Finally, critics of the ban may object that, by eliminating bottled water for purchase at UM, we would be infringing on consumer choice and rights of the University community. Shouldn’t everyone have the freedom to choose whatever beverage he or she desires? This concern is misguided for two reasons. Governmental and institutional regulations already ban the sale of certain products—we are now a smoke free campus after all—and the water bottle ban simply builds on this logic of restriction in the interest of protecting the health and well-being of consumers.

Of course UM students would still have access to the very same water they currently find in purchased bottles. By combing the ban with a massive education campaign that encourages students to use personal, reusable water bottles, and by installing more refill stations in buildings around campus, we can make it clear that good, clean water is more easily and cheaply available to them than ever.

As long as bottled water continues to be available and sustainability education is slow, people will continue to use them. Our University is a sustainability leader in many ways, but it lags behind many of its peer institutions in operational standards for environmental friendliness. If the regents boldly accept MSA’s petition, they would back the University’s claim of being a leader in sustainability and help the student body and the entire UM community lead the way to a greener, more sustainable future.

COUNTERPOINT:

Don’t Institute The Ban

by: Avery Robinson

We live in a highly disposable world where everything comes packaged, almost always in a bottle or a container. Not just milk and juice, but herbs, fruit, memory cards and even water.

Disposable and recyclable plastic bottles, like almost all conventional plastics, are synthetic materials derived from petroleum. These petrochemicals form the basis of our consumer-driven economy. While comprising a significant portion of our economy, plastics undeniably pose disposal problems. Despite these problems, however, I disagree with the MSA proposal that plastic water bottles be banned from U of M’s campus.
First, consider the water itself. The odds are that the water you buy at convenience stores and vending machines is very similar to the water coming out of the tap because it is, more often than not, tap water. A number of very competent and effective federal and state agencies regulate bottled water production. In Michigan, this includes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) Water Section, and some municipal water authorities. The FDA applies very similar standards to water bottle production as it does to other foods and beverages. Therefore, if the argument for banning water bottles is based on poor regulation (and safety), it is flawed. But there is much more to this ban than just plastic bottles and water quality.

Just because you can get the water in that flimsy, petrochemical bottle from a tap does not mean we should ban bottled water. If that were the case, we should also ban bags of ice.

The environmental costs of trucking water are not a valid basis for a ban. Do we ban bananas? Coffee? Tuna? By focusing on environmental concerns alone, we ignore the strong impact such a ban would have on public health, social justice, and civil liberties.

We should allow our state legislators to handle the environmental concerns around recycling and waste. Almost every water bottle is recyclable, but a consumers’ only incentive to recycle these bottles are peer pressure and a sense of altruism. These disincentives do not apply to other returnable goods in our state. In fact, Michigan is one of the leading states in terms of cans and bottles being returned and recycled. If our legislators provided bottled water deposits, I guarantee that recycling rates would skyrocket.

Second, let’s talk about health. Drinking water—bottled or in a glass—is way healthier than drinking pop (read soda or Coca-Cola for you non-Michiganders). Water contains no calories, no sugar, no salt and no extra chemicals. The same is not true for other bottled beverages, which contain large quantities of calories, sugars, salts and chemicals few of us can pronounce.

We must consider all health effects of the ban including its unintended consequences. By removing bottled water from the shelves of vending machines and campus cafés, such a ban would push students toward making unhealthy consumptive decisions. Studies have shown that drinking pop and other non-water refreshments can increase the risk of diabetes, heart disease and obesity.

Third, removing bottled water from campus stores and vending machines may infringe on the freedoms and civil liberties we enjoy as Americans. If I want to purchase a bottle of water instead of a bottle of carbonated water laced with corn syrup, caffeine, caramel color and natural and artificial flavors, I should be able to. Why should my dollar be disenfranchised in a way that benefits already-subsidized big agriculture and big business?
Fourth, let’s talk about social policy and education. I always carry a reusable water bottle with me, but is it reasonable to expect 40,000 students, 30,000 faculty/staff and thousands of campus visitors to always have a reusable water bottle available? Is it reasonable that we expect others to know about our quirky Ann Arbor laws? Do we have enough drinking fountains on campus to handle a surge in use?

While banning water bottle sales on campus may help reduce plastic waste and related environmental degradation, there is a better way to solve our plastic bottle problem without harming public health or infringing on the civil liberties of consumers. We should educate the campus and the community about the benefits of reusing a water bottle. Some ways include: becoming more cognizant of our own environmental impact; being able to quench our thirst beyond 8, 12 or 20 oz; finding a great place for stickers; and making a conscious decision to mitigate unnecessary consumerism and waste. We can also strive to ensure that prices of bottled water and pop adequately reflect the cost of these items. This means prices should not just be based on the cost of production and transportation, but also the ecological effects of resource extraction.

If we do not understand or internalize these messages, then there will never be a cultural change in our consumptive habits. We must all encourage one another to reuse our water bottles (and other containers). I will continue to use my Nalgene and aluminum water bottles and encourage others to do so. Your friends may not be aware of this, so please remind them—reduce, reuse, recycle, and most importantly, be responsible.

Edited by: Aaron Bekemeyer and Matt Friedrichs