Get Involved Outside the Classroom,
Where Learning is Limitless

by: Steven Benson

With over 20,000 undergraduate students, it is very easy for one to get “lost in the crowd.” Walking through the Diag, students often see unfamiliar faces, an occurrence quite different from the typical high school experience. The University of Michigan prides itself on the sense of community present among students. Community on this campus is built in a number of ways, with student activism and involvement in different organizations playing a major role. There are over 1,200 active student groups on this campus, each with a unique focus and mission statement. The excuse for student complacency can no longer be, “I couldn’t find anything that interested me.”

I decided to get involved on campus not to boost my resume, or to make my encouraging mother proud, but rather to satisfy my intrinsic needs. College is a unique experience for most in its requirement of self-motivation. College is only four years long, and it is what you make of it. No one is peering over my shoulder telling me what to do or how to make my decisions. To me, simply attending class and coming straight home was not the way I wanted to remember my college experience. I needed to become a part of something that was greater than myself. Solely attending classes didn’t offer me that “something;” I wanted to make my mark on the University. Then I found LSA Student Government.

My involvement as President of LSA Student Government is something from which I have extremely benefited. Academics come first, of course, but I have learned certain skills from Student Government that cannot be learned in the classroom. These skills are practical by nature and will help me advance myself in the real world. Networking is one important skill that first comes to mind. Through my collaboration with students, faculty, and administrators, I have built relationships and made connections with very influential people. Not to mention that I have made some of my best friends through my work. While we are a very tight knit group, we are also very critical of each other when needed Student Government taught me many useful things: how to conduct professional meetings, set a budget, address sensitive issues, and motivate others to complete their projects.

Furthermore, Student Government enabled me to strengthen my overall leadership skills, a requirement for any occupation or graduate program. The top recruiters in the workforce stress the importance of student involvement on campus specifically student leadership. Being an organization member is important; however, it is equally important to show growth inside an organization.

Student activism is an idea open for interpretation. There is no right way to become involved on campus. To some, joining an organization with three members is the right decision.

Piece of advice: rather than joining ten different student organizations at once, join a few and hold a leadership position in each.

To others, joining a fraternity or sorority with over 100 members is a perfect fit. Regardless of personal preference, students need to see beyond the classroom and acknowledge that any form of involvement is better than no involvement at all.

University of Michigan students are lucky to attend school in such a beautiful city that is interconnected with the campus culture. Take advantage of the many resources that Ann Arbor has to offer. Work with Ann Arbor Organizations , such as the Hospital or the public schools, to help them reach their goals. Even doing something as small as planting a flower in the arboretum, picking up trash on South University, or even volunteering at the Ann Arbor YMCA or JCC will make a difference. As a student at the University of Michigan it is our duty and obligation to give back to our community.

Let me offer a piece of advice: college is too short to only focus on classroom academics. These are meant to be the best years of our lives, so why not take advantage of them? Make the most out of this opportunity by getting involved, and you will be sure to benefit in the long run. Do you want to reflect back on your college experience and only remember aspects of student life relating to academics? Or do you want to realize that your four years were filled with great experiences, memories created through your involvement in an organization, and a sense of impacting our campus culture after earning your degree? These choices will help define the person you are, and the person you aspire to be.

back to top

Introduction to Fascinating Ideas: Why Attending Class Matters

by: Tim Dodd

Excerpts from the Fall 2010 LSA Course Guide: “Critical Theory in Medicine and Healing,” “Ghosts, Demons, Monsters: Fear and Dread in Literature,” “Experiments in Nonlinear Dynamics,” “Geoenvironmental Engineering,” “African Cinema,” “Introduction to Ethnobotany,” “The Mathematics of Language.”

To paraphrase that famous line from the Wizard of Oz: Toto, we’re not in high school anymore!

By now you’ve heard the drill from the deans: coming to the University of Michigan means learning from some of the world’s most renowned scholars in superb academic departments, most of which are ranked among the top 5 in the country. In addition to that spiel from the academic affairs administration, you have undoubtedly heard this line from representatives of the student affairs administration: “Your most memorable learning experiences at UM occur outside the classroom.”

As the director of academic advising in the Newnan LSA Academic Advising Center, I find myself amazed every semester by the number of interesting and unusual course titles and topics – just a few of which I noted above – that sprout up in the curricula at UM. This university provides myriad opportunities to take classes that deepen understanding, stretch the imagination, challenge assumptions, and gain new and nuanced perspectives on ourselves and the universe around us. That UM students sail beyond limited and conventional thinking and immerse themselves in ideas never before considered is central to my attempt as an advisor to inspire students to participate in the grandeur of the undergraduate experience. Frankly, there is no comparable time in your life – and I’ve lived many years in many places since leaving the undergraduate ranks – that permits the breadth of subject exploration and elicits the degree of intellectual wonder as do the undergraduate years.

While I attended a much smaller institution as an undergrad (Fordham University in the Bronx), I also had the pleasure of taking a diverse set of courses that enrich my life to this day. Would I have the appreciative and critical eye for art and film that I developed as a student in philosophy of aesthetics and film studies classes? Could I be the critical consumer of political discourse that I am had I not taken a course on rhetoric and propaganda? Do I still find compelling the range of human beliefs, behaviors and motivations because I took a religion and psychoanalysis class? Is my ability to assess quantitative data derived from my two semesters of calculus?

That UM bifurcates student existence into “academic affairs” and “student affairs” and then watches those distinct bureaucracies compete over which realm provides the best and most memorable “learning” is not at all representative of the undergraduate experience at UM.

Learning is a dynamic and integrative process that, as practiced particularly by UM undergraduates, spurs intellectual, social, personal and ethical development inside and outside the classroom.

True, you will grow smarter and more confident because we have many “top 5” departments and programs (and great thinkers and experts in each). But profound learning occurs throughout the undergraduate years because we also have 1241 student organizations (it says so on the Maize Pages; look it up) and tons of spontaneous moments of interaction, inquisition and reflection with friends, colleagues, and strangers on and off campus.    And here is the key: what is absorbed in class is tested through application in social, organizational, and community settings, and what is experienced in those settings informs and animates understanding of classroom theories and concepts. There’s a catch, though: it doesn’t happen by osmosis.

You have to go to class and be an active participant in the course “dialogue.”

With the advent of PowerPoint slides and lecture notes posted to Ctools course sites, some students believe it is unnecessary to attend class. To me, skipping class is like buying a ticket to a concert and, instead of attending, downloading the play list. Sure, you know what was performed, but you didn’t hear the words, you didn’t listen to how songs were played, you didn’t become aware of what nuanced shadings on verse and melody occurred, and you weren’t present to discuss the concert after it ended. You never would skip a concert and think that viewing the playlist was sufficient, so why would you skim a PowerPoint loaded on Ctools instead of attending class? Even in a 400-person lecture, listening to a scholar present his or her ideas stimulates a much deeper understanding of the course material, and discussing the lectures outside of class often solidifies or expands that understanding.

Maintaining the habit of class attendance can also provide practical benefits. It helps you develop a productive discipline and a rhythm of responsibility, both of which enforce effective time management and a healthy sleep schedule. There’s also no better way to get to know your professors, who, after all, will be writing your letters of recommendation. As wonderful as these benefits are, though, the most important reason to attend class is the intrinsically valuable experience the classroom environment provides. In fact, the classroom experience can be just as useful and important as other “real life” experiences. There is no substitute for a direct encounter with fascinating ideas and the minds that produced them.

So, yes, Go Blue . . . but go to class, too

back to top

edited by: aaron bekemeyer and lexie tourek

Take Responsibility and Take Action

by: Lilly Zoller

As children, we were all taught various invaluable life lessons such as: treat others as you want to be treated, always say please and thank you, and be careful what you wish for. Unfortunately, it seems that the United States government missed the day that it was supposed to learn one particularly important lesson: take responsibility for your actions.

On average, the United States contributes 20% of global atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions every year.  We are the second largest contributor in the world (China beats the U.S. by a mere 1%, but their national population is over four times greater).  Generally, carbon dioxide emissions can be a reliable indicator of a nation’s affluence.  More affluent countries consume more energy, food, and other goods, and as a result, their carbon dioxide emissions are high.  In the same respect, less affluent nations consume less and therefore emit less carbon.  However, the United States rejects the fact that we have played a major role in global climate change.  As a result, the richest nation in the world is not taking responsibility for its actions and is definitely not implementing effective climate change policies.

Given where we started and the expectations for this conference, anything than a legally binding and agreed outcome falls short of the mark.

-John Ashe, Chair of the Kyoto talks, during the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference

In the past, United States government officials have said that they will not commit to a binding international climate change agreement unless the major developing nations (i.e. China and India) do so as well.  President Bush abandoned the Kyoto Protocol because he didn’t want the United States to be economically strained, while other countries were not.  However, the fact is that the United States is, in a large part, responsible for global warming, but it is the developing and vulnerable nations that are experiencing the consequences.  Many small island nations have already experienced sea level rise, which, if it continues, will eventually cause the disappearance of entire islands.  Parts of Africa have had droughts for the past three or four decades that have been killing millions of people who don’t have access to fresh water.  When the United States government says that it does not want to commit America to binding emissions reductions because it may lose some money, it should take a look at what some of the poorer nations throughout the world have already lost due to America’s excessive carbon emissions.

In addition to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the United States, along with other developed countries, has the responsibility to assist poorer nations in coping with the current and likely future impacts of climate change.  Most developing and vulnerable nations have expressed that they feel the developed nations should provide them with compensation for their losses caused by global warming (in the form of funding for adaptation plans) as well as monetary aid for future development.  Some say that developing nations have the right to continue using oil and coal because they deserve the same chance at development that America has experienced over the past few centuries.  Although these nations do deserve a fighting chance at economic development, using unsustainable technologies will only contribute more to the current climate crisis. Therefore, the funding that developed countries donate to developing nations should be used for sustainable development.

Finally, because America is such a significant contributor to global atmospheric carbon emissions, once it enters a binding carbon reduction agreement, global reduction efforts will really begin to pay off.  A multi-national effort in reducing carbon dioxide levels will not be successful without America’s efforts, despite the efforts of other nations.  Significantly reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions will not be easy.  It will involve expensive technological advancements as well as commitments from government agencies, private businesses and all individuals.  Americans will have to make changes in our every day lifestyles.  We will have to get used to eating less meat, driving our cars less often, utilizing locally made goods, and living more minimally in general.  However, these changes are necessary, because dealing with the consequences of not making such a commitment will be far, far worse.

In the end, it is up to the American government whether or not global warming will continue.  It is imperative that government officials soon come to the realization that we are responsible for a good portion of carbon dioxide emissions, and it is our job to deal with the consequences.  It is unethical to let the less affluent and more vulnerable nations feel the impacts of global warming while we continue to live our lives, business as usual.  It is time for the American government to put that very important life lesson to use and finally take responsibility for our actions.

Rethinking the Structure of International Climate Agreements

by:  Brian Ford

One of the greatest challenges of confronting climate change is the negotiation of international climate agreements. History has demonstrated that the world’s largest emitters of carbon are unwilling to reduce their emissions to a safe level on their own accord. It is widely believed that if a global temperature rise is to be limited to 2.8 degrees Celsius, the most promising solution lies in an international treaty that binds participants to effective targets and timetables for emissions. Unfortunately, there is no supreme power that can enforce the cooperation of political giants and emissions leaders in such a treaty. Even if the United States or China, in an unprecedented, unexpected move, committed their signatures to a binding climate treaty with clear-cut timetables for emissions reduction, what would ensure the cooperation of other nations? Good intentions do not always produce commensurate results, and most countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol did not meet set targets nor purchase sufficient credits to offset their emissions. Furthermore, these countries do not face any real repercussions for failing to adhere to their pledges. Canada went so far as to completely withdraw from the agreement to no consequence at all.

Conventions such as the Earth Summit, Kyoto Protocol, and Copenhagen Climate Conference have all recognized the threats of climate change, but have been mutually disappointing. Self-interest and distrust are often blamed for the failure of developed nations to commit to lower emissions. Developing nations such as Brazil, India, and China are reluctant to sign any treaty that limits their economic growth. African nations, the poorest in the world, refuse to commit to a treaty unless foreign aid is promised to them from developed countries to implement green technologies. Even the United States, one of the richest countries in the history of civilization, refuses to make any commitment because it would be political suicide for the incumbent president.

Even the United States, one of the richest countries in the history of civilization, refuses to make any commitment because it would be political suicide for the incumbent president.

The key to reaching a successful agreement lies in restructuring the format and goals of the traditional climate conference. Sporadic, ad hoc conferences on climate change have proved to be an unconstructive way of addressing climate change and negotiating agreements. An optimal scenario would entail an international organization such as the United Nations conducting an ongoing session dedicated to debating and deciding a course of action against climate change. This way, decisions would affect all member nations and be internationally binding. Secondly, the “timetables and targets” approach needs to be rethought.

We have seen countries pledge time and again to meet specific targets and timetables for reducing emissions and fail to follow through. To reach any goals, economic incentives need to be provided for countries to make commitments and hold true to them. Climate agreements are not arms treaties, and military action against nations that fail to adhere to emissions goals would be highly frowned upon. Cost-effective international policies that ensure that nations receive the most environmental benefit from their mitigation investments will surely promote participation but must be tailored to a wide range of needs before a conclusive agreement is finally reached. This is why ongoing negotiation is crucial.

In a perfectly moral world, the leaders of industrialized nations would embrace martyrdom and commit to a climate agreement without so much prodding, sacrificing their political futures for the immeasurable long-term benefits for all of the Earth’s inhabitants. It would be a historic moment to see the United States renounce its hypocrisy and to lead the way in future climate talks while practicing a new, zero tolerance policy on emissions reductions. There is nothing wrong with crossing our fingers while we wait for this to happen. In the meantime, however, we must dedicate more time and thought to creating an enforceable structure for international climate change decision making.

back to top

edited by: Gabriel Tourek

Obese Passengers Create an Unfair Burden?

by:  Jae H. Chung

Anyone who needs multiple seats due to their size should be required to purchase multiple seats. Why? Let’s conduct a thought experiment where the large passenger sits in a seat located by the aisle. In order for the large passenger not to bother the passenger next to him, he would have to sit in such a way that a portion of his body is protruding into the aisle. This is unacceptable because the aisle needs to be clear. Passengers need to use the aisle to access the restrooms, and stewardesses need to use the aisle to provide service to passengers.

What if the large passenger sits in a way to clear the aisle? This would imply that a portion of the large passenger’s body would obtrude into the passenger next to him. That passenger would be forced into an uncomfortable position for a prolonged period of time. Besides the physical discomfort, there are serious health issues that are associated with this for both parties. For example, blood flow could be blocked, which could lead to other health issues. The only way to mediate this situation is for a large passenger to sit in multiple seats.
How do airlines determine whether a passenger requires multiple seats? According to Southwest Airlines, “the armrest is the definitive gauge for a Customer of size. It serves as the boundary between seats and measures 17 inches in width.” Is this policy ethical? Yes. Each passenger pays for one seat (space on the plane) and they should be entitled to all the space that they purchased. The armrest serves as an indicator of the boundaries of the purchased space. The armrest for airplane seats is analogous of the fence for houses. A landowner does not have the right to break down their neighbor’s fence and utilize their neighbor’s property.

Even if the adjacent passenger consents, the airline has the right to demand that the large passenger purchase multiple seats. Given that there are health risks associated with a passenger being confined into a tight location for a prolonged period of time, the airline has the right to demand that the passenger follow the safety precautions established by the airline. As a private enterprise, the airline not only has the right to look out for its own interests but the obligation to look out for the well-being of its customers, even if its customers may not. A parallel scenario would be a bar that turns down an intoxicated patron. The bar maintains and enforces its safety precautions to protect itself and its customers.

Given that large passengers must take up multiple seats, the fundamental issue is whether a passenger of size should pay for the additional space. The current policy is one-seat-per-ticket. When passengers purchase an airline ticket, they are allotted a space on the plane. Although one could upgrade to first class if one wishes to purchase additional space, passengers cannot purchase one ticket and occupy more space than they were allotted. The alternative is a one-ticket-per-passenger policy where the airline charges passengers for the flight regardless of the amount of space the passengers take up. The former standardizes the cost per space whereas the latter standardizes the cost per travel.

The one-seat-per-ticket policy is the most equitable method because it takes into account more factors than the one-ticket-per-passenger policy. Although the primary reason for flying is to travel from one destination to another, passengers are also paying for comfort. The latter policy fails to address the issue of comfort for passengers traveling on an airplane. Although passengers have the right to relinquish comfort to save money, it cannot be at a cost to the other passengers. On the other hand, the one-seat-per-ticket policy charges a flat rate for a plot of space. It enables every passenger to purchase the appropriate amount of seating, so that they could travel without encroaching on another’s space. Secondly, the former policy addresses the issues concerning the health hazards. By requiring passengers to purchase the appropriate amount of seating, the policy effectively deals with the threat of decreased blood circulation and other health problems. Conversely, the latter policy increases the chances of health issues arising from cramming passengers together.

The one-seat-per-ticket policy is the most equitable method because it takes into account more factors than the one-ticket-per-passenger policy.

back to top

It is Unethical to
Tax a Disability

by: Robert Hinck

I s it ethical to charge obese individuals extra for taking up extra space? Last spring the media blew up after United Air announced it was forcing passengers who could not fit within the airplane’s arm rests to pay for two tickets. Although this policy brought United Air in line with the five largest U.S. carriers, the policy drew heated debate and for good reason. Requiring obese passengers to purchase additional tickets is not only unethical, but sits on a slippery slope that could result in further discrimination.

The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

The fact is, obesity is a disability. The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Obesity has long term health effects. The Center for Disease Control lists coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, hypertension, high cholesterol, stoke, liver disease and more as potential health risks arising from obesity. Obese individuals may have difficulties getting in and out of cars, chairs, and even bed. Morbidly obese individuals may even have problems walking. Regardless, discrimination against obese individuals runs high in America due to the belief that obesity results from individuals eating too much and not caring about their diets. Although this may true for individuals who are overweight or those barely considered obese, according to Medicine.net, obesity is often multifactorial, based on both genetic and behavioral factors. Treatment of obesity usually requires more than just dietary changes. Exercise, counseling and support, and sometimes medication can supplement diet to help patients conquer weight problems. Courts are even beginning to rule morbidly obese individuals as qualifying for benefits under the ADA.

Yet, the airline industry continues to charge morbidly obese passengers extra. Even though airlines are willing to accommodate passengers in wheel chairs additional space free of charge, obese passengers are forced to pay extra due to the distress they cause other airline passengers. First, morbidly obese passengers are the ones most often targeted by these policies, and morbid obesity is not a result of simply choosing to eat more. According to a New York Times article published in August 2007, genetics, psychological problems, and childhood eating habits significantly influence one’s weight later on in life. Dieting and exercise rarely work and relapse is high. Obesity, let alone morbid obesity, is not a choice we willingly make. Second, forcing obese passengers to pay extra merely ostracizes these individuals. The humiliation and pain caused by testing obese passengers whether they make the cut or not causes greater harm than the discomfort of passengers sitting next to them. Ethical approaches focusing on protecting the moral rights of individuals also speaks out against these airline policies. Human beings have dignity and are to be treated as ends, not means to an end. We cannot fine obese individuals to incentivize them to lose weight. Morbidly obese or other handicap individuals have not volunteered for their impairments, and should be treated with respect and dignity for who they are, not discriminated against so they feel unwanted or seen as some inconvenience to those around them.

Other approaches contend that individuals should be treated equally and justly. Obese passengers have just as much of a right for air travel as others. Crying babies cause discomfort for passengers, so do individuals with poor hygiene among a dozen other causes for inconveniences when people are crammed in close courters for hours, yet we do not charge those individuals extra. Obese individuals are people too, and should be treated like people. To promote the common good, we should be taking care of those who cannot take of themselves. We should not be chastising obese passengers, who cannot control their eating and must experience the dirty stares and everyday discrimination as a result of our societies demand for good looks. We must protect their rights and help them carry their burden.

Creating vague discriminatory policies will only cause us greater harm in the future. Although we might be rationalizing fining obese passengers for the “discomfort” they cause us today, who knows what we will find inconvenient tomorrow. Where is the threshold for a significant discomfort? Where is the cutoff for how fat is too fat? Charging obese passengers for additional space is simply unethical. It does not produce the greatest amount of happiness, nor promote the common good, and questions the dignity and rights of those who find themselves in violation. Although we might find ourselves in the majority today, perhaps tomorrow we will fall in the minority. What then? We must protect the rights of all people and fight against discrimination. We must change our outlook towards obesity and, instead of hindering those who hinder us, help those so they no longer hinder us.

back to top

edited by: Eric Eaton

Cash-For-Kidneys?
NO Sale!

by:  Robert L. Houbeck

You trudge along the Huron, absorbed in wonder at what the miracle of compound interest is doing to your college debt.  Suddenly, a splash, a cry.  A man flails in the water.  He can’t swim; you can. “Please, help me!”  You (1), plunge in and do your best to rescue him, or (2), cup your hands and inquire:  “What’s it worth to you?”

Michigan men and women would choose Option One.  But why is it the right choice?  No need to invoke scripture or catechism where Kant can explain: “[T]o help others where one can is a duty.”¹ In a rescue situation, if we have the special competence and unique opportunity, we have the moral obligation to aid a neighbor in need.

The present kidney shortage is a situation in need of rescuers: more than 5,000 of our neighbors will die this year awaiting a transplant.  However, proposals to legalize compensation for kidney donors are the moral equivalent of Option Two: “What’s it worth to you?”

What’s-it-worth is official policy in Iran.² In an attempt to eliminate their shortage of kidneys for transplant, the government guarantees kidney-sellers a base fee of $1,200.  Patients then meet privately with seller-candidates to negotiate an add-on price, usually many times more.  If the parties cannot agree on “what it’s worth”, the seller walks.  If the patient has enough cash, they make a deal.

Iranian sellers are not blameworthy.  They are desperate people being treated like means.  Eighty-four percent are poor.  The state doesn’t monitor their post-sale health.  Reflecting on their ordeal, 76 percent think kidney sales should be banned!³ The true culprit is a regime that has legitimated trade in body parts.

Iran is the poster child for those who advocate compensating kidney donors.  Yet Cash-for-Kidneys hasn’t achieved its putative goal of eliminating the shortage of transplant organs.⁴ Officials admit they don’t know the full extent of national need, and many Iranians with renal disease go undiagnosed.  Hundreds who do need a transplant but can’t pay the added fee languish on the wait list for cadaver organs.

Doubtless a US kidney-sale system would be more sensitive than Iran’s.  Seller and patient would be kept apart.  Third parties – certainly government, maybe insurers – would pick up the entire tab.  Yet the program we would establish in law would be the equivalent of the Iranian Cash-for-Kidneys program.

Well, why not?  Paying for kidneys may be distasteful, but why is it wrong?

The first principle of practical reason directs us not just to pursue the good but to avoid evil.⁷ Commodifying kidneys is an evil because it reduces the human person to a means.⁸ It depersonalizes us, literally renders us an object with a market price.

Pricing kidneys reduces constitutive parts of the human person to the status of pork bellies.⁹ Moral laws apply universally.  We can’t bracket ourselves.  If it’s wrong to treat a human being as an object, and you’re a human being, it’s wrong to treat yourself as an object.  It’s wrong also for others to collude in the extracting and selling – surgeons, technicians, bureaucrats, lawmakers, taxpayers.

The Iranian state has chosen a path that we must reject.⁵ The logic of supply and demand is relentless.  Just think “outsourcing.”  Reduce the kidneys of US citizens to a commodity and soon enough we will be importing cheaper organs sold in desperation by the world’s poor.  We’d probably draw the line at kidneys from executed Chinese prisoners.⁶ But if a healthy human kidney is just another spare part bought at a market price, why squirm?

Your body is not a building inhabited by the real, unseen “you”.  Properly understood, you are your body.  A human being is a substantial unity of a material and a spiritual principle intrinsically self-integrating and self-directing.¹⁰ Some human beings once had a market price slapped onto their chests, but we fought a civil war to put an end to that injustice.  Owning a whole human being is wrong.  Paying for parts of human beings is similarly wrong.  Our living bodies, along with the fundamental goods that we pursue and which fulfill us by actualizing our basic potentialities – life, health, friendship, marriage, knowledge of truth, self-integration, worship – do not have a market exchange value.  They are incommensurable goods beyond supply and demand.¹¹

But, to rescue a neighbor, we may give as a gift that which we may not sell.  Donation of a kidney, whether in life or at death, is a gesture of the deepest friendship.  The grammar of the deed affirms: “You are not alone, I stand with you.”  We gift something of our very self.  Ideally, the gesture evokes a response equally generous.  This is how, concretely, we build a culture of solidarity.¹² If these gestures by living donors are few, no wonder:  they are acts of heroism.  Yet even the least heroic of us can do something bold: sign the “anatomical gift” commitment on the reverse of our Michigan drivers’ license.

The market economy is a valuable human invention.  It enables us to allocate scarce resources efficiently, but we choose the ends to pursue.  We are not obliged to subject human kidneys to market mechanisms.  In fact, we are obliged to resist that temptation.

back to top

Legalize Compensation for Kidney Donors? YES!

by: Mark J. Perry

The most straightforward approach is to simply legalize cash payments for living kidney donors within a regulated market with government controls.  Surprisingly maybe, Iran first legalized financial compensation for kidney donors in the late 1980s and its organ shortage was eliminated within a decade.  The Iranian system of financial compensation involves a combination of government-funded cash payments and free health insurance for donors, supplemented by cash payments from the recipient.  For kidney recipients who are too poor to afford the normal payment, private charities provide funding.

A good place to start a discussion about whether it should be legal for kidney donors to receive financial compensation is a review of some statistical data.

Consider that:

1. Almost 51,000 patients have died on the kidney waiting list since data started being collected in 1987 – almost as many Americans who died in the Vietnam War.

2. The kidney waiting list has increased almost 6 times since 1988 while the number of annual kidney transplants has not even doubled (see chart).

3. For those patients suffering from renal failure and in desperate need of a kidney transplant, 2009 was not a good year to join the growing national waiting list.  The list for kidneys last year swelled to a new record of 83,146 waiting patients.  This wouldn’t be so bad if the number of kidney transplant operations was increasing, but it’s not.  There will likely be about 17,000 transplant operations in 2009, which is just barely higher than the previous year, and below the record-high 17,095 operations in 2006 (see chart).

Given these two trends (an increasing waiting list for kidneys, with no significant increase in transplant operations), those who joined the waiting list in 2009 will be facing the worst chances ever – only about 1 in six patients will actually receive a kidney this year, and thousands will die waiting.

The data paint a pretty grim picture of the current situation, and it worsens every year.  Simply put, the current system of organ procurement is not working and we need a new approach.

What is the current approach that leads to so much unnecessary and preventable suffering and death? Federal law (National Organ Transplant Act of 1984) makes it illegal to accept any form of financial compensation for providing a kidney to another human being, though such a transaction may save those in need from years of debilitating dialysis and a premature death sentence.

In other words, the price of a life-saving kidney is artificially set by the government at price of zero, and current law relies exclusively on altruism as the only legal means of providing a life-saving kidney.  Economics tells us that an artificially low price, regardless of the commodity, guarantees a certain outcome: a shortage.

When it comes to kidneys, the result of an artificially low price of $0.00 results in exactly what economic science predicts: a huge and growing kidney shortage that gets worse every year.  Current law ensures that needless suffering, life-draining dialysis, and premature death for kidney patients continue to increase year after year.  However, if we are willing to consider the alternative – financial compensation – we could easily solve the kidney shortage. 

What would a system that allows financial compensation for kidney donors look like? 

What has been advocated for the U.S. is a modified financial compensation program for living kidney donors, which would not involve direct cash payments like the Iranian model.  Instead, it’s been proposed that there be some type of “in-kind” financial compensation for living kidney donors that might include a contribution to an IRA retirement plan, tuition vouchers for the donor or his or her children, a tax credit, early access to Medicare, or subsidized health insurance for the donor.

Even under a modified program of financial incentives, we could realistically expect to see the number of living kidney donors increase enough to eliminate organ shortage and end the preventable suffering and premature deaths.  It’s not that the current emphasis on altruism isn’t a legitimate, partial solution to the growing kidney shortage, but, more importantly, altruism alone will never be a complete solution to the problem.  That’s why we need to legalize financial compensation for donors.

Interestingly, recent polls show that a majority of Americans agree that we should move towards a system that makes it legal to provide financial incentives for living kidney donors; the general public now understands that donor compensation is the one way to solve the growing organ shortage.

The grim reality is that a suffering patient with renal failure dies every two hours – more than 12 every day – waiting for a kidney under the current policy.  A system of altruism has not worked in the United States, it hasn’t worked anywhere else, and it will never work as the sole legitimate motive for donating kidneys.  The only way to effectively address the growing kidney shortage in the United States is to make it legal to receive financial incentives as a living kidney donor.  The market-based approach has worked in Iran and it will work here.

back to top

edited by: David M. Friedman

Endnotes:

1. Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals [1785], trans. H.J.Paton (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 66; 398 of the RPA ed. Cited in Hadley Arkes, First Things: An Inquiry into the First Principles of Morals and Justice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), 290.

2. Anne Griffin, “Iranian Organ Donation: Kidneys on Demand,” British Medical Journal: 334 (10 March 2007), 502-505. www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7592/502 .

3. Ibid., 504.

4. Ibid., 505.

5. Alastair V. Campbell, “No such thing as an ethical organ market,” The Straits Times, 11 July 2008 www.asiaone.com/Health/News/Story/A1Story20080710-75872.html .

6. “China admits death row organ use,” BBC News, 26 August 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8222732.stm

7. Arkes, 163-174.

8. Leon Kass, Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), Chapter 6, “Organs for Sale? Propriety, Property and the Price of Progress,” especially 242-245.

9. John Paul II, Address to the 18^th International Congress of the Transplantation Society, 29 August 2000, Section 3, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2000/jul-sep/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000829_transplants_en.html

10. Patrick Lee and Robert P. George, Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), especially 130-140.

11. Wilhelm Roepke, A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market, trans. Elizabeth Henderson (South Bend, IN: Gateway Editions, 1960). The original title [1958] was Jenseits von Angebot und Nachfrage – “Beyond Supply and Demand”.

12. Benedict XVI, “A Unique Testimony of Charity”, 7 November 2008 www.zenit.org/article-24191?l=english.

On January 12, 2010 a massive earthquake struck the nation of Haiti…The United States Government has deployed over 13,000 troops, treated over 7,000 patients, and evacuated over 10,500 people as of January 21st.

The White House-Office of the Press Secretary-January 21, 2010

Student Development Work Hurts Those in Need

by:  Brad Detjen

Every Spring Break, while some let loose in South Beach and others catch up on schoolwork in the library, a small but growing number of students choose to do international volunteer work. The programs they take part in vary from mission trips teaching English at orphanages in the Dominican Republic to Engineers Without Borders, through which students install sanitation systems in rural villages in Thailand. Having taken part in and organized these trips myself, I can say without hesitation that they are powerful, often life-changing experiences for student participants. However, these projects fail to help the communities that they target and often do harm.

I have recently heard that a few organizations at U of M are planning to bring students to Haiti to do volunteer work, either in relief or development. Relief projects would place students temporarily with a relief agency (such as the Red Cross) to address the immediate needs of earthquake victims. In development work, students would design a long-term project that attempts to install sustainable infrastructures for Haiti’s future. In the near future, I believe that any student project in Haiti is massively irresponsible. Long-term, I fear that any volunteer program based at U of M will attempt to graft a flawed model – a model of change brought about by temporary volunteer work – onto a failed state, and it may end disastrously.

First, let’s try to imagine a group of Michigan students traveling to Haiti in the next month. If they are able to get past the border, they will be entering an apocalyptic world. Massive shortages of food, water, and shelter persist everywhere. The sanitation system is in ruins, and cholera and dysentery are spreading wildly. The collapse of the state government has led to looting and mayhem. As the U.S. military attempts to gain control over the country, travel slows to a crawl. Whatever plans the students have to help people will have to be adaptable; donated items may attract the attention of those fighting for survival.  Any relief agency that chooses to host these students will be taking on massive liability due to the dangers listed above. Simply feeding and housing volunteers will tear invaluable resources away from dying Haitians.

In the past, most projects like these have failed to do much concrete good and have often caused harm. Why do volunteer projects miss the mark when their intentions are so pure? There are many reasons.

First, students lack the language skills and cultural sensitivity needed to carry themselves appropriately and to gain the trust of the communities where they work. From a logistical point of view, the only people who have any business entering the country now are doctors who are fluent in French and/or Haitian Creole and who have experience in disaster relief.  Beyond language are local customs and attitudes that will make or break any attempted project. Young students tend to believe in simple fixes and do not appreciate the knowledge and skills that are at hand in to project communities. This makes American students seem arrogant and becomes a cultural barrier. Often, a lot of promises are made and forgotten, giving developing communities a false hope that someone else will solve their problems for them.

Additionally, most programs – even those that claim to promote “sustainability” – do unsustainable work. They focus on short-term returns and do not establish a lasting presence that will see the project through to completion. At U of M, students cannot be involved with a project for more than 4 years, but many development projects like these have 10-year planning cycles – meaning that a project will have complete turnover at least twice between its inception and its conclusion. In Haiti, even the most sustainably-planned project may not be prepared for the instability that is characteristic to the area, from political coups to natural disasters and migratory populations.

In Haiti, in particular, a sustainable development project will be nearly impossible to coordinate. Political instability and lack of infrastructure present enormous obstacles.  This is not to say that no U of M project could ever be successful in Haiti, but it would require a continuous, year-round presence and coordination with a well-established Haitian organization. Students will need preparation in Haitian Creole, cultural training, and study in sustainable development principles.

In general, the problems of developing world poverty are far more complex, deeply-rooted, and difficult to reverse than most young people assume. In their arrogance, students can cause more problems than they set out to solve, and I am deeply concerned that any U of M-led project in Haiti will be unproductive, inappropriate, and unsafe.

back to top

Thoughtful Service for the Common Good

by: Rebecca R. Cheezum

In the wake of the recent earthquake in Haiti, many students, seeing the images of the devastation and suffering, have looked for opportunities to provide assistance to the residents of Haiti.  Several student groups have been successful in raising funds for organizations that are providing immediate relief such as The American Red Cross and Partners in Health.  Other students have wanted to do more, and several began to speak of going to Haiti to help.  In response, a new initiative, Tèt Ansanm Ak Ayiti (TAAA), which means “United with Haiti,” aims to channel students’ altruistic energy by taking the time to build an institutionalized, long-term partnership with organizations or communities in Haiti in order to provide sustainable relief through capacity-building and long-term collaboration.  TAAA will incorporate a service learning strategy as a mechanism for responding to this crisis in a manner that will benefit Haiti while also working towards the University of Michigan’s purpose of providing education and training to its students.

Service learning is a pedagogical method for integrating community service, classroom learning, and personal reflection.  This method helps students learn class material and develop skills while also providing them valuable work experience and the opportunity to partner with diverse groups of people.  More than simply padding a résumé, service learning projects serve as a structured way for students to face the challenges of applying theoretical concepts to real world situations.

Communities can also benefit from service learning projects.

Students can help community-based organizations by contributing labor necessary to provide services that the organization may not otherwise have the staffing to do.

Students often have access to resources that community-based organizations may not, such as peer-reviewed literature, technology, faculty advisors with related expertise, and knowledge about cutting edge developments in the field.  By connecting communities with these resources, the quality of services delivered can increase.

However, not all student endeavors in communities have positive outcomes.  Poorly planned service learning projects run the risk of exploiting communities, expending energy on useless work, or sending ill-prepared students into communities where they may act offensively or paternalistically.

In order to increase the likelihood that the project is beneficial – and not detrimental – to communities, there are several key components to a service learning project that are necessary.  First, the service learning project should be developed through a collaborative partnership with the community.  Second, the purpose, goals, and expectations of the project should be clearly defined and agreed upon by students, faculty, and community partners.  Finally, there should be systems to provide feedback where students present results or reports to the community, and the community is given the opportunity to comment on the quality of the student’s work and interactions.

In an effort to use a service learning approach that will benefit both University of Michigan students and, most importantly, the residents of Haiti, TAAA will use a strategic service learning approach.  Recognizing the complexity of the needs of Haiti during a redevelopment process, the effort will be multi-disciplinary, engaging students and faculty from across campus.  The initiative will use two separate, but connected participatory processes in order to identify the interests and expertise of students and also to prioritize projects based on the most pressing needs in Haiti, as identified by Haitian community members.  TAAA will take its time in planning a response and building relationships, in order to prevent a premature, poorly planned response.

Currently, there is not enough water, food, or shelter for those who live in Haiti, let alone to support visiting students.   The roads and infrastructure have been destroyed. Security concerns that have been present for some time may be heightened due to the desperation and lack of resources.  If student service learning projects were to take place as a relief effort, they are likely to have negative consequences to the country’s residents by using limited resources and by not being sufficiently planned or appropriately directed.

TAAA recognizes that the rebuilding process of Haiti will take place over a long period of time.  Over the course of the process, the resources and skills necessary are likely to change, and the work of TAAA will adapt with these changes.  As part of the rebuilding process, it is essential for the initiative to build upon the assets of Haiti and to focus on capacity building and sustainable change.  The purpose of each service learning project will be to educate students and to build skills and increase resources among Haitians communities and organizations.

TAAA serves as an example of a budding initiative that, through thoughtful planning and genuine partnership, hopes to leave a positive legacy within the University of Michigan and communities in Haiti.  

back to top

edited by: Daniel Strauss

Detroit: Mocked City

by:  David Greany

Detroit is a landscape littered with abandoned and dilapidated buildings which have little chance of attracting future tenants. These empty shells stand in a city that has been bleeding residents since the early 1950’s. Detroit has been in a perpetual state of decline for the past five decades, and little has been done to reverse the direction. This fact is represented perfectly in the politics of the city, where the same corrupt officials are elected regularly, even as reports of their less than admirable practices are broadcasted by local and national reporters. It blows my mind that former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was somehow elected to a second term despite numerous articles and television reports about his misuse of city funds. He was even named by Time magazine as one of America’s three worst big city mayors in April 2005. Apparently, as long as you avoid burning down the Manoogian Mansion – the official residence of the city mayor – you can be re-elected.  

…the same corrupt officials are elected regularly…

I have to assume Detroit voters have some sort of an “us against the world” mentality. They feel that any time someone points out a flaw with their fair city it is a malicious attempt to make them look bad instead of a way to develop positive change and progress.  That is the only explanation I have for the recent Detroit Zoo debacle: Looking for ways to trim the budget, the city considered shutting the doors of one of Michigan’s most beloved landmarks instead of accepting an offer from wealthy suburb Oakland County to take over operations.  Situations like this make me believe that saving Detroit may be a lost cause until Detroit voting public changes its attitude.

I do not believe Detroit will ever again be an iconic city of two million.  Too many jobs have been lost. However, Detroit has the opportunity to accept its fate, adapt, and become a revitalized smaller city. Motown is never going to be Chi-Town, but it can learn from what has happened in the Steel City in recent years. Pittsburgh’s reliance on the declining steel industry in the 20th century is very similar to Detroit’s dependence manufacturing jobs in the automotive sector. Like Detroit, Pittsburgh lost half its population over a fifty year span, but since surviving Y2K, it has enjoyed a renaissance of sorts that is mostly due to the diversification of its economy. The auto industry will always be a part of Detroit in some capacity, but the city will only pull out of its current slide if it attracts talented people to the area with new jobs in growing industries.

With several prestigious universities just a short drive away, southeast Michigan has a built-in supply of educated young people. Many college graduates who would jump at a chance to stay in Michigan are forced to flee to another state because there are no jobs in their hometown. The key to fixing Detroit was put articulately by former President Bill Clinton during his run for office in 1992: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

…Detroit is worth saving…

At this point, only drastic steps could revitalize Detroit. After eating at Lafayette Coney Island twice in 36 hours (American Coney Island can burn to the ground in a chili fire as far as I’m concerned), I have come to the conclusion that Detroit is worth saving. As a newly unemployed marketing major, I know the city needs to revamp its image if it has any hope of attracting new investment to the banks of the Detroit River. That solution starts with the local government, which needs to make a commitment to change.  This will never happen if the voters of Detroit don’t demand it.  Detroit has a lot to offer: Faygo Rock & Rye – the best walleye fishing in the world – Mustangs, and deep American history. Detroit was once the engine for the world. These are things worth fighting for. On a personal note, I think we’d all be better off if the Lions stopped squashing everyone’s spirit for seventeen weeks each year. I would be happy if we could even fix that.

back to top

Rethinking Detroit

by: David Azad Merian

Of all the cities in Michigan, Detroit is the most debated, and most of the 3 million citizens who live in metropolitan Detroit have an opinion about the city. Perhaps it is because Detroit was their home. Perhaps it is because people of the suburbs desire an urban center, a rallying point, a unified locus for the surrounding population – much like Manhattan or downtown Los Angeles.

Detroit once flourished from the boom of industry; the city is now experiencing extreme plight. Unemployment officially stands at 27 percent, and underemployment or unofficial unemployment may be as high as 50 percent according to Mike Wilkinson of the Detroit News. Additionally, there are 80,000 vacant homes in Detroit. Yet problems plaguing the city are not limited to its boundaries; Detroit’s ailments perpetually and drastically affect the region.

Should money be spent to revitalize Detroit? It seems hard to justify. The city is enormous – over eighty square miles. One suggestion has been to partition the city, to re-draw district lines and, in a sense, start anew. However, this argument forgoes explaining what would be done or who would be responsible for the “cut-off” sections currently inside Detroit’s city limits.

This idea suggests what is really necessary: citizens must take control. Detroit will not survive without employed people, and while the economy struggles, people suffer ever more harshly. Businesses are not built in Detroit because its poor cannot support a strong buyers’ economy.  The affluent few cannot bear the burden of employing and restructuring the whole city. They, like Detroit’s poor, are disorganized. For wealthy citizens outside Detroit, what concern should they have for the city—unless it is philanthropic or economic? Thinking solely of philanthropy and economic gain will not save Detroit, nor will the strength and prosperity of the suburbs.

Moreover, is Detroit even still a city in the traditional sense?  What reason do suburbanites have to go to Detroit, other than for sporting events or concerts? And do these isolated events really sustain the economy of Detroit? Besides these events, it seems money stays outside of Detroit. When suburban visitors actually spend in Detroit, the wealth of many only transfers into the hands of a few. Often, these few have little concern for anything but themselves.

…In Michigan, funds are lacking…

While the sentimental impulses of people say “save Detroit,” the question of “how?” hinders progress. In Michigan, funds are lacking except in the private sector, which, most often, is focused on personal gains. Perhaps this will seem a touch radical, but it would be in the best interest of the people of Detroit to storm city hall, revolt, and seize control of the city and all of the property. But then what? Farm? (Agriculture certainly isn’t the worst solution, considering many citizens of Detroit lack access to fresh and healthy food.) Some have already begun to farm abandoned properties, leaving a somewhat comical, somewhat prophetic vision of Detroit as a backwoods rural/urban cooperative. This idea, however odd, may be the most viable option for Detroit’s citizens – that is, teach the people essential skills of self-reliance: animal husbandry, agriculture, automobile repair, sewing, weaving, business, and so forth. Let the people join together in community as a model for the rest of society, which is increasingly growing more and more estranged and further and further apart.

Forgoing revolt and general seizure of property, the next most intelligent option seems to be more aid for higher education, especially in the areas of skilled trade and academics. America’s economy undoubtedly is and is becoming service-oriented. Therefore, let Detroiters join the league of servicemen and servicewomen, because, at this point, what else is there for them? Americans cannot expect high paying jobs – especially in manufacturing – without at least some education beyond high school. If America and Detroit do not “bounce back” from this Great Recession, they will have to rely on the inventiveness and intelligence of citizens to earn their bread. Through education, people can at least learn how to learn to take care of themselves. With this skill of skills, they can teach others.

…Detroit will have to rely on the inventiveness and intelligence of its citizens…

Thus, revitalizing Detroit will not come from some material band-aid – like factories, stadiums or casinos – but from a more immaterial source: education. Educating is empowering. For the downtrodden masses of Detroit, useful and helpful knowledge may be the best solution for their plight.  For the sentimental citizens just out of the reach of Detroit, giving time to educate the suffering will accomplish more than senseless pity ever could.

back to top

Until Root Problems are Fixed, Any Revival is Worthless

By: Shelby Jackson

I’ve lived in the Detroit metropolitan area for my entire life. When my Dad was six, they build M-39, the Southfield Freeway, through his backyard. Three out of four of my Grandparents grew up in Detroit, and the forth lived the majority of his life there. We’ve worked in its auto-factories, its grocery stores, and its office buildings. We’ve watched the Red Wings at old Olympia Stadium, shopped at J.L. Hudson’s on Woodward, and picnicked on Belle Isle in the summertime. During our residence in and around Michigan’s Motor City, my family has witnessed first hand Detroit’s meteoric rise to a city of nearly 2 million residents and dramatic fall to a crumbling ghost town with a population that some estimate has dipped below 900,000.

After the race riots in the 1960s, my family’s goal was to get the hell out of a city that was no longer a safe place to live. From north of Eight Mile, we’ve watched Detroit, save for a few bright spots, steadily decline. Today, I’m as connected to Detroit as one could reasonably expect from a college-aged suburbanite. I’m a huge Detroit sports fan. My Dad and I have bought season tickets for the Lions for the past ten years. I’ve been to all three Detroit Casinos. I’m applying for graduate school at Wayne State, and I can name just about every restaurant in Greektown.

It pains me to see Detroit rot from the inside. When I visit Chicago or San Francisco or even Milwaukee, I deeply wish Detroit could feel even a fraction as vibrant as those communities. I want Detroit to turn around and return to its glory days, but my eyes don’t lie. History has shown that no amount of manufactured economic, infrastructural, or entertainment stimulus will revitalize Detroit. We would be foolish to think any radical revitalization efforts in the future would be successful.

Everyone has their own theories for Detroit’s decline. I pin it on the combination of three major factors. The first is race relations. Though tensions between blacks and whites in the middle of the 20^th century were high across the United States, Detroit’s “white flight” was by far the nation’s worst racially motivated exodus. Detroit’s wealth spread to the suburbs and never returned, mainly due the second factor – corrupt, isolationist politicians. Mayors Coleman A. Young and Kwame Kilpatrick lead a political culture of radicalism, scandal, and segregation from the surrounding region which deterred investors from diversifying Detroit’s economy. Eventually, when the General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler ceased to be the Big Three, the region’s single-industry wealth finally started to evaporate. Today, the survival of Detroit isn’t so much the issue as the survival of the state of Michigan.

Along the road to Detroit’s current, sorry state, policymakers did almost everything possible to revitalize the city. Opened in 1977, the Renaissance Center was supposed to mark the beginning of Detroit’s revival. General Motors purchased the complex in 1996, investing more than $500 million in renovations. The company only survives today due to drastic action taken by the U.S. government under Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Detroit People Mover, the light rail loop constructed in 1987 that was supposed to be the shot in the arm needed to turn downtown into a thriving commercial center, currently operates at less than 10% capacity and costs the city and state governments $12 million a year to keep open.

Many were certain that addition of two new downtown sports stadiums would finally curb Detroit’s spiraling descent. Comerica Park and Ford Field are stunning, state-of-the-art facilities that together cost the public close to $700 million. Many saw the return of the Detroit Lions from the Pontiac Silverdome to within the city limits as the first major step in amending for “white flight.” Though the stadiums have spurred modest renewal in their immediate vicinities, in the ten years since the completion of Comerica Park, Detroit has continued to decline.

In what seemed to be a last ditch effort at generating some sort economic momentum, Detroit became the largest American city to support legalized gambling in the late 1990s. Since, Detroit’s three casinos have struggled to reach expected profits. In 2009, the casinos collectively posted a decline in revenue versus 2008, a year in which Greektown Casino filed for bankruptcy. Even through vice, Detroit just can’t seem to take a turn for the better.

History has shown that Detroit’s revitalization cannot be invented. If the city can turn around, it will be due to a massive change in sentiment. Unlike cities such as Pittsburgh, New York, or New Orleans, Detroit is stymied by a culture of isolationism. Detroit doesn’t need new infrastructure, public investment, or government action. Detroit needs time to heal the problem eating away its core. Perhaps in the coming decades, the racially fueled mistrust between the city and the suburbs will finally dissipate. But, that’s only possible if individuals decide to forget the past. As long as Detroit and its suburbs remain at odds, the city will stay on the decline, and the region will continue to suffer. Until this issue is remedied, any sort of revitalization effort will be yet another costly waste.

edited by: Chris Koslowski

Nuclear Proliferation

by: Omeed Firoozgan and Ben Woll

As we celebrate two decades of a unified Germany and the subsequent fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, the issue of nuclear weapons is a topic of intense debate.

Proponents of nuclear proliferation maintain its advantages in effectively deterring warfare and defending against enemy threats, if the situation should arise. The costs of nuclear armament, however, far outweigh the benefits. Nukes have extremely destructive capabilities, can fuel retaliatory opposition, and are dangerous to the environment.

The entire world witnessed the intensity of nuclear warfare in the infamous U.S. attacks on the Japanese islands of Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of WWII. The blasts were devastating to the cities not because they destroyed infrastructure and killed thousands, but also because radiation continued to plague the city for decades after the incident. Today, the existence of nukes, to a large extent, makes the world uncomfortably volatile.  Weapons capable of mass destruction create an international environment that is not safe.  It is in this frame of reference, that arguments for nuclear proliferation have become increasingly tenuous.

Proliferation is driven by a perceived need to defend against aggression by other armed powers.  Countries like Iran and North Korea relentlessly argue for their right to develop nuclear programs, but would be less inclined to do so if they did not feel such an eminent threat from other countries – like the United States, Britain, and Russia – that hold vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons.  The existence of nuclear weapons creates an international power imbalance that makes non-nuclear countries fearful; as a response they become uncooperative and hawkish.  This is inherently destabilizing and detrimental to international security.

What’s worse,  nuclear weapons have the potential to empower non-state actors. Harsh rhetoric from rogue states is a relatively empty threat because their leaders are aware of the obvious catastrophic repercussions they would incur. Iran’s leaders know that an attempt to “wipe Israel off the map” would lead to their own destruction. However, radicals without government affiliations would, by contrast, have zero reservations. It is absolutely imperative that we leave no room for aggression of this type, and significant reductions would make it less likely that non-state actors could obtain a nuke.

In such precarious circumstances, the detriment of nuclear weapons is made clearer by the associated environmental hazards. According to nuclear experts, the thermal radiation caused by nuclear explosions can reach temperatures equal to that of the center of the sun (almost 100,000,000 degrees Celsius). In addition, the initial and residual chemical contamination can damage an area’s soil and water supply for decades. Above all, a nuclear impact would have long-term effects on the atmosphere and climate. A concentrated effort of safe disposal measures to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons is essential to preventing future environmental difficulties.

It is important to recognize the necessity of reaching zero. If President Obama is serious about his mission, we must agree that we cannot ask other countries to scrap their weapons without reciprocating that same action. Zero means zero. But why zero? Wouldn’t a significant reduction of weapons be sufficient?  A simple reduction defeats the purpose of non-proliferation.  The dangers of armament would not be averted.  Additionally, reduction rather than elimination does nothing to eliminate the threat of nukes falling into the wrong hands.

Some may be skeptical about the feasibility of reaching zero. Since 1990, we have cut the world’s total number of nuclear weapons by one-third. The fate of nuclear non-proliferation is particularly the responsibility of the U.S. and Russia, as the two powers hold about 96% of the world’s weapons. Recent agreements between its leaders demonstrate that both countries are willing to make a world free of nuclear weapons a priority. In his speech in Prague on April 4, 2009, President Obama stated America’s pledge to achieve zero and declared his intention to “seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.” In June, Presidents Obama and Medvedev made a promising first step towards zero by agreeing to a fifty percent reduction of nuclear arsenals.

The vast amount of international support for Global Zero proves that the cause is achievable.  Global Zero is a newly launched worldwide initiative dedicated to the phased, verified elimination of nuclear weapons. Originally agreed upon by a group of world leaders, Global Zero’s impressive list of signatories includes former heads of state, foreign ministers, defense ministers, national security advisors, and top military commanders. In a nationwide launch on college campuses in September, hundreds of students from 15 different universities, including the University of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania and Brown University, joined the effort. From students and community members to world leaders and politicians, reaching zero is not only supported, but completely necessary and possible in the next two decades.

back to top

Nuclear Energy

by: Professor Alec Thomas

In 2008, the United States consumed 4,110,259 GigaWatt-hours of electric energy, of which 2,916,687 GigaWatt-hours (GW-hr), or 71%, was derived from fossil fuels emitting 2,400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (Energy Information Agency, 2009).

Of the remaining fraction of energy production, 806,182 GW-hr, or 19.6%, was derived from nuclear power, preventing the emission of some 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide gas (CO2), which would be released if fossil fuels were used to derive the energy. In Copenhagen at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (United Nations, 2009), 193 nations discussed the need to drastically cut carbon emissions.

In the near term, a reduction in CO2 levels from electrical power generation can be achieved by contributions from three principle methods; an increase in energy efficiency, implementation of carbon capture and storage, and increasing the share of energy generation by renewable and nuclear energy sources. Of the latter, the geographically limited nature of most renewable sources means that they are likely to be contributors to, rather than sole sources of, base load electrical power. Nuclear energy has no geographic limitations, and can provide a prolific and reliable source of electricity. It therefore seems likely that nuclear power will play a prominent role in future power generation.

One area of real concern in nuclear power is that of nuclear proliferation – the spread of special nuclear materials and nuclear weapons. With worldwide adoption of nuclear power there is the very real concern that infrastructures built for the purposes of peaceful civilian power generation can be used for delivering nuclear weapons. This is certainly a contemporary issue, with Iran currently building extensive Uranium enrichment facilities (BBC, 2009). An additional threat is that nuclear materials could fall into the hands of terrorist groups and lead to construction of some sort of improvised device. There is no completely proliferation resistant nuclear fuel cycle, but some are significantly more so than others. It is therefore in the interests of the US to stay at the forefront of nuclear technology, so that it can lead regulation and implementing controls on a world stage.

There are currently 104 nuclear reactors in the US, with 4 new plants being built in the near future (World Nuclear Association). Because of their demonstrable robustness, licenses for nuclear power stations are being extended, and applications for 80-year licenses are expected within the next 5 years (New York Times, 2009). The knowledge and experience of 50 years of nuclear knowhow has resulted in nuclear power stations having less downtime than any other source of large-scale power generation. The economics of nuclear power production are favorable also, with the cost per MW-hr of nuclear generated electricity having been shown recently to be cheaper than both fossil fuels and renewable sources (The State, 2009). An additional advantage of nuclear energy is that the cost of the fuel itself is a very small fraction of the overall costs. This means that fluctuations in Uranium prices will not be reflected as dramatically in the cost to the consumer as for natural gas, for example. The nuclear industry can also have an impact on transportation. In the near term, electric and hybrid electric vehicles are likely to make inroads in the US, with major manufacturers investing heavily in the technology. Without CO2 free electricity production, such as nuclear power, the car will be just as polluting as if it ran on gasoline. Looking forward, hydrogen may be a possible fuel for transportation, in which future nuclear reactor designs can play a role.

In 2000, representatives from nine countries met to discuss international cooperation on the development of next generation reactor designs (Generation IV International Forum, 2009). These include a variety of revolutionary designs of thermal reactors operating at high temperature, and fast breeder reactors. Two options are to be pursued in the US: With operating temperatures up to 1000 oC (1800 oF), the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR), a gas cooled thermal reactor with a modular fuel type with high burn up (more energy per mass of fuel), will enable hydrogen production, or other heat requiring chemical processes in addition to power generation. The Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR), a fast reactor using liquid sodium metal as a coolant, will enable the reduction of nuclear waste impact; both by converting spent nuclear fuel and possibly also retired nuclear warheads into usable fuel, and by reducing longer lived radioactive waste products.

In addition, there are a number of initiatives for future sources of nuclear energy.  These include the mpower (Babcock & Wilcox, 2009) and Hyperion (Hyperion Power, 2009) projects, which are looking into providing smaller scale production using modular units, more like a nuclear battery. The traveling wave reactor (Intellectual Ventures, 2009) is a reactor design that would be fueled for up to 60 years operation and would burn fuel from one end of the reactor to the other like a candle. Nuclear fusion energy derived from the joining together of heavy hydrogen (a hydrogen nucleus with additional bound neutrons) nuclei may provide nuclear energy in the future with greatly reduced radioactive waste, proliferation risk and from an abundant source of fuel – sea water. This year has seen historic events, in the first experiments using the National Ignition Facility (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2009) and the breaking of ground for ITER(ITER, 2009), two large scale facilities dedicated to fusion research.

Nuclear power already plays a substantial role in power generation in the US, and is likely to increase its share of the energy burden in the future. This is because it offers CO2 free and relatively inexpensive operation, with small waste volumes, and provides reliable, high power-density electricity that is needed now and in the future. Nuclear power has therefore emerged as a serious contender as a source of CO2 free energy in the US and the rest of the world in the future. With new power plants breaking ground and groundbreaking research being undertaken, are we undergoing a nuclear renaissance?

back to top

edited by: Gabriel Zenon Tourek

Bibliography

American Society Of Mechanical Engineers. (2009). www.asme.org/Communities/History/Landmarks/Shippingport_Nuclear_Power.cfm.

Babcock & Wilcox. (2009). www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/. Retrieved 2009 from www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/: www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/

BBC. (2009, 12 2). Ahmadinejad: Iran will enrich uranium to higher levels. Retrieved 12 11, 2009, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8391133.stm

chernobyl.info. (2009). www.chernobyl.info

Energy Information Agency. (2009). www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html. Retrieved 12 10, 2009 from Energy Information Agency Web site: www.eia.doe.gov/

Generation IV International Forum. (2009, 12 11). www.gen-4.org/

Hyperion Power. (2009). www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about.html. Retrieved 2009 from www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about.html: www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about.html

Intellectual Ventures. (2009). http://www.intellectualventures.com/docs/terrappower/IV_Introducing%20TerraPower_3_6_09.pdf.

ITER. (2009). www.iter.org/default.aspx

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. (2009). https://lasers.llnl.gov/

Naval Historical Center. (2009). www.history.navy.mil/bios/rickover.htm. Retrieved 2009 from www.history.navy.mil/bios/rickover.htm: www.history.navy.mil/bios/rickover.htm

New York Times. (2009, 11 20). As Nuclear Reactor Fleet Ages, Engineers Ask,’ Is 80 the New 40?’. Retrieved 12 11, 2009 from New York Times: www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/11/20/20greenwire-as-nuclear-reactor-fleet-ages-engineers-ask-is-94897.html?pagewanted=1

The State. (2009, 12 10). Nuclear makes sense, SCANA chief says. Retrieved 12 11, 2009 from The State: http://www.thestate.com/business/story/1064390.html

United Nations. (2009). Retrieved 12 10, 2009 from United Nations Climate Change Conference Web site: http://en.cop15.dk/

Walker, J. S. Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

World Nuclear Association. (n.d.). Nuclear Power in the USA. Retrieved from www.world-nuclear.org

A Home Away From Home

by: Lauren McGlothlin

When you arrive at college, joining a sorority or fraternity is one of the best decisions you can make.

Naturally, you will be unsure and even a little skeptical of what to expect, with friends’ and family’s voices skewing your decision. You may question whether the Greek system is worth your time, but these doubts are misleading. Rushing the Greek system is a choice you will not regret.

Your sorority or fraternity will guide you through the difficulties and awkwardness of meeting new people and making friends. Joining a sorority enabled me to meet and interact with new girls during rush and to form great bonds early in the year. The bonding activities that my sorority hosted, such as the new member retreat, several mixers with fraternities and other sororities, and date parties provided me with opportunities to adjust. I arrived at the University of Michigan as an out-of-state student not knowing many people, and I would have been a lot less comfortable if I hadn’t joined my sorority.

The bonds between Greek families will last throughout college and beyond. Having a Greek connection significantly increases your social and professional networks. This tie enables you to link up with sorority sisters or fraternity brothers from different schools when you look for jobs in the workplace.

In addition, Greek life can comfort you when you feel far from home. In my sorority house, I can always find someone to do something with, regardless of whether they are one of my best friends or an acquaintance that I am still getting to know. On a Friday night, you can always find a group of sisters to go to parties with or someone to help you prepare for that difficult test on Monday, or even someone willing to relax and see a movie. With tons of people worth getting to know, you will always have someone who wants to talk, laugh, party, study, work out, or shop. Also, the comfortable, cozy services that the sororities and fraternities provide such as home-cooked meals from well-trained chefs or catering services make for an easy transition from home to college. Living in a sorority or fraternity with people you know well is like a home away from home.

Your sorority or fraternity will also expose you to many campus activities. Members in the Greek system tend to be more involved in other activities on campus. Everything in which I am involved now was referred to me by older sisters. Additionally, you will always find someone in your sorority or fraternity who is also interested in getting involved with the same club or activity, so you will have a friend to go to meetings.

Throughout my two years in the Greek system, I have participated in many activities that I otherwise would have missed. I engaged in a week-long competition on campus called Greek Week to raise money for charity organizations, and my fellow fraternities and sororities work together and participate every year in Relay for Life. Also, with the Greek system’s GPA requirement, I am better prepared to excel in college.

To be in a sorority or a fraternity is a comforting backbone that will dare you to try new things. Your brothers and sisters will always be next to you, supporting you along your journey.

back to top