|
O P I N I O N |
|---|
|
|---|
 |
Sexist? Well-endowed Olympian Dan O'Brien bares a lot in a Versace swimwear ad (left). At right, an equally well-endowed waif poses seductively as an innocent girl caught in the act of--gasp!--raiding the 'fridge. Sucking on her right index finger and holding a chocolate cake in her right hand, the model is promoting Nancy Ganz bodyslimmers. |  |
So in case you were too preoccupied with studies or were already mentally on vacation, you might have been oblivious to the contest displayed in the lounge the week before we left for Spring Break. You might have seen it: it was that funny colored box with ballots for people to vote for the most sexist ad.
I didn't miss it. As I walked by it every day, I felt compelled repeatedly to cast a vote for my favorite ad (the rum ad for any of you who also took a fancy at examining the contestants). Hell, no one was monitoring this. I could stuff the ballots with my favorite ad, but the problem is: I see nothing wrong with these advertisements. In fact, I enjoy them--which is why I found an excuse to sift through the brochures whenever possible.
The contest is the 13th Annual Sexism In Advertising Contest, which was sponsored by the University of Michigan Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Center. Whoa! That's a mouthful...now, that's an organization crying out for an acronym.
So why is this organization so upset? Aren't these just harmless ads? Well, UMSAPAC states that it is trying to "increase awareness of the ways that violent and degrading images can create an atmosphere that accepts and supports sexual victimization." The Center proposes that these images create an atmosphere that condones and facilitates sexual assaults.
Okay, I find this argument plausible for graphic pornography, and I do agree that the legal system continues to discount the severity of domestic and sexual crimes against women. For this reason, I welcome legislation that imposes stricter punishment for these crimes. However, I find the connection of advertisements to the denigration of women an absurd notion.
The criteria used for selecting the contestants were: focusing on a limited standard of beauty, stereotypical displays of women, and displaying violence against women and children. It should be noted that none of these ads had this last feature, and you know why? It's because all these ads are for female products and are directed toward women. Advertisements do not create these images; rather, they are responding to what society wants.
But, hey, if there can be a contest for sexism in advertising for women, I want to start a contest for men. The same criteria will be applied for selecting the advertisements: limited standard of beauty, stereotypical displays of men, and displaying violence against men and children. The nominees are: the guy who sheds his shirt in Coke ads, any Calvin Klein or Guess ad, and all car advertisements that show a macho guy who needs a car to get a girl. All these ads convey a limited and stereotypical view of male beauty as the tough, buff, rugged guy who has no feelings or emotions. These ads make me feel worthless as a scrawny blubbering couch potato.
So why is it that there can also be sexist ads against men? It's simple. Advertisements are only reflecting societal values and norms. Most intelligent species have a standard of beauty and stereotypical roles for each sex. Should advertisers not use beauty to sell products? I enjoy looking at beautiful images of people just as much as I like to watch the sunset, and advertisements are sure to get boring if clothing ads only have the clothing and not the model.
It is contests such as this that discredit the more serious issue of whether pornography causes violence against women. I'm torn on that issue. But when an organization such as UMSAPAC abuses this theory, it loses merit and discredits what is a valid argument.
So, relax. These ads are a reflection of society and celebrate the beauty of women. The question of whether these ads cause societal values and norms or just reflect them seems to rely on that age-old question: What came first...the chicken or the egg? And the egg came first.
--Franz Klein, Opinions Editor
I am writing to respond to comments made by Steve DuBuc about diversity at UMBS. He talks about not getting the benefit from "diverse" groups like the former Daewoo students because they cannot speak English well enough and [because] they are too shy to speak up in class. He concludes his comments by [writing], "...I don't see the point" and, without intending to be insulting, I think this is the crux of the problem! Foreign students have overcome great language and cultural barriers to come to school in the United States, and they do have a wealth of experience and knowledge to share.
I found out firsthand in one OM class I took last year. A group of these students was discouraged that there were no American students in their group. None of the existing groups offered to take in a Korean student. So I (a young, white, American woman) offered to leave my comfortable American group to work with three older, Korean men. I was a little apprehensive, but it turned out to be a wonderful experience! I learned much more from this class than just what happend during class discussions. If you want to get the benefit from going to school with bright folks who are from a different background from you, then it is your responsibility to make the effort--not theirs.
--Karen Glover, MBA 1996
To Our Readers
We welcome your ideas, insights, and reactions. Letters can be sent via U.S. mail or electronic mail:
The Monroe Street Journal
University of Michigan Business School
701 Tappan Street
Ann Arbor MI 48109-1234
--or--
editor_msj@mtrack.bus.umich.edu
by Harley Sitner, MBA1
I have always hated following the well tread path. I pride myself on choosing topics or views that might be slightly unconventional. However, for this week's Rant, I must speak to the ever popular topic of Bill Clinton, Potus (President of the United States). For years I have tried hard to believe that our President was merely over zealous, slightly misguided, growing into his job, etc., etc. However, the slew of recent allegations regarding the now famous White House coffees has pushed me over the edge. And in the shadow of my hero of political writing, the estimable Hunter S. Thompson, I think the time is right to start making a line on what I see as the inevitable resignation/impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. So with a nod to Ladbrokes (because wagering on these things in the U.S. is illegal), I officially open the line at 10:1 for impeachment (13:1 for a guilty verdict) and 3:1 for resignation. Any takers?
The more I think about it, the more opportunities I see. There could be side bets on which scandal takes him down. 20:1 for Paula Jones (he did proposition her, but she turned him down, and because she was not an employee of the State of Arkansas at the time, a winnable legal case is difficult). 17:1 that Kenneth Starr actually finds some sort of traceable wrongdoing in the whole Whitewater thing (can anyone explain Whitewater to me?). The Johnny Huang special for 14:1. Or, my current favorite, the Coffee Special at 11:1; from all I've been hearing, there must be something illegal in there. I will even offer a field bet for all yet unnamed scandals at 30:1 (this includes crazy allegations such as Clinton's personal involvement in the murder/suicide of Vince Foster as well as reports of Clinton supervising drug running from a little airport in Mena, Ark.).
On the serious side, I really am furious with Bill Clinton. I realize that all recent Presidents have used the prestige and power of their office to assist in fundraising, but Bill Clinton was so closely involved and so overt in his mission. He literally sold seats at morning coffees, spots at afternoon jogs, and nights in the Lincoln Bedroom. But before all you conservatives and congenital Clinton haters burst into applause, I cannot finish without pointing out the Bill Clinton is merely a master at the game practiced by virtually all (there are some honest ones) sitting national politicians. Republicans and Democrats alike have brought shame to national office in their disgusting quest for dollars. Bill Clinton is only a symptom of the greater mess that is campaign financing. The current system encourages, and literally forces, politicians to prostitute their offices. Bill Clinton just happens to run the brothel with the best reputation and location.
For those of you who have (a) made it this far and (b) find yourselves occasionally despairing the problems of money and politics, all is not lost. There are people and organizations out there trying to make a difference. Senators Feingold (D-Wis.) and McCain (R-Ariz.) have co-sponsored a bill that offers an excellent beginning. Also, the group Common Cause has been doggedly pursuing these issues for years. Common Cause was the organization that first called for investigations into both parties last September. Also, stop listening to people who tell you that voting for a third (or fourth of fifth) party is throwing away your vote. Voting for someone you don't believe in is throwing away your vote.
by Sam Valenzuela, MBA1
Do airbags save lives or take them? Well, yes. Let's look at the numbers: according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), airbags have saved 1664 lives (1500 drivers and 164 passengers) and have killed 52 (19 drivers and 33 passengers). Of the 19 drivers killed, 10 were women under 5'2" and 10 (not necessarily the same 10) were not wearing their seatbelts. Of the 33 passengers killed, 32 were children under age 9 and only two of them were properly restrained. What is going on here? How is it that a device engineered to save lives can actually take them? Why don't the auto manufacturers design these devices to be less lethal? What can we do to protect ourselves and our children from airbag death?
To answer these questions, and to educate myself and others on this somewhat controversial issue, I did some research and conferred with our colleague Roberto Barahona (MBA1, Section 6), a former GM Safety Engineer.
First, let us understand how airbags work. Today's cars rely on several sensors to detect and assess the severity of a crash. If the vehicle's measured deceleration exceeds a defined threshold level, then the car's computer sends a signal to deploy the airbags. The computer can recognize a crash in progress and send the signal within 20 milliseconds (thousandths of a second) of initial impact. When the airbags deploy, a controlled explosion within the steering wheel forces gas into a folded airbag cushion, which rapidly inflates and literally breaks through the steering wheel's plastic cover, just in time to catch your face before it slams into the steering wheel or the windshield. (For those of you who wear makeup, be aware that your face will leave an imprint on the airbag for all to see. So be sure to smile before you crash.) The cushion reaches full inflation within 40 milliseconds, faster than the blink of an eye. By now, you have moved forward in your seat and are in contact with the cushion. Your body compresses the airbag, which releases the gas through small holes or vents in the material, and comes to rest only 150 milliseconds after you rear-ended that poor (and soon to be rich) person in front of you.
Now, how do airbags actually kill? Step back and imagine that you are driving a car and notice the space in between you and the steering wheel or the dashboard. When the airbag inflates, it aggressively seeks to occupy that space in front of you, and virtually nothing will stop it. If you are in that space, you will get hit...hard. An airbag is not the fluffy, pillow-like device that it appears to be in the super slow-motion clips we see on television. It inflates with enough force to inflict fatal injuries to the head and neck.
So why do automakers design them to inflate with such great force? The reason is that automakers must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 (FMVSS 208), which specifies allowable injury levels for head, chest, and upper legs in 30 mph frontal impacts. The tests are run with dummies impersonating average-size, adult males. Here's the catch: the vehicles must pass the test for both belted and unbelted occupants. For belted occupants, airbags need not inflate so quickly or forcefully because seatbelts do most of the work; the airbag acts as a supplemental restraint for the chest and head. In contrast, for unbelted occupants, airbags must inflate faster and with much greater force because they must do all the work of restraining the occupants. Therefore, the federal standard forces the design of airbags to be skewed toward unbelted occupants. You get what you measure.
Finally, what can you do to protect yourself and your children? First, always wear your seatbelt. Period. Also, sit as far from the steering wheel as is comfortable, keeping the pedals and the steering wheel within driving reach. Notice that 10 of the 19 drivers killed by airbags were small women, who were apparently sitting too close to the steering wheel. For children, the method of restraint depends on the weight and height of your child. For infants up to 20 pounds, secure them in a rearward-facing child seat in the back seat. For children who weigh between 20 and 40 pounds, use a forward facing child seat, also in the back seat. For children who weigh over 40 pounds and who are not tall enough to use the shoulder belt, put the child on a booster seat. Under no circumstances should you ever put your infant in a rearward-facing child seat in the front passenger seat, given that you have a passenger side airbag. If you have an infant and neither a back seat nor a passenger airbag cutoff switch, buy a new car. For additional information on child safety and airbags, call the NHTSA at 800-424-9393 or reach them on the Web at www.nhtsa.dot.gov.
Hopefully you now understand the truth behind the numbers. Yes, airbags can kill, but they also save--and we are better off with them than without them. Just keep in mind that you can do several things to avoid becoming an unfortunate statistic.
U.S. News & World Report published its ranking of MBA programs during Spring Break. The University of Michigan Business School was ranked No. 12, with an overall score of 95.5 on a 100-point scale. Given the way U.S. News calculates rankings, we were about where Dean White and I had expected.
The methodology of the U.S. News rankings continues to rely heavily on aggregate median starting salaries to compare the quality of MBA programs and, in particular, the aggregate median accounts for the most of what they call "placement success." The fact that Michigan graduates choose a wider range of industries and functions than do the graduates of most top business schools means that Michigan graduates have a wider salary spread as compared with MBA graduates from most of the other top-tier schools. For example, many of our students prepare for careers in brand management or manufacturing. It is simply the case that the starting salaries in those fields are not as high as salaries in consulting. On the other hand, Michigan graduates who choose to go into consulting get the kind of salary that graduates at the very best schools get. Thus, we have a lower overall median starting salary, even though Michigan grads' salaries in any given field or function are matched by only a handful of schools.
You can be the judge of whether the aggregate figure is a good way to measure placement success. I find the approach lacking, given that preparing our students for a wide range of career opportunities has been a conscious goal--and, indeed, we view our grads' pursuit of diverse career opportunities as a great asset for the B-school.
U.S. News also weighs GMAT scores heavily. Our students have very strong GMAT scores, but we don't seek to maximize it. Variations among upper-end GMATs are not good indicators of business success (and especially not of some of the intangibles companies value Michigan for, such as leadership and effectiveness). Recruiters have concluded that Michigan graduates are among the very best in the country, so we will continue with our approach to admission decisions.
On the reputational dimensions of their methodology, we continue to be a top performer. To be sure, Michigan's reputation counterbalances U.S. News's reliance on factors that we don't view as good measures of quality.
Again, our goal is to be best on the merits and be recognized as such. We have done much to build what, by many measurements, is the best MBA program in the country. A ranking like this is at least temporarily irksome. But the quality of our faculty, the uniqueness of our academic program, and our superb quality across functional areas are far more important. The fact that we have set the standard and been more thorough than anyone on the development of MBAs' executive skills--the ability to get things done and lead--is the other half of the story. For the future, the key is to continue to concentrate on what matters.
Front Page
| News
| Features
| Leisure
| Opinion
| Sports
& Clubs
Technology
| Corporate
| Global
Blue | Alumni
This Week... |
UMBS Links |
Search
Archives |
Mail
the Editor