OPINIONS

Tuesday, March 1, 2022

The MarqueTTe Tribune OpiniOns

PAGE 10

Aimee Galaszewski, Executive Director Benjamin Wells, Managing Editor of The Marquette Tribune Skyler Chun, Managing Editor of The Marquette Journal

ediTorial board

Alexandra Garner, Executive Opinions Editor Hope Moses, Assistant Opinions Editor

Megan Woolard, News Executive John Leuzzi, Sports Executive Randi Haseman, A&E Executive Lelah Byron, Projects Editor Eleanor McCaughey, Copy Chief Grace Pionek, Design Chief Izzy Bonebrake, Executive Photo Editor Nancy Flaherty, Social Media Executive Andrew Amouzou, Station Manager of MUTV Reese Seberg, Station Manager of MURadio Alex Rivera Grant, Editor of Diversity and Inclusion

STAFF EDITORIAL Be mindful when talking about eating disorders

Although National Eating Disorder Awareness Week ended Feb. 27, it is essential we continue to be mindful of our language and how we approach people we care about who we think may be struggling with disordered eating. Eating disorders present themselves in many forms, and we may not know who is struggling with them. According to the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the median age of developing anorexia and bulimia is 18 years old, and the median age of developing binge eating disorder is 21 years old.

When students come to college, they often navigate new avenues of independence for the first time, which can include the freedom to make decisions about what they eat.

With the higher levels of stress that come with a more challenging academic rigor and larger accessibility to food, students may develop disordered eating habits, such as binge eating, eating less or not eating. On the other hand, food may be a comfort for some students as they adapt to living away from family and friends. We don’t know where people are coming from, or what relationship they have with food, so it’s important that we are mindful of making comments about others’ eating habits.

One study also found that the COVID-19 pandemic has had some impact on people struggling with eating disorders. Of surveyed participants in the sample, 62% of Americans with anorexia reported an “... increased restriction and fears about being able to find foods consistent with their meal plan” and 30% of American participants reported “...increases in their binge-eating episodes and urges to binge.”

Oftentimes weight loss is seen as a positive health step. While weight loss can be a sign of better health, it isn’t also indicative of good health, so it’s important to consider the impact of making comments to someone about their weight loss. According to the Mayo Clinic, diet is a much better indicator of health than weight loss. Continuing to perpetuate the stigma that thinness equates to overall health could lead to unhealthy diet habits. People who are thin may still have poor health, such as consuming high saturated and trans fats, red and processed meat, sodium and sugary foods.

We all have different body types, so true physical health is going to look different among students.

However, if we are concerned about friends’ health, we need to be compassionate when talking to them because making comments about their weight may intentionally or unintentionally body shame them, as well as be triggering. The National Eating Disorders Association gives several tips for talking with a loved one about eating disorders. Set a private time and place to talk, stick to the facts such as focusing on behaviors and changes you’ve noticed and rehearse what you want to say. Additionally, NEDA suggests using “I” statements such as “I’ve noticed you aren’t eating with us anymore” or “I am worried about how frequently you’re going to the gym,” as well as removing potential stigmas like letting them know that there

is no shame in admitting they struggle with eating. NEDA also suggests being prepared for a negative reaction, avoiding giving overly simplified solutions such as “just stop” or “just eat” and encouraging them to seek professional help. The Marquette University Counseling Center also has resources for students who may be struggling with disordered eating, such as sharing expectations about what to expect at an appointment. The words we use and the way we approach our loved ones who may be struggling with eating disorders is crucial to creating a safe spaces, showing our support and helping them get the necessary help if they need it. Additionally, we can also stop perpetuating unhealthy stigmas about body image and good health. Not allowing mail-in ballots harmful to accessible voting

Grace Cady

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Feb. 11 ruling that absentee ballot drop boxes will not be allowed in the statewide election April 5, including the special mayoral election in Milwaukee, restricts voting access.

Absentee ballot boxes were implemented in the fall of 2020 in an effort to make voting during the 2020 presidential election more accessible during the COVID-19 pandemic. We are still experiencing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and convenient voting resources should not be removed from Wisconsin or anywhere in the United States.

The mayoral election comes following former Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett’s resignation to become the United States ambassador to Luxembourg. The two candidates left following the February primaries for mayor are interim Cavalier Johnson and Robert Donovan. For this election, absentee ballot drop boxes will not be allowed.

Following the 2020 presidential election, the push for more restrictive voting laws has become a trend across the U.S. In 2021, states passed dozens of laws making it more difficult for constituents to vote. For example, the United States Supreme Court upheld July 2021 a law passed in Arizona which restricted the ability to vote by mail-in ballots. It seems that after persistent false claims from former President Donald Trump and his allies that the presidential election was fraudulent, the U.S. has seen a spike in election insecurity and now lawmakers are acting swiftly. According to the Pew Research Center, mail-in voting has become much more common following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to the rise in commonality due to the pandemic, there are a lot of important effects of absentee voting. Mail-in voting protects people from becoming ill if they were to visit polling sites, increases voter turnout and has rare documented cases of fraud.

It is frustrating to see voting accessibility restricted when absentee ballot boxes have been a positive feature for many, especially in Wisconsin.

In a report published by the National Study of Learning,

Voting, and Engagement looking at the University of Wisconsin, 39% of students voted with absentee ballots in 2020. This helped the University of Wisconsin-Madison reach a 72.8% voter turnout which was a 7.4% increase from 2016.

In the 2020 presidential election, and more than twothirds of Milwaukee residents voted using mail-in ballots.

In a press statement Feb. 12 following the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision to close absentee ballot drop boxes for the Milwaukee mayoral election, Madison Mayor Satya RhodesConway said, “It is deeply disappointing that the majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided to institute two sets of rules for the same election cycle, sowing confusion by allowing secure ballot drop boxes for the primary and locking them shut for the general election.”

Milwaukee and Madison are Wisconsin’s two largest cities and also represent a lot of the state’s voter diversity, and are also cities that both went blue in the 2020 presidential election. They are also two cities being subjected to a lot of questions about election integrity, and as we are seeing in Milwaukee for the upcoming mayoral election, having fewer options for citizens to cast their votes.

There are several serious issues with limiting or cutting off access to absentee voting.

Confusion arises when things constantly change. To allow absentee voting in one election but not the other or in one city but not the next causes voter confusion and frustration. One thing that is likely to turn away hesitant voters is mixed messaging and when laws are constantly changing, people are less likely to make an effort to understand them in order to cast their vote.

Additionally, less accessibility to voting will cause less voting. The U.S. saw the highest voter turnout to date in the 2020 presidential election – a 7% increase from 2016. Since then many lawmakers have only worked to discount that and make it less likely that our voter turnout will continue to grow.

If the U.S. wants to thrive as a democracy, lawmakers need to stop discouraging active citizen participation and make voting more accessible. Getting rid of avenues to vote in Milwaukee and all over the nation is a surefire way to deter voters and that leads us to having a less viable democracy.

...lawmakers need to...make “ voting more accessible.”

Metaverse feigns, poses risks to reality

Laura Niezgoda

Technology has already made immense strides in virtual reality, but hyper-realistic simulations will blur the lines of reality, exacerbating problems that are already troubling to solve in real life.

Facebook rebranded to Meta Oct. 2021 as a part of a new initiative to bring the idea of the metaverse into reality. CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that this will provide an opportunity for connection, to create communities and to build businesses.

The metaverse, as imagined in Meta’s promotional video, is a fully immersive, hyperrealistic virtual world that will touch on every product that Meta builds. This includes going to live concerts, hanging out with friends and even going to the office. Instead of looking at an image, the user would be in the experience.

The metaverse is technically already accessible with virtual reality, which allows a person to put on a virtual reality headset and feel immersed in a realistic, computer-generated world in which they can control their avatar. Zuckerberg and other Silicon Valley inventors are dreaming of a much larger metaverse.

Everything you could do in the real world, the metaverse could replace.

Although the metaverse is not built yet and is currently only in the imagination of ambitious inventors, we must be cautious when building this technology.

The invention of this technology is inevitable and there are already plans to have a release of a hyper-realistic office space for companies by later this year. The metaverse will only grow from there.

Technological growth and reliance on said technology is inevitable.

The 1920s brought in mass communication radios, the 1950s brought in television, and the 1990s brought in the internet. Today, we cannot live without any of these items. The same will be for the metaverse.

Invention and technological progress is not bad, but the metaverse will pose several problems from assault, fraud, power and the possibility of derealization.

A woman has already claimed that she was raped in a VR space, after experiencing her avatar being physically and verbally assaulted by multiple male avatars. A child was let into a virtual strip club where they were approached by adult male avatars, saw simulated sexual acts and other sex paraphernalia like sex toys and condoms. If these experiences did not physically happen in reality, there currently is no legal jurisdiction to address virtual assaults.

Cryptocurrency, which is a form of currency that only exists digitally, is growing in popularity on the internet and will be involved in the metaverse. One form of cryptocurrency is non-fungible tokens, more commonly known as NFTs. NFTs is digital artwork that is growing in popularity in investment communities. It is not about the art but about the value of unique pieces.

If digital currency is stored on the web, there is always some way to hack it. An NFT hanging in a virtual gallery is perhaps less protected than one hanging in physical ones like the Milwaukee Art Museum, despite it not being tangible. If a majority of a person’s life savings are stored online in cryptocurrency, it can be hacked and stolen within seconds.

However, cryptocurrency is not the only form of money that is worrying. It is estimated that the metaverse will generate $10 to 30 million in revenue, meaning the company that owns the metaverse will have great financial power.

With a company that owns a complete replication of our world that has power over our money, our information and the overarching design of this new world, their power would be greater than any government by design. Despite the metaverse’s problems, its growth could help our society build connections and allow for global relationships. It could make it easier to see distant loved ones, allow for break in censorship in countries that have banned media and change global affairs.

Yet, virtual reality is isolating. Putting on a headset, blinded by computer-generated images, makes the user unaware of their surroundings, even if another person is physically present. The biggest concern with the metaverse is derealization.

Creating a server that is so

Graphic by Kendal Bell

Tech companies like Facebook are pursuing new virtual reality horizons. hyper-realistic that it will be hard to differentiate between AI and humans, virtual worlds and physical worlds is dangerous and is a part of the Simulation Hypothesis. When one civilization creates hyper-realistic virtual worlds, there are not just one but many simulated worlds. If the metaverse is built out, this idea is likely. If we can achieve this technological feat in the near future, then in a universe that is billions of years old, it is likely that this has already been accomplished. If there is only one physical world and multiple simulated worlds, which one are we, statistically speaking, more likely to be in?

Laura Niezgoda is a sophomore studying communication studies and criminology and law studies. She can be reached at

laura.niezgoda@marquette.edu

Olympics’ double standard clear, IOC must support athletes

Krisha Patel

The recent doping situation at the 2022 Winter Olympics involving Kamila Vileava showcases a double standard in how the International Olympic Committee handles doping incidents.

Fifteen-year-old Russian figure skater Vileava came under public scrutiny when she tested positive for trimetazidine. Trimetazidine is used in patients with heart problems but with athletes it can increase blood flow in the heart, improving performance. It was also reported that Valieva may have been given the banned drug by adults without her knowledge, but it remains unclear.

Despite failing her drug test, Valieva was still allowed to compete. This decision came after the Court of Arbitration for Sport reversed her initial suspension. While there were high expectations for Valivea to win gold based on her previous performance, she only placed fourth after falling several times in the routine.

While the IOC allowed Valieva to compete, they said she wouldn’t be eligible to win any medals until her doping case was closed. Valieva was able to compete because she was a minor and would only face a reprimand rather than an actual suspension.

Valieva was able to compete, but another athlete was not.

During the Olympic trials in summer 2021, Sha’Carri Richardson, who was representing the U.S. for the 100 meter and 200 meter events, was banned from competing in the Olympics after she tested positive for marijuana during drug testing.

Marijuana doesn’t improve performance quality, but rather can hinder it. Richardson was given a 30-day suspension from competing following the USA anti-doping policy and therefore couldn’t compete in the Olympics. Much of the focus about the situation was on Richardson doing drugs rather than what she was going through during that time.

Richardson said that during the trials, her mother had unexpectedly passed away and she used marijuana to cope.

The IOC and U.S. AntiDoping Agency failed Richardson by not showing up for her when she needed help the most. They should’ve supported her in her grieving process, given her resources and most importantly minimized the pressure placed on her. Rather, she was scrutinized for doing drugs as an athlete.

There is a clear double standard between both cases, and the IOC has failed to recognize and acknowledge how race played a central part in the situations between the athletes.

Richardson shared her frustrations about the situation on Twitter Feb. 14. She tweeted, “Can we get a solid answer on the difference of her situation and mines? My mother died and I can’t run and was also favored to place top 3. The only difference I see is I’m a black young lady.”

There were also large discrepancies between the way that Richardson’s and Valieva’s drug tests were handled. Valieva’s test was submitted in December, but news of it came to light just recently in February when she received a gold medal for the Russian Olympic Committee team. However, news of Richardson’s positive test spread quickly.

Valieva should not have been allowed to compete. Regardless of being a minor or not, the Russian Olympic Committee and Valieva should have been held accountable for doping.

Although marijuana is still listed as a banned drug on the World Anti-Doping Agency list, there is still also a large societal stigma surrounding marijuana use.

Richardson was heavily scrutinized for using marijuana, and there was little initial focus on her mom’s death.

The IOC needs to create more consistency across its policies and procedures so all athletes are treated equally, especially on a large world stage like the Olympics. Athletes like Richardson should not have to feel they were unjustly treated by the IOC.

If Richardson were a white athlete who had just lost her mom, her treatment by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and the media could have been different.

Alexandra Garner contributed to this story. Krisha Patel is a junior studying nursing and Spanish for the health professions. She can be reached at

krisha.patel@marquette.edu

Statement of Opinion Policy

The opinions expressed on the Opinions page reflect the opinions of the Opinions staff. The editorials do not represent the opinions of Marquette University nor its administrators, but those of the editorial board.

The Marquette Tribune prints guest submissions at its discretion. The Tribune strives to give all sides of an issue an equal voice over the course of a reasonable time period. An author’s contribution will not be published more than once in a four-week period. Submissions with obvious relevance to the Marquette community will be given priority consideration.

Full Opinions submissions should be limited to 500 words. Letters to the editor should be between 150 to 250 words. The Tribune reserves the right to edit submissions for length and content.

Please e-mail submissions to: alexandra.garner@marquette.edu. If you are a current student, include the college in which you are enrolled and your year in school. If not, please note any affliations to Marquette or your current city of residence.