OPINION

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

PAIGE HODDER

Editor in Chief

JULIAN BARNARD AND SHUBHUM GIROTI

Editorial Page Editors

VANESSA KIEFER AND KATE WEILAND

Managing Editors

Ammar Ahmad Julian Barnard Brandon Cowit Jess D’Agostino Ben Davis Shubhum Giroti Devon Hesano

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Sophia Lehrbaum Olivia Mouradian Siddharth Parmar Rushabh Shah Zhane Yamin

Nikhil Sharma Lindsey Spencer Evan Stern Anna Trupiano Jack Tumpowsky Alex Yee Quin Zapoli

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

Out-of-state students help swing the vote

JACK BRADY Opinion Columnist

On Nov. 4, University of Michigan students filled the Diag as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer stepped out of her campaign bus to rally the young crowd. With her was Pete Buttigieg, U.S. Secretary of Transportation. The next day, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., made his own stop in Ann Arbor, encouraging students to vote for the Democrats in the looming 2022 midterms.

Their mission: Get out the college student vote.

They succeeded. On Election Day, young people made up a much-larger-than-usual voting bloc. University of Michigan students waited for hours to cast their ballots at a campus polling place, giving Michigan Democrats a boost in what could have been close races. The Blue Blitz paid off, with Whitmer and her allies winning another term in each of the state’s four state-wide offices, this time with a Democratic Michigan House of Representatives and state Senate. All three progressive ballot measures were also approved.

The race was called and many Wolverines rejoiced — even though many of them are not from Michigan. Students from across the country who had registered to vote in Ann Arbor celebrated the triumph of their values. Michigan, a swing state, had swung left, and they had helped.

And when summer comes and they return home, they leave the people of Michigan to live with the results of the election. For this reason, these students need to be voting in their home states. Absentee ballots exist precisely for this reason. Even New Hampshire, the hardest state to vote in, only requires a simple form. The process is designed so that those abroad on Election Day, including students, can still vote in their own communities.

Many people in line at the campus polling place, however, missed the deadline to fill out these forms. Procrastinating paperwork was not the only force driving out-ofstate students to register in Michigan; strategic voting also played a large role. Over a quarter of U-M undergraduate students come from deep-blue California, Illinois, New York or New Jersey.

A Democratic vote in Chicago or Newark is a blue drop in a vast ocean. A Democratic vote in Michigan could change the color of the whole state.

President Joe Biden said democracy was on the ballot, and Michigan’s Republican gubernatorial candidate was an election denier. Roe v. Wade was overturned, and polling on Proposal 3, which would guarantee reproductive rights, looked uncertain.

Mobilized by national leaders and consequential issues, many out-of-state students accurately concluded that a ballot in Michigan has a higher chance of swaying elections than a ballot in Illinois or California. So they cast one here. LSA freshman Ava Hammerman, who voted in Ann Arbor, explains, “I voted in Michigan because my vote has more of an impact here than in Maryland, which is much more blue. It is important to vote in a state that I can help swing.”

But what does this difference in voting power mean for lifelong Michiganders? Was our political system meant to contend with these issues of out of state votes?

Michigan’s political diversity is a feature, not a flaw. An out-of-state vote in Michigan does not answer a defect, it dilutes the influence of permanent residents. Abortion, immigration, gun control and education may be less contentious issues in liberal cities and states, but not in Michigan. In future elections, it should not be so easy for nonMichiganders to influence the issues Michiganders feel so passionately about.

Federalism, the bedrock of the United States, is based on local people making local decisions. State governments are meant to represent the interests of their constituents, not temporary lodgers. Though out of state students live here for four years, and any statelevel policies will impact them, they certainly do not have a comprable insight to lifelong Michiganders.

A student living only in a dorm, paying few taxes and counting down the days until they can return to New York has little of the knowledge necessary to cast an informed vote in Michigan, and they are far less affected by the results. Most important issues on the ballot are not as flashy as reproductive rights or the governor. Further down the ticket, local judges, city council, the mayor and state representatives are equally important.

These are serious contests with significant consequences for people in the community. But they lack the heavyweight titles and gravitas to excite outof-staters driven by national issues. Even within Michigan, the idea of a Detroiter voting for the Ann Arbor School Board is absurd, let alone another person with permanent residence hundreds of miles away doing so.

Many students feel like they are wasting their ballot voting in their deep blue home state, but they are wrong. The small races that really define a community all demand their voice. America is a country built on communities, and the nationalization of politics has had very negative impacts for them. Detroit, Ann Arbor, Chicago and New York all have their own neighborhoods with their own problems that require a highly localized response.

The diversity that makes America special manifests itself in school boards and city halls. These seats of local government should be emblematic of the people living there.

The big issues still matter. Election denial must stop and women must have the right to choose, but it is up to local people to make it happen. And they usually do a good job — Trump’s handpicked conspiracy theorists lost at the polls. Only nine states prohibit abortion with no exceptions and Michigan is not one of them. So, to all the out-of-staters who voted in Ann Arbor, your own community needs your vote more. Michigan does a good job on its own.

Jack Brady is an Opinion Columnist and can be reached at jackbra@umich.edu.

Cartoon by Anya Singh

To Medicate or not to medicate? College students must decide

TATE MOYER Opinion Columnist

This past week, I went to the University of Michigan’s student health services to get routine blood work and lab tests done. After checking in for my appointment, the receptionist handed me a small clipboard with a questionnaire attached. “It’s just protocol,” she assured me. “We ask all college students to fill it out.” The survey asked me to consider my feelings and behaviors over the past two weeks, prompting me to rate the extent to which I had little interest or pleasure in doing things or felt tired and had little energy — and, unsurprisingly for a college student in the middle of exams, I ranked each of these categories pretty high.

When I was finally admitted into the doctor’s office, I handed over my questionnaire, and waited as she scanned over my responses. After a couple minutes, she began slowly nodding her head back and forth while I braced myself for the follow-up question that I already knew was coming: “Have you ever considered taking anti-anxiety medication?”

It is precisely this line of questioning that has contributed to the doubling of anti-anxiety and antidepressant prescription use among college students, with one in four college students reporting having taken some form of psychiatric medication within the past year. Although pharmacological treatments for mental illness have provided life-changing results for many people, they do not come without repercussions. Specifically, the appallingly low thresholds for prescribing psychiatric drugs have engendered harmful trends of overprescription and misdiagnosis.

The form that I was asked to complete by the receptionist in the doctor’s office, formally known as a PHQ-9 questionnaire, is a major culprit in the progression of this epidemic of overmedication. Not only does the form’s reliance on self-reporting of symptoms open up a strong potential for error and response bias, but in a recent study researchers at McGill and Stanford found that the questionnaire “substantially overestimates depression prevalence.”

When compared with structured clinical screenings for depression, the PHQ-9 was shown to falsely overestimate depression rates by more than 50%. This is particularly concerning, considering that almost all population estimates of depression prevalence are based exclusively on cursory screening tools such as the PHQ-9. Thus, a vicious cycle ensues: depression and anxiety rates are inflated by inaccurate and unreliable clinical practices, and production of psychiatric drugs is bolstered to meet false quotas of perceived necessity.

Consequently, such trends of overdiagnosis, paired with worsening shortages of psychiatric professionals, have promoted the false perception of psychiatric medication as a complete and total solution. The National Institute of Mental Health identified the growing threat of this mindset, affirming that “prescription drugs are not a cure for anxiety, but rather only one part of treatment.”

In fact, multiple studies have found that the continued use of antidepressants may be harmful in a way that many would not expect. Identified as “tardive dysphoria,” experts have established that extended use of these drugs substantially increases the risk that an individual will experience chronic depression in the long term. This is normally accompanied by an overall loss of antidepressant efficacy, rendering the patient’s corrective options limited and fraught.

A study conducted at Yale found that usage of SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) antidepressants more than doubled the risk that a depressed individual would develop bipolar disorder. This emerging patient demographic has been revealed as chronically overmedicated and undertreated, highlighting a growing need for critical reevaluations of societal views of mental illnesses and their plausible remedies.

The solution to this problem lies in the prioritization of both holistic and cognitive therapies for mental illness, rather than strictly chemical ones. These approaches have tentatively been shown to be equally or more effective than psychiatric drugs in treating depression and anxiety disorders, with reduced risks of relapse after ending treatment. Another recent study coming out of Georgetown University Medical Center suggests that consistently practicing mindfulness and meditation had the same success rate in reducing symptoms of stress and anxiety as psychiatric medication did. Such findings are imperative for efforts to reduce medication reliance, as the results could increase the likelihood of insurers to cover costs for holistic treatments and therapies, which currently can cost up to $500 for an 8-week session.

These circumstances serve as a sobering reminder that matters of health are highly personal and unique to each individual. Mental health issues in particular are extremely complex, and often unable to be fully ameliorated through blanket solutions such as medication. Health care systems have come to rely too heavily on prescriptions rather than preventative action, and this trend threatens to pose serious harm to the American public if not corrected. Ultimately, although effective for some individuals, no medication comes without a set of side effects and repercussions. Accordingly, it is important to always do your research, with considerations of whether these potential risks will be offset by the benefits.

Tate Moyer is an Opinion Columnist & can be reached at moyert@umich.edu.

Design by Samantha Sweig

NAMRATHA NELAPUDI Opinion Columnist

Deep beneath the Chemistry Building, East Hall, Undergraduate Science Building, College of Pharmacy, and School of Public Health — staple buildings and second homes to STEM students — lies a relatively unknown operation. Walking down a few flights below ground level, your nose will pinch, skin will bead from the humidity and pupils will dilate to adjust to the low lighting. As decayed as these conditions may sound, these basements are rigorously monitored to uphold an atmosphere for the beings that know this place to be their primary and forever home: rodents. Here, hundreds to thousands of rats and mice are kept in cages that line special containment rooms — either awaiting, in the middle of, or having gone through experimentation.

The University of Michigan has a vast Animal Care and Use Program that sets and disseminates ethical standards for the use of animals for both education and research purposes. In addition to ACUP’s 41-page website that details (ad nauseam) the roles and responsibilities necessary to ensure animal welfare, the University of Michigan also has a publicly available and transparent database of all the laws, policies and guidelines researchers are required to follow.

In combing through the resources and precautions put in place for everything from fish eggs to primate hair, a common theme emerges: our institution ensures the highest standard of care and attention to animals. As documented in the official position statement of the University of Michigan, the universal “Three Rs” of biomedical research — Reduce, Replace and Refine — are at the heart of the whole endeavor. Spelled out in context, the three Rs stipulate that whenever a non-animal replacement isn’t available, the least amount of animals necessary should be used, and they should receive the best animal welfare.

Yet animal experimentation strikes a nerve with many people on campus — such as the U-M Animal Ethics Society and Michigan Animal Respect Society — and no meticulous list of regulations will change that. Irrespective of the exhaustive measures that research-intensive universities like the University of Michigan undertake to ensure best animal use practice, many consider the non-consensual, abrasive and unknown outcomes of experimentation on sentient beings to be grounds for the complete separation of animals from research. Period.

An attainable and realistic middle ground between animal rights activists and animal researchers simply cannot exist. The discrepancy lies in the value system each party subscribes to. The core belief that a mouse’s life is as important and precious as a human’s cannot be altered with data showing, for example, that countless life-saving drugs have been developed rapidly because of rodent experimentation, and that thousands of students learn best from tangible manipulation of animal models.

Little progress has been made to reach peace with animal experimentation abolitionists because scientists often view activists’ fundamental beliefs as malleable ideas — as if crunching the numbers about in-vivo productivity can shift entire ideologies rooted in deep cultural, religious and ancestral ways of life. Nonetheless, the closest anyone has been to harmony lies in novel alternatives to animal testing. The National Institute of Health, the blueprint for biomedical research practices in America, syndicates various research endeavors to develop, scale and test new methods of replicating live, multi-organ environments. The most promising models involve artificial intelligence prediction of chemical toxicology, embryonic stem cell culture and the use of invertebrate creatures.

While these cost-effective alternatives would relieve the burden of skilled manpower required to conduct animal experiments, research labs have little incentive to fully switch to animal-free models. The observability with which gene therapy technologies, drug administration and physiological change occur in live animals — which go on to yield results that appeal to medical journals, funding committees and Big Pharma on the cusp of a new drug rollout — supersedes the alternatives that would really only work for projects vaguely related to the main research question.

With the threat of pandemics persistent, human drug resistance and other health challenges that demand quick output of biomedical solutions now more than ever, pushback from animal rights activists and their demand for complete conversion to animal alternatives is something the world cannot afford at this time. The NIH notes, for example, that in addition to the use of animal models that greatly aided their own COVID-19 vaccine efforts, Moderna’s lightning-speed rollout of their mRNA vaccine was the result of preclinical data in thousands of genetically-altered mice. And as of summer 2022, more than 223 million doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine have been administered in the U.S.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Why does TV get Gen Z so wrong?

CLAUDIA FLYNN Opinion Columnist

When “The Kissing Booth 3” came out last year, it became the perfect finale to a horriblyreviewed trilogy, with clips such as this one going viral for how painful they were to watch. This kind of dramatized interpretation of how Generation Z speaks to each other persistently appears in media centered around today’s teenagers as older writers try to grasp how we communicate. As modern TV shows continue to portray the generation as one-dimensional, self-obsessed teenagers absorbed by social media, they make it increasingly difficult for Gen Z to connect with the characters we are supposed to relate to.

What it means to be a teenager continues to evolve, and film writers are working to incorporate the new norms of being a teenager into their media. However, they are not succeeding. Take the new remake of “He’s All That,” for example. Instead of a trained actress, this film stars TikTok star Addison Rae, and embodies every modern teenager cliché possible. The characters are mean, addicted to social media and primarily focused on popularity and fame.

Productions such as “Riverdale” and “The Kissing Booth” have gained popularity with our generation, but instead of being recognized for what they got right, they’ve gained attention for how much they get wrong. Standout issues range from the actors that are 5 to 15 years older than their characters to the agitating dialogue that makes you wonder, who thinks we actually speak like that? The issue is that these shows encompass all of the stereotypes of today’s teenagers that older generations perceive, and little to none of the depth that actually is present in Gen Z, such as their adamant political activism, advocacy for social causes or transparency surrounding issues such as mental health or diversity.

In contrast, one movie that portrays an accurate representation of teenagers is “The Perks of Being a Wallflower.” Unique for its raw (and sometimes uncomfortable) discussions on mental health, this 2012 film encapsulates the more realistic parts of being a teenager, such as struggling with mental health, drug abuse, sexuality, academic hardships, anxiety, sexual abuse and suicide. Although they are intimate and challenging topics, these are some of the issues that consume our generation’s daily lives, drive our conflicts and heavily impact our relationships. This honesty is what has led to this film’s lasting impact and the precedent it has set for other meaningfully relatable films in the future.

Gen Z experiences heavy battles with mental health. This generation is the most anxietyprone yet, with 90% reporting having experienced psychological or physical symptoms due to stress in the past year, and 70% saying anxiety and depression are significant issues among peers. Although our heavy use of social media is criticized and ridiculed by older generations, our instinct to turn to social media platforms like TikTok for advice isn’t due to some deep-rooted narcissism or desire to “go viral.” Instead, people struggling with mental health turn to social media to share experiences, seek information about getting help and find and give support.

So where does this lack of understanding of how Gen Z interacts with society come from? Well, for starters, the majority of film writers in the U.S. are over 40 years old, and are additionally primarily white, straight and male. The homogenous nature of the writers leads to the repetitive misinterpretation of minorities. Gen Z is more racially and ethnically diverse than other generations. We have the largest LGBTQ+ population, with approximately 21% of Gen Z over 18 identifying as a part of this community. Yet, in a survey conducted by VICE media, 50% of Gen Z respondents said they felt that the current level of diversity in media does not reflect modern audiences.

Everything fine?

You’ve got this.

Take a deep breath. There’s a lot going on in your life right now. Connect with tools and resources at U-M that can help you manage stress — from wellness classes and apps to useful information and counseling options.

What’s the f***ing point: “Bad” words aren’t that bad

ZHANE YAMIN Opinion Columnist

“He hasn’t slept in probably uh seven days” was the only phrase of hip-hop artist Baby Keem’s song “naked freestyle” my speaker system was able to output before my parents turned it off. Admittedly, I should have known the next words, namely “these hoes,” would have gone over badly with them, considering their general distaste for vulgarity.

Interestingly enough, as pervasive as expletives are within modern music, and within life in general, the distaste that my parents hold does not exist within a vacuum. Swear words are held as a persistent taboo throughout daily life, and social customs throughout the world look down upon swearing. Unknown to many people, though, is that there are clear psychological, physiological and sociological benefits to using curse words properly. Furthermore, these effects are representative of the greater power of breaking “taboo.”

Putting the taboo aside, multiple studies have shown that the surfacelevel benefits of curse words are many. One 2015 study showed that the better use of curse words was related to the education level and vocabulary of the speaker. The idea that people who swear do so because they lack the ability to find the right, non-taboo word to use was proven a myth, and, generally, people who swear more actually tend to be more fluent in their language than people who do not.

Aside from the connection between curse words and language fluency, there exists a clear connection between cursing and pain tolerance. In terms of physical pain, it is found that swearing can help alleviate and distract people from pain. The cognitive process of swearing allows people to perceive harmful stimuli as being less painful because of the attention the process requires. A sports psychology study also found that swearing can increase performance in strengthrelated and physical tasks.

While the psychological and physiological benefits to swearing are numerous, a certain amount of attention should be paid with respect to the negative consequences it can have. Gone unchecked, simple cursing can undergo an ugly transition into what University of Michigan sociology professor Fatma Göçek called in a Michigan Daily interview “verbal violence.”

According to Göçek, “verbal violence” can undermine the inherent respect and empathy during social interaction needed in order to sustain a healthy society. Violence begets more violence, which is a vicious negative feedback loop that can be detrimental to society.

This is where a discernment needs to be made in order to emphasize the positive effects of swear words. Not all taboo words are non-harmful. For example, slurs and stereotypical terms have been used throughout much of human history in order to hurt and oppress marginalized groups.

There is a clear difference between copulatory and excretory swearing and divisive, harmful speech. The use of the former can come with many positive effects, while the latter has the capacity to cause great harm. There is also a difference between swearing at someone and swearing with someone.

Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the speaker to determine what swear words to use and when to use them. Using swear words at the right time and not with a wanton mouth can actually prove you to be more aware and educated to the person you are speaking to.

When one can distinguish between the proper use of swear words and the improper use of swear words, it can help you connect with people at levels that would have otherwise been impossible to reach. When someone breaks a social norm in front of another person, they break down an invisible barrier. Shattering the linguistic norm of politeness has been shown to prove honesty and authenticity to the person one is speaking with.

When a societal norm is broken down, especially in scenarios where conformity is omnipresent, it gives a covert prestige to the speaker — that is, a connection between speaker and audience due to the words they choose to use. When asked how she would feel if a job interviewer cursed in front of her, LSA freshman Elizabeth Harrington details how she would feel more comfortable, saying she “would relax and feel like the workplace had a more casual environment.”

The thing is, using swear words shows an inherent honesty. One 2017 study found a clear positive correlation between honesty and the use of expletives. A certain authenticity is needed in order to break down societal norms, and when that authenticity is shared with people, it can make them feel more human. When a professor curses in their lecture, it, in the words of LSA Freshman Meredith Knight, “humanizes the information” and shows that “the professor respects us as humans before students.”

At the end of the day, we are all real people. We are not the societal standards that we feel pressured by and we are also not the demonization we might receive for breaking those standards. While societal expectations might exist for a good reason, the importance of people supersedes the importance of the expectations.

Even though the taboo of swear words is not a global issue or a cause that requires global campaigning against, the issue is representative of the general human state. If we can break down the societal standards that bind us, even in little ways such as “expanding” our public vocabulary, we can move one step closer to a world that’s a little more honest and a little more authentic. The true power of swear words comes from their ability to bring us, even if a little bit, closer as people. That’s the fucking point.

Zhane Yamin is an Opinion Columnist and can be reached at zhane@umich.edu.