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

JASMIN LEE

Editor in Chief

JULIAN BARNARD AND SHUBHUM GIROTI

Editorial Page Editors

PAIGE HODDER

Managing Editor

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Julian Barnard Zack Blumberg Emily Considine Brandon Cowit Jess D’Agostino Ben Davis Andrew Gerace Shubhum Giroti Min Soo Kim Jessie Mitchell Zoe Phillips Mary Rolfes Nikhil Sharma

Joel Weiner Erin White Devon Hesano Rushabh Shah Alex Yee Anna Trupiano Jack Tumpowsky

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.

From the Daily: Let’s finally end Standard Time

THE MICHIGAN DAILY EDITORIAL BOARD

On March 15, the United States Senate unanimously voted in favor of the Sunshine Protection Act, which would effectively eliminate the biannual clock-switch beginning in 2023 by making Daylight Saving Time (DST) universal (excluding Arizona and Hawaii), ending the period of Standard Time, which lasts from early November to midMarch every year. President Biden should indisputably sign this act into law, which would not only assuage the ubiquitous annoyance at disrupted sleep schedules but would also benefit public health in a multitude of ways, ranging from reducing car and pedestrian accidents to crime rates.

So why does the irritating practice of changing our clocks exist anyways? DST serves to extend the daylight hours during spring and summer, when most of us would be heading back from work or school, in exchange for losing an hour of daylight in the morning, typically before people commute to work or school.

The practice originated in World War I as a response to the deficiency of fuel in the United States; experts believed that longer daylight hours would reduce the time that consumers were using lights, which in turn would reduce electricity consumption and accordingly save fuel. The practice was adopted and abandoned on and off again, most notably during World War II, until it was finally made permanent by lawmakers in 1966.

However, the original intent of changing our clocks back and forth, reducing energy consumption during the World Wars, is not backed by evidence. Results of studies measuring the effectiveness of changing time are mixed. While it may reduce light usage, it also increases the use of heating and air conditioning, as well as the consumption of gas. What the time change was designed to accomplish is not borne out by the evidence.

Not only are the supposed benefits of Standard Time not met, but there are also countless negative consequences from the biannual switching of clocks. The rate of traffic accidents consistently increases in the week following the time switch because losing that one hour of sleep increases drowsiness and fatigue, thereby reducing mental clarity and reaction time. Sleep deprivation that accompanies the clock switch has further been illustrated to increase the incidence of heart attacks. Changing times has also been seen to increase workplace injuries and decrease worker productivity over time. With such negative effects, why should we keep the one-hour time change around? In light of these findings, the answer seems like a no-brainer.

There are multiple benefits to the permanent extension of Daylight Saving Time. The original goal of the time change was to reduce fuel consumption, and studies show that there is a .5% decrease in residential electricity usage due to the lengthier exposure to natural sunlight. There is also proof that children find more time to be outside post-“spring forward”, which coincides with an increase in both their physical and mental health. Crime tends to decrease, and though rather odd, it does have a scientific explanation: Most crimes tend to take place at night, and with prolonged daytime, there is a smaller likelihood of individuals committing crimes that require darkness. Just about everyone benefits from this plan to extend DST, and the social and economic benefits tend to overlap the potential of “losing sleep” the time brings about.

We support the Sunshine Protection Act and believe that it should be signed into law by President Biden if it lands on his desk. The planned benefits of implementing Standard Time don’t actualize. Energy consumption does not decrease but remains stable or increases. Sleep deprivation from the time switch wreaks havoc by increasing the risks of accidents and cardiovascular ailments and negatively affecting the workplace. Benefits that would come from enacting the Sunshine Protection Act would be many like better childhood health and a decrease in criminal activity. May we hopefully be a country in permanent DST when next year comes around.

Michigan Medicine needs to address post-viral illness

GLENN TUCKER Opinion Contributor

My name is Glenn Tucker and I live with a debilitating disease called myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME for short. According to the Centers for Disease Control, “People with ME have overwhelming fatigue that is not improved by rest. ME may get worse after any activity, whether it’s physical or mental.” ME used to be called Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, a term many now find offensive, including some of the doctors that coined it. A 1996 study published in the American Journal of Medicine — and since corroborated multiple times — found that people with ME score lower on quality of life indices than people with cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis and diabetes.

If you haven’t heard of ME, it’s not because it is a rare disease: before the pandemic an estimated 2 million Americans lived with ME, more than HIV/AIDS (1.2m), lupus (785k) and multiple sclerosis (486k). Nearly eighty percent of ME cases start with a viral infection. Seventyfive percent of people with ME are women, and 25% are bedridden, like me. I have been bedridden for nearly four years and sick for nearly eight. A 2008 study found that ME costs our nation’s economy between $17 billion and $24 billion in lost wages and medical expenses.

Many of you have probably read about “Long COVID,” which occurs when people never fully recover after a COVID-19 infection. This month, the Government Accountability Office reported to Congress that there could be between 7.7 million and 23 million U.S. Long COVID cases. This greatly exceeds the number of U.S. COVID-19 deaths, which is still under 1 million. Two recent studies — one by German researchers, the other by the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York — found that half of all Long COVID cases are actually COVIDonset ME. Recent articles in Axios and Brookings and a story on NPR’s Marketplace present Long COVID as a contributing factor to current labor shortages.

A 2021 Mayo Clinic report states that “medical education programs rarely cover ME and guidance for practicing clinicians is often outdated and inappropriate.” Accordingly, doctors frequently tell people with ME and other complex chronic illnesses that we are not sick, that exercise will help us when it will harm us and that any symptoms they do not understand must be psychological. What has long been a humiliating, unnecessary and nearly universal rite of passage for people with ME — being told we are not sick — is now sadly a rite of passage for people with Long COVID.

Michigan Medicine believes that the key to treating ME is for patients to develop a good rapport with their primary care doctor, despite the fact that primary care doctors are neither trained nor employed to specialize in complex diseases. The Michigan Medicine rheumatology department has a written policy to refuse referrals for ME, based on an as-of-yet unproven hypothesis that there is no rheumatological basis for ME.

Last year, Michigan Medicine opened a Long COVID clinic, but it only treats patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 — statistically a very small fraction of Long COVID cases, particularly among young people. This clinic was opened with the help of outgoing National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins, the man single-handedly responsible for underfunding ME research for decades.

Last fall, I contacted Michigan Medicine leadership to alert them to this reality and to start a longoverdue conversation. My efforts were met with silence, dismissal and the repeated assertion that Michigan Medicine cannot change policy or justify expenditure for a single patient (myself), an assertion that reveals a brazen disregard for the widely accepted public health data I have cited.

According to disability rights icon Judith Heumann’s memoir Being Heumann, “The status quo loves to say no.” Michigan Medicine has made it very clear that they plan to say no — mainly because they can — for as long as they can get away with it. Michigan Medicine has made it very clear that they plan to ignore their patients’ needs, current research and public health data for as long as they can get away with it. Michigan Medicine has made it very clear that they plan to underdiagnose ME in order to claim that they have no ME patients for as long as they can get away with it. Michigan Medicine has made it very clear that they plan to delay this conversation for as long as they can get away with it. Michigan Medicine has made it very clear that they plan to perpetuate the public health crises of ME and Long COVID by picking and choosing which diseases they feel like treating for as long as they can get away with it.

St. Joseph Mercy is more than welcome to step up — I have experienced plenty of medical trauma there too. And if you’re reading this in another city, chances are you can substitute the name of the big hospital system where you live.

While there is a great deal we don’t know about Long COVID, focusing exclusively on what we don’t know erases the contributions of those who have been studying and treating ME for decades. In late 2020 world-renowned ME specialist David Kaufman released a free, hour-long Continuing Medical Education webinar specifically created for primary care doctors.

After eight months of nagging, I convinced my Michigan Medicine primary care doctor to take it, and he has since prescribed me a medication that has been in use longer than I have been sick. However, finally having a doctor that respects me and who is open to new information a mere seven and a half years into my illness makes me an outlier. So does receiving a diagnosis a mere three and a half years into my illness or having a family who has believed me from day one. Most are not so fortunate, especially considering that doctors are statistically less likely to listen to or believe patients of color, LGBTQ+ patients and female patients.

I have asked before and will continue to ask that Michigan Medicine mandate all primary care physicians take Dr. Kaufman’s webinar. I also ask that those who hold power over the Michigan Medical School curriculum take it and use its contents to make necessary curricular updates. I have asked before and will continue to ask that Michigan Medicine designate a department to accept all referrals for ME and Long COVID. The time has come to create a comprehensive, proactive post-viral illness policy.

If anyone with Long COVID is reading this, please know that you are right in asking medical professionals for help, and that every doctor that stands in your way is wrong on so many levels. For anyone looking to learn more or get involved, I recommend the 2017 documentary Unrest, which is available on Netflix. #MEAction Network, Solve M.E. and the U.S. ME/CFS Clinician Coalition are organizations doing great work in this area. Together, we can work towards creating a world in which all patients are treated with basic human dignity.

The U.S. and its allies must do whatever it takes to get planes to Ukraine

NOAH ENTE Opinion Columnist

With Ukraine under siege, many have asked why nothing has been done by Ukrainian allies — especially the United States — to truly aid the embattled country. Following weeks of warning by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, now a globally-admired leader, there seemed to be no initiatives on the table to either de-escalate or prepare for the impending Russian invasion. Russia moved across its western border just days after U.S. President Joe Biden’s threat to Russian President Vladimir Putin in mid-February that there would be “swift and severe” consequences if Russia invaded, and similar threats were echoed by leaders of U.S. allies. Yet as the powerful Russian military rolled in, outnumbering Ukraine’s active-duty forces more than four to one, the strong response that had been forewarned seemed nowhere to be found.

Over the last two weeks, it has become apparent that the consequences, however swift, have not been severe enough to deter Putin from attempting to topple Ukraine’s government. To their credit, the U.S. and its G-7 allies have organized a far-reaching network of economic sanctions against Russia, its regime and its economy. The measures have included banning Russian banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) international payments system, preventing transactions with Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and seizing the property of Russian oligarchs with financial ties to Putin. These sanctions have been devastating enough to Russia’s banks, stock market and currency that Putin recently likened the use of these purely economic tools to “a declaration of war.”

Importantly, Putin also warned that any attempts by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to institute a “no-fly zone” in Ukraine’s airspace would be considered a step into combat. This warning came after President Zelenskyy’s request for the creation of a no-fly zone to prevent the bombardment of Ukrainians.

Given these conditions, the U.S. and NATO have a critical choice to make that could determine the course of the current conflict: Should they come to the need of an ally, which has long been on the brink of joining NATO and the European Union, or will they leave the Ukrainian people to fend for themselves as the Russian attack inevitably continues? For the 74% of Americans who indicated their support for a no-fly zone in a March 4 Reuters poll, and likely others who may favor another course of action, the answer seems obvious.

It is clear that a no-fly zone in Ukraine would pose the risk of direct conflict with Russian military forces if enforced by the U.S. or its European allies. To enforce a no-fly zone, Russian warplanes carrying out operations in Ukrainian airspace would have to be taken down. This idea has been rebuffed by NATO and, though many Americans supported the motion when polled, most opposed sending troops to fight in Ukraine, a very possible outcome of imposing a no-fly zone.

Yet there is another option for assisting the Ukrainians without putting American armed service members into harm’s way or escalating the current conflict into a large-scale war. An alternative proposed by President Zelenskyy and apparently popular across partisan lines in Congress would be for the U.S. and NATO to supply the Ukrainian military with planes, equipment and military aid.

On March 7, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave NATO the “green light” to transfer fighter jets to Ukraine, and it appeared that the U.S. was working on agreements with states previously apprehensive about such an initiative, such as Poland, to assist in the process. In this initiative, Poland or other potential participants would receive American-made planes in exchange for giving the Ukrainians Soviet-era MiGs, providing the incentive of a formidable upgrade in the air. As noted in a letter to President Biden from Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., advocating for U.S. leadership in sending jets to Ukraine, Ukrainian pilots would have greater familiarity with the operating systems for Soviet planes than American models, among other advantages of the plan.

Momentum for the initiative seemed to be building until March 9, when it was announced that the U.S. no longer supported the initiative to ship MiG jets to the Ukrainian front through Eastern European NATO members — a surprising turnaround, given Blinken’s enthusiasm just two days prior. With Polish officials rightfully concerned about the image of independently gifting the planes to Ukraine without U.S. and NATO assistance, thus drawing Russia’s scorn and possibly an attack, it seems the jet provision is dead in the water.

Opponents of the plan cited the need to remove certain components of the planes that were designed for NATO militaries, ostensibly to prevent the technology from falling into nefarious hands. Though officials implied this process would take months, it is hard to believe that MiG provisions were so heavily and publicly discussed by U.S., Polish and E.U. leadership if the plan was truly impossible due to such complications.

The Biden administration also cited the “high risks” of the plan as justification for backing out. Yet Putin considered the sanctions placed on Russia an “act of war” and still did not attack outside of Ukraine. Ultimately, what does it say about the U.S.’s global strength and leadership if it unilaterally concedes the right to define what can justifiably be considered a warworthy act to perhaps its greatest global adversary?

President Biden and Secretary Blinken have rightly recognized that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine exemplifies his Soviet-like desire to expand Russian power, a philosophy also displayed in Russia’s “peacekeeping” operations with the Collective Security Treaty Organization in Kazakhstan this year. It would be true poetic justice for soldiers of a former Soviet republic to defend against Russian aggression using planes that were a staple of the U.S.S.R.’s military.

Because such planes are Russianmade, the U.S., Poland and their allies would also maintain minimal responsibility for arming the Ukrainian military and avoid the approval process necessary for sending American defense tech overseas, while providing critical aid to an endangered friend. Additionally, if giving jets to Ukraine is truly off the table, it is hard to imagine another course of action that could both reasonably keep the West out of the war and — unlike the active array of economic sanctions — truly alter the status quo on the battlefield.

Given the severity of Russia’s attacks against Ukraine and its civilians, there is no time to waste in pushing such an initiative forward. While it is reasonable and calculated for the U.S., NATO and E.U. to avoid being pulled into this war by defending Ukraine directly, orchestrating the distribution of planes and equipment to Ukraine’s forces would provide President Zelenskyy with the assistance he has requested, without putting American lives and interests at risk. Furthermore, at a time when a nation faces the threat of destruction at the hands of a longtime adversary, it is worth taking one of the few options left on the table that will allow America to aid Ukraine without drawing itself into war. U.S. leadership and our European allies should heed Blinken’s “green light” as a chance to move quickly and help a friend in need.

The University continues to unnecessarily burden students with COVID-19 policies

JACK ROSHCO Opinion Columnist

The University of Michigan announced Wednesday, March 9, that it would be loosening its on-campus masking policy effective Monday, March 14. In an email to the “U-M Ann Arbor Community,” COVID19 Response Director Dr. Robert D. Ernst and U-M Chief Health Officer Dr. Preeti Malani announced that “masking will be optional in most indoor spaces on campus including in offices, residence halls and at athletic events.” This will come as very welcome news to a community which has, to this point, left in place far more stringent masking guidance than what is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Unfortunately, though, Ernst and Malani buried the lede: students will still be required to wear masks in classrooms through the end of the Winter 2022 semester.

College students have been forced to bear the brunt of the pandemic in ways few other demographic groups have. As we enter the third year of this pandemic, the leaders of our community continue, unabated, to find new and creative ways to disrupt students’ college experience. Many had hoped former University President Mark Schlissel’s dismissal earlier this year would lead to a COVID-19 policy based more on ensuring a return to normalcy for students, but that return will likely have to wait until at least the end of the current academic term.

Dr. Robert Ernst told me that, “The CHRC (U-M’s Children’s Health Research Center) will continue to monitor conditions on and around campus and follow guidance provided by the CDC and the local public health community when advising executive leadership about COVID mitigation measures. With that being said, it seems unlikely that additional substantive changes will come before the end of the winter semester.”

Ernst noted that the new masking policy “aligns with public health guidance in terms of safety,” which is true. The fact remains that overwhelming scientific data supports the use of masks in order to mitigate the spread of airborne pathogens such as COVID-19, but it is becoming increasingly hard to justify such disruptive measures to combat a disease that is more treatable and far less deadly than it was two years ago. Ernst began his comments to The Daily by claiming that “the announced change to the U-M face covering policy comes as the campus and surrounding community has moved into a recovery phase of the pandemic,” but the new policy definitely still feels as though we’re living in the mitigation phase, all the while universities and school districts nationwide end mask mandates of their own.

Ernst also said that even though COVID-19 in the Ann Arbor area “has waned dramatically over the recent weeks there are still some in our community who, understandably, because of their individual circumstances, remain hesitant.” He added that leaving the mandate in place for instructional spaces “was to maintain a high level of confidence in those areas of core work for everyone.”

Of course, there probably are many in the University community who view that as a sufficient explanation, one that can essentially be boiled down to “this will make a small percentage of the population feel more comfortable, and we’ll continue to adhere for the rest of the semester.” That is a perfectly valid explanation, and it is absolutely not a big ask for students to mask up for the last few months of the semester, already having been doing so for nearly two years in an effort to protect a few. But that isn’t really the point. This was an opportunity for the University to make a massive concession to its students, who have followed its piecemeal COVID19 policies since March 2020.

Wearing a mask is not an overbearing burden, but it is symbolic of the idea that COVID-19 is still governing our lives at a time when, scientifically speaking with vaccine mandates and low cases, it just doesn’t have to anymore. What’s more, a key component of masking policy throughout the pandemic has been uniformity — that if more of us wear masks in as many locations as possible, the spread will be most effectively mitigated. But this masking policy essentially allows students to shed their masks in any University setting outside of the classroom. Here’s a simple hypothetical: what is the point of wearing a mask in an Angell Hall auditorium when you’re surrounded by a maskless crowd upon entering and exiting the auditorium? Sure, you probably won’t catch COVID-19 in the auditorium, but in the hallway it’s every man for themselves? It doesn’t take a doctor to realize how little sense this makes.

If the motivation is truly to “maintain a high level of confidence in (instructional) areas,” as Ernst says, then the policy driving that confidence should be wholly unimpeachable. Regrettably, that is not the policy we have been given. If the worst thing to come out of the rest of the Winter 2022 term is students wearing masks in class, that’ll be a relatively harmless end to the school year. Shouldn’t we, though, strive for higher than benign, higher than well-intentioned, higher than unobjectionable? Policies should have tangible purposes. This one doesn’t.

To mask or not to mask?

Letter to the Editor: I’ve spent three years trying to make housing better, now I’m not sure that’s possible

AGNES DUNNE Opinion Contributor

Ever since I read it, Alice’s story has haunted me and kept me up at night. As a victim of sexual assault, this news has weighed extremely heavily on me. These stories have not only brought up my traumatic memories — they’ve broken my trust in housing. I believe victims and I believe Alice. I applaud her courage and strength to tell her story in The Michigan Daily. Thanks to her, the reporters at The Daily and all of the other staff members who came forward, it is now public knowledge that University of Michigan Housing and U-M Division of Public Safety and Security Housing Security have repeatedly caused harm and endangered the safety of students. Her story is just one of many of the residents and staff who have been victims of violence in University housing due to a lack of concern from professional staff and administrators.

I was a victim of sexual assault on this campus during my first week as a freshman. If I hadn’t received support from my neighbors and roommate, I wouldn’t still be here today. From the first person I told in my hall, I was believed. I found support in my peers yet I still feared telling my resident advisor (RA) and professors, scared of having to report my assault and relive it. Just a few days after I was assaulted freshman year, I would be elected secretary and later Residence Halls Association representative for East Quad Residence Hall. My involvement would continue as I became the RHA Executive vice president last year, and the president this year.

For the past three years, I have volunteered my time to build and advocate for the RHA’s vision, “to successfully create an environment where all University of Michigan Students have a decent place to live where they feel safe and welcome. In doing so, we hope to remove some of the stress of college and promote a productive and happy college experience.”

That vision has been shattered by these events. As RHA president, I have spent the last few weeks speaking with Housing administrators, RHA members, staff, students, friends, family, co-workers, my partner and many more about their own experiences and how to move forward. I have also spent the past weeks struggling to get out of bed, eat and rarely make it to class.

When I shared that I was sexually assaulted in a letter to the housing administration, it meant that it had to be reported to the University, I made it clear I did not want to be contacted and the University was told by the individual reporting that I should not be contacted. I went on to receive five emails concerning my assault. Yet, a clear lack of answers has been evident in my meetings with housing; when asked if locks had been added to the dorm referred to in Alice’s article, their response was unsure. They were also unaware of the status of the DPSS officers and other employees involved. It was even mentioned that new dorms might be planned in a similar connecting suite fashion as those mentioned in the articles, that is without locks on the connecting bathroom.

The current housing staff advisor to RHA is named in The Daily’s investigation of housing, as are many housing employees who work closely with RHA, almost all formerly in RHA or RAs as students. Yet still, our concerns are dismissed, and we are repeatedly told we do not understand RAs or Residents. Last year, when the RAs went on strike, RHA was advised not to get involved, as we did not represent RAs. Then and now, these come as attempts to stifle RA advocacy when it has been most needed. In search of a second opinion, I reached out to a former advisor and I was told: “Continue to listen to both sides with empathy. Make note of misalignment. Think critical(ly) about your position and who your responsibilities are to.”

I listened to both sides with empathy and found a clear misalignment in the values University Housing claims, and the realities of living and working in Housing. My responsibility as RHA president is not paying residents, but being an advocate for every student. I have a duty as RHA president to advocate for ResStaff, who have been actively harmed and had their safety directly jeopardized by housing. RAs are students and residents first and ResStaff second, and should be treated as such. As housing has failed to give RAs a platform for concern, RHA is committed to doing so. I welcome any and all RAs to reach out to me.

Letter to the Editor: On The Michigan Daily’s Oxford Edition

IZAAK OSSEGE Opinion Contributor

Content Warning: Mentions of gun violence, graphic descriptions of injuries

Iopened my Instagram on March, 10 2022 to see a number of my friends had shared something on their stories. It was a post by The Michigan Daily announcing “The Oxford Edition” from The Statement. The proclaimed intent of this piece was to “memorialize the events that happened at Oxford High School on November 30, 2021.” Additional goals were “to heal, to be heard, to increase the visibility of Oxford and the community’s continued pain and to uplift the voices of those affected.”

As someone from Oxford, Mich., I had high hopes this would be a nuanced reflection on the numerous struggles people in Oxford have faced. However, after reading through all of the articles, I only feel disappointment and frustration. I am disappointed that the diverse set of experiences and emotions felt by the community of Oxford are not well-represented and frustrated that they are, nonetheless, characterized as such.

I am a senior at the University of Michigan and a 2018 graduate of Oxford High School. On November 30, my sister — Kylie Ossege — was shot in the chest at Oxford High School by a gunman I will refrain from naming. I will also refrain from discussing the details of her experience, her injury or her recovery; those details are her story to tell, details that I will never fully understand.

However, what I will mention is that through this experience, I became a silent observer at the epicenter of tragedy. I heard in vivid detail the events that occurred on that day through my sister, details delivered with a nonchalance that haunted me as I drove back home each day with a stare as blank as the night around me. I watched my parents sleep in their hospital armchairs night after night, scared of leaving, scared that their one goodbye could be their last. I met school administrators, administrators who came to the hospital to prove their nightmares wrong, that the girl who they found lying on the ground in a pool of her own blood was truly alive, that she would be okay.

I saw the good around me as well. I met nurses, doctors and therapists who invested every ounce of their being into my sister. I met students who, in their own time of grieving, went out of their way to sit cross-legged on the loading dock visible across my sister’s hospital room, look up at her from afar and talk to her on the phone for hours. And, of course, there was the community of Oxford, whose gifts, messages of hope and acts of kindness gave my family solace in an otherwise dark moment.

This is Oxford. It is a complicated network of intertwined experiences and emotions felt across many long months. It is a collage that expands far beyond the experiences and emotions I have articulated above. It is one that encapsulates the student who forgot her phone at home that day, who felt regret for her blasé “I love you” that morning, a farewell she feared might have been her last. It encapsulates the teacher who sat in the Meijer parking lot with a burning desire to call his wife, to let her know “I’m alright,” but sacrificed his own needs to make sure his students could call their parents first. It encapsulates the father who had to anxiously wait on the red-eye back to Detroit, fearing the moment he turned on airplane mode would be the moment his daughter finally called him after hours of radio silence. And, of course, it encapsulates the college student who rushed back home to be with their siblings, to provide whatever comfort they could. These anecdotes show the multidimensional experiences of Oxford.

Herein lies my issue with “The Oxford Edition.” It is not that the experiences and emotions felt by the authors are invalid. In fact, I resonate with many of their experiences. It is that their experiences represent only a subset of the many experiences which make up Oxford. It falls short of accomplishing its selfstated mission: to memorialize the events of November 30, to increase the visibility of Oxford’s pain and to uplift the voices of those affected. It does not acknowledge the events that range beyond the authors’ lived experiences. It does not recognize the voices of Oxford who want to scream out, to profess the emotions that persist inside of them. Instead, what materializes are reflections of a small group of OHS graduates at the University of Michigan, reflections that betray the broad potential of The Oxford Edition.

Again, these reflections are not invalid. While they have the potential to be incredibly healing, it is the characterization that these experiences are representative of the “voices of those affected” that is wrong. They are reflections on the Oxford High School tragedy by former OHS graduates at the University of Michigan. All other characterizations are simply doing a disservice to the community of Oxford, especially those who continue to struggle, heal and find their voice amid an onslaught of noise from the outside.

SAM WOITESHEK Opinion Columnist

After I turn the shower off and brew some coffee, my morning begins with my phone. First, I check my texts and email, then navigate to social media and the news. However, before I get ready to embark on the day, there is one more thing I have to do: the New York Times’ Daily Wordle.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the game played by over three million people, the goal is simple: guess a random five-letter word that changes daily, in just six tries. The challenge was created by Josh Wardle, a Brooklyn-based developer who, according to sources, reportedly received a payday in the “low seven figures for a game he made to keep his partner entertained during the pandemic.”

Crazy, right? It’s a game that seems so simple that surely nobody would be completely enthralled with it. Yet, they are. I have a 30-day win streak going and am trying to improve my average guess to be in the three-out-of-six range (it is currently in the low fours). For those of you who have no idea what this means, check this article out.

So, why are we so captivated by Wordle? According to Dr. Tracy Alloway, a psychology professor at the University of North Florida, our obsession may be due to the concept of the Zeigarnik Effect. Similar to the idea of closure, our brains are built better to better remember unfinished tasks than completed ones.

This point is profound to me. When something is unsolved, it drives us nuts. On a micro-level, this might mean an assignment that is due soon, a job or internship application we never receive a response on or the roommate who doesn’t change the Brita filter. But couple any of these situations with an unfinished Wordle and you will find me going stir-crazy inside.

However, I contest that Wordle’s social value may be its greatest gift. The game itself is a network effect; I find it trending on Twitter each morning, where elated (angry) players will celebrate (complain) about their triumph (incompetency). I have a group chat with my friends called “Wordle Hardos.” As one of my friends told me, “My mom and I talk every day now, and we start each conversation with the day’s Wordle”.

How badly has society needed to connect like this? Gone, for the most part, are the days of gathering around the table after dinner to play a board game; we simply cannot put down our phones. It’s become apparent people no longer have the patience for tediously long board games. Scrabble, a game which many compare Wordle to, can get boring if you do not have a dictionary or thesaurus nearby. Thus, the physical togetherness — which is often marketed to the public as the main value of board games — has disappeared as well.

That’s why Wordle is the perfect medium for technologically-savvy people in need of social interaction. We express ourselves in a variety of ways over this game, which is something that we’ve needed to do for what’s become a long time now. In thinking about all the volatility our population has endured lately — COVID-19, the civil unrest stemming from social injustice and the growing skepticism surrounding the U.S. presidency — perhaps Wordle is our metaphor that we are still able to convene as a constructive community of diverse individuals.

As Alloway points out, we focus on the incomplete tasks first. But eventually, the black squares become yellow, telling us we are close to a solution. Then, those yellow squares become green, indicating that we’ve reached full clarity on a certain section of the puzzle. Once all six squares become green, well, we celebrate. This is to say, eventually, we solve the challenge, regardless if it takes us minutes, hours, days or weeks. Once we do, we set a baseline standard for ourselves and build our skills and knowledge from that point.

Eventually, though, the popularity of Wordle will fade as all strong trends inevitably do. I am not here to suggest that we attach our livelihood to the game — such behavior would suggest immense amounts of irrationality. Perhaps, however, we can learn to appreciate it here in this moment; born out of a time of crisis, Wordle may be a device that advances society one step closer to the new normal that we all desperately seek.

The societal significance of Wordle

How the University fails to adequately support students with disabilities

TYLER FIORITTO Opinion Contibutor

Imagine being a college freshman living with a chronic health condition who only figures out two weeks before their final exams.

Picture being told that an incomplete would be “unfair to the other students of the course” despite trying to tell your professor that you need one after discovering the reason you’ve been sleeping 18 hours a day was because you had arthritis and were hospitalized. All of this while your insurance is fighting to avoid covering your now-needed medication.

It sounds like fiction but, no, that’s the reality I, along with others, experienced at the University of Michigan, as an 18-year-old. Depressed, abandoned and now angry, I got through this myself, with minimal support provided by the University. Now, I could talk endlessly about how the pandemic affected me and complain more about my circumstances. But this isn’t about that. Instead, I want to reflect on my disability and its intersection with University policy and how to make it better. My experience is something I loathe for myself, let alone being the norm for other students just struggling to exist (studies being an afterthought).

The Services for Students with Disabilities (SSD) office is something that sounds great in theory. However, it really is the Wild West and at the discretion of departments, professors and whoever else runs this place. For example, in 2020, I got my first SSD letter and had a meeting with my “officer” from SSD, and they wrote in all these accommodations, such as flexible attendance, extended test-taking and flexible deadlines.

This sounds super helpful, right? Well, actually, the catch to all the anxiety-relieving accommodations is that the professors can still determine their own policies on an “individual level.” No matter what it is, including a hospital visit, chronic insomnia or even blood clots in your leg, these accommodations are to be used as recommendations for your situation and not actually policies.

One of my first experiences with this was a history class that sounded awesome, with attendance required. I explained to my professor that I’ll be there every day I can, because I have chronic insomnia and auto-immune baggage. I even offered make-up work. Instead, the choice to take a course I liked was stripped from me because I couldn’t meet a physical attendance requirement. I thought disabilities weren’t supposed to define a person like myself, but you really have no choice when a professor gets to use them as a reason why you aren’t good enough for their course.

I could go on and on about the negative experiences with professors, but the honest truth is that many are great people and super kind. The only issue is when you have a professor with a course that is required for your major who really couldn’t care less about your situation. This is something that I think is obvious, but let me spell it out: There should be absolutely no reason that a student with a disability should not be able to take a course because of their disability. That’s insane, that sucks and that’s my experience, so far. But I think it could change.

Has policy progressed during my three years? No, but things could get better. Recently, the SSD office launched a new accommodation app to centralize communication to professors for SSD students. It’s a great step, but it changes nothing about the enforceability of those accommodations. I wish there were more.

I have ideas to change things around here for students being screwed over for something they cannot control. First, offer more resources to SSD students. There are notetakers for those with visual impairments, and I think that’s excellent. However, not even all professors record their lectures for students with attendance-related issues, such as chronic insomnia, students with weakened immune systems during a pandemic and those with physical disabilities that make them unable to consistently travel to class. A start would be enforcing lecture capture for any professor with an SSD-eligible student in their class. Heck, why not all professors? It seems obvious in 2022. Most classrooms are outfitted with recording equipment, so the switch wouldn’t entail as much effort for the University.

Second, if a student has attendance issues, give them the opportunity to do extra work. One of the things I never understood is why professors acted so adamant about enforcing attendance, especially in the face of students with disabilities. The nice professors who seemed to actually care about me as a student and my dignity as a person accepted my offer to do a make-up reflection paper for every class I missed. The Psychology Department itself had this policy already built into its introductory courses last fall. To spread this option to all, enforcing flexible work as a substitute for missed attendance would be extremely helpful.

Third, stop providing inequitable policies, such as a certain number of days missed, as the sole option for students. One of the things that only sound smart if you don’t think about them is allowing students three missed classes for no reason to explain, or three late days with no penalty or anything that is a number that is postured for students to feel comfortable about stress. The obvious reasons this is inequitable is that these policies are enforced equally against SSD students. Often a student has special needs in the first place because they require more support than the bare minimum, catch-all policy offered to all the other students of a course. If you are going to have this policy, make an exception for SSD students or make a special policy tailored specifically for SSD students.

I could go on about more ideas. However, this is the bare minimum that needs to change. If there is one thing that students need to be aware of, it’s that inequity is still a mandated policy of the University by virtue of their inaction and their lack of advocacy for SSD students. I hope this changes, and I encourage anyone, SSD student or otherwise, to make substantial changes to their mission.

No more unserious celebrity candidates

DEVON HESANO Opinion Columnist

Last November, actor Matthew McConaughey finally announced his long-anticipated decision regarding a potential run for the Texas Governorship. “As a simple kid born in the little town of Uvalde, Texas, it never occurred to me that I would one day be considered for political leadership,” he said in a video posted on Twitter. The idea of him being considered for leadership, however undeserving and mystifying it may be, was not an untruthful claim. Polls showed the actor in a dead heat with Republican incumbent Greg Abbott, often polling as the best opponent to Abbott as well.

His potential support notwithstanding, McConaughey announced he would not seek the Governorship, saying that political leadership is “a humbling and inspiring path to ponder. It is also a path that I’m choosing not to take at this moment.” Texans, Republican or Democrat, should rejoice at this decision. The last thing a state as large and influential as Texas needs is an attention-grabbing, distracting, politically inexperienced actor who refused to give a straight answer on almost any issue of contention. Though polls had shown Democrats to be far more supportive of McConaughey than their Republican counterparts, it wasn’t even clear what party the actor would align with. There was little transparency in his intentions, and the whole situation reeked of celebrity stunting.

Then, just a day later, daytime television host Mehmet Oz, commonly known as Dr. Oz, announced he would be running to become the junior senator from Pennsylvania. Oz is just one of many unserious celebrity candidates vying to hold political office in 2022’s midterm elections. It isn’t a new idea, as in the past, actors like Arnold Schwarzenegger have become governors of large states like California, and Ronald Reagan was even able to become president. Some may also point to Donald Trump, but Trump had a long history of flirting with politics and a political IQ that current celebrity candidates don’t sniff. What is new is the apparent increase in the frequency of these candidates, as well as their increased chance of success.

Dr. Oz, for example, is leading in the Real Clear Politics polling average among Republican primary candidates as of early March. Herschel Walker, former college football and NFL legend, is the de facto Republican nominee this November for the Georgia senate race. Recent polling has had him up 60 points over his closest competitor. That in two of the most contested battleground elections in the country, these are the candidates finding success, says a lot. Voters seem more open than ever before to celebrity candidates with no political experience, scant political knowledge and incoherent or nonexistent policy views. None of this is to be celebrated. It only increases the perception that politics is nothing more than an unserious game to be played. In such a contentious, complicated, and dangerous time for American democracy, it is the last thing this country needs.

All of this is not to say every high-ranking public official ought to be Ivy-educated and an experienced officeholder. There is much to be admired about political outsiders, everyday Americans running for and winning public office. However, this only works when the individuals have taken time to understand the American government and how it works, and what we have endured recently is often anything but that. Take football coachturned-Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville. Tuberville has consistently made some dumbfounding remarks, remarks that no person at such a high level of government should ever be caught making.

He infamously stated that there are three branches of government, these being “our three branches, the house, the senate, and the executive.” Or there was the time he suggested delaying the inauguration of nowPresident Joe Biden. Like other celebrity candidates, Tuberville often avoids interacting with the public, has held few interviews and refused to participate in debates. Yet Tuberville was simply able to win based on the “R” next to his name, along with his legendary football status. Voters on both sides of the aisle now seem content with electing individuals so long as they can provide a popular face to their political party, political and administrative knowledge be damned.

The main fault in all of this does not lie with the celebrities; it lies with the citizens electing them. Time and time again voters show that they are willing to elect, or at the very least lend a friendly ear to, highly questionable celebrity candidates. Many of these aspiring officeholders have no political experience, aren’t willing to engage with their potential constituents and appear as though they didn’t pass their high school civics class. This is in part due to the fact that voters will support whoever shares their party identification, but also in the fact that voters often do not take politics seriously.

It’s part of why sometimes less than half of eligible voters vote. Americans increasingly view politics and government as a game, and this is due in part to the increasingly dubious and rowdy actions of U.S. public officials. This game-like mentality, where winning is all that matters and the consequences of policy and who is in charge of government is often cast aside, is deeply problematic. Voters care only that their party-affiliated candidate wins, and they often have little worry about policy chops or their campaign. Whether voters realize it or not, politicians influence their lives every day, both at the micro and macro level. Their actions have the potential to make or break American lives, livelihoods and futures, and it is time the American people act as such, starting by ignoring those like McConaughey, Oz and Tuberville.

Design by Libby Chambers, Opinion Cartoonist DeSantis’ hypocrisy