Opinion

SHOHAM GEVA
EDITOR IN CHIEF

CLAIRE BRYAN 

AND REGAN DETWILER 
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

LAURA SCHINAGLE
MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 

the University of Michigan since 1890.

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.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, March 9, 2016

T

he 
summer 
after 
my 

junior year of high school, 
I found myself waking 

up at 7 a.m. 
every morning, 
without 
bothering 
to 

set an alarm. 
The sun came 
out, 
the 
day 

got going, and I 
couldn’t stay in 
bed any longer. 
Over the past 
week of break, 
something 
similar 
happened — I found myself 
naturally getting up anywhere 
between 7:45 and 8:30, ready for a 
jump-start on the day. I’d elected 
a number of morning classes this 
semester in the interest of getting 
myself up and going, getting 
my coursework done early so I 
could leave my afternoons open 
for working on assignments. 
But time management hasn’t 
been a strong suit lately, and 
sometimes homework has gotten 
away from me. More often than 
I’d have liked, I’ve found myself 
still awake at midnight, trying to 
finish the reading for a class at 
8:30 the next morning.

I know I’m not alone when I 

say I haven’t really been getting 
enough 
sleep 
this 
winter. 

According to a study conducted 
by the National College Health 
Assessment, roughly 19 percent 
of all students at the University 
of 
Michigan, 
both 
graduate 

and undergraduate, have some 
kind of trouble sleeping. This 
can be associated with trauma, 
emotionally disturbing events or 
even a lack of exercise during the 
week; regardless of cause, over 
30 percent of students did not 
feel adequately rested for five 
days out of the week.

“We know a lack of sleep 

impacts grades, but we’re not so 
sure about its effects on mood 
or 
the 
breakdown 
between 

different 
majors,” 
said 
Dr. 

Shelley Hershner, a researcher 
at the University of Michigan’s 
sleep 
lab, 
where 
tests 
and 

treatments for disorders such 
as sleep apnea are conducted. 
Hershner 
also 
practices 
at 

University 
Health 
Service, 

where she works to educate 
students about sleep in an effort 
to improve their sleep behaviors. 
“One of the primary functions of 
sleep is learning and memory,” 
Hershner said, adding, “We don’t 
know the entire purpose of sleep, 
but I would say one part of it is 
long-term potentiation,” that is, 
committing new information to 
long-term memory.

While I’ve prided myself on 

getting enough sleep, more or less, 
over the course of my education, 
Hershner 
said 
many 
students 

don’t feel the same way:

“For a lot of people, not getting 

enough sleep is almost like a 
badge of honor.” However, lack 
of sleep has a definite negative 
impact on academic performance. 
As Hershner points out, “You’re 
spending thousands to get your 
education, but sleep is one of 
the processes that allow you 
to learn.” Other impacts of too 
little sleep include a weakened 
immune system and a greater 
secretion of hormones that make 
you hungry. The benefits of a 
full night’s rest greatly outweigh 
the consequences of cutting into 
the time when you should be 
sleeping.

Short naps can help to make 

up the difference for those who 
can’t quite fit eight hours in each 
night, and Hershner quoted one 
study that showed a six-minute 
nap improves memorization by 11 
percent. For those who take more 
than half an hour to fall asleep, 
naps may not be the best way to 
increase the amount of rest they 
get in a day. Instead, Hershner 
recommends getting to bed just 
15 minutes earlier, or getting 
up 15 minutes later — if you can 
manage either or even both, for a 
total of 30 extra minutes, it can 
have a real impact.

Besides 
fitting 
in 
more 

minutes or hours of sleep each 
day, Hershner reminded me that 
students should also be more 
mindful of late-night caffeine 

or use of technology. The light 
given off by screens interrupts 
the production of melatonin, 
a 
hormone 
that 
signals 
the 

body to start preparing for 
sleep, Hershner explained. And 
caffeine can last for up to eight 
hours in your system, meaning 
that a late-afternoon coffee could 
leave you unable to fall asleep 
until sometime early the next 
morning. Hershner also told me 
of instances where people can’t 
fall asleep right away and start 
surfing Facebook or listening to 
music in an effort to relax, when 
really, all they’re doing is waking 
themselves up more.

My goal for each evening 

isalways to take an early shower, 
get in bed before 11, and promptly 
turn out the lights. Over the past 
couple of months — OK, for the 
majority of my young-adult life 
— I haven’t been very on top of 
these goals, but it doesn’t mean 
I’ll stop trying. Just knowing 
what to be aware of — avoiding 
bright lights and caffeine — can 
help. If I can, I like to read for 
pleasure or write in a journal 
before I turn off the lights, 
which is a more effective way of 
relaxing than staring at a screen. 
To this day, I have managed 
not to pull an all-nighter — 
what’s not finished in the late 
afternoon, I get around to in the 
morning.

“We spend a third of our life 

in sleep. It’s vital,” Hershner 
reminded me. I’m all for a good 
night’s rest, if for no other reason 
than because it gives shape to my 
days. It rejuvenates body and 
mind, leaving me refreshed and 
better prepared for whatever 
the next day might hold. And 
I’ve found it’s a great excuse for 
eating breakfast..

If you’re interested in finding 

out more about your own circadian 
rhythms and whether you’re more 
of a “morning” or “evening” person, 
Hershner recommends a simple 
questionaire available on the online 
version of this column. 

Susan LaMoreaux can be 

reached at susanpl@umich.edu.

A better way to wake up

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan, Jeremy Kaplan, 

Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala, Kit Maher, 

Madeline Nowicki, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Jason Rowland, 

Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke, 

Kevin Sweitzer, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung, 

Stephanie Trierweiler, Hunter Zhao

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

The magic number is 2,383. That is 

how many delegates are needed to win 
the Democratic Party’s nomination for 
president — to be the 
standard-bearer for the 
43.1 million members of 
the Democratic party in 
November. Though the 
race is far from over, the 
front-runner 
is 
clear. 

Bernie 
Sanders 
has 

confounded critics and 
pundits with victories in 
seven states, yet he still 
trails 
significantly 
in 

delegate count. Sanders 
may 
have 
exceeded 

expectations with his narrow victory in 
Michigan last night, but, ultimately, the 
delegates will be split and Clinton will 
walk out of Super Tuesday Part II with an 
expanded lead in terms of delegates. Barring 
any substantial change, Hillary Clinton will 
accept her party’s nomination on stage in 
Philadelphia this July; but if she’s smart, 
Bernie will be there too, on a Clinton-Sanders 
unity ticket that would almost surely win.

As much success as he has enjoyed, the 

Vermont senator has had too much trouble 
with some key Democratic voting groups to 
be the nominee. The base of the party is a 
multiracial one — in 2012, Obama was elected 
by a diverse constituency that was, according 
to Jeet Heer’s recent opinion piece for the 
New Republic, “56 percent white, 24 percent 
black, 14 percent Latino, and 4 percent Asian.” 
Heer goes on to point out that “By contrast, 
Mitt Romney’s electorate was 89 percent 
white, 2 percent black, 6 percent Latino, and 
2 percent Asian. Clinton’s coalition looks like 
Obama’s; Sanders’s looks like Romney’s.” This 
is reflected by the states he has won, which 
are overwhelmingly white — Vermont, New 
Hampshire, Oklahoma and a close second in 
Iowa.

Sanders may struggle with appeal to 

minority voters, but he would make the 
perfect pick for vice president, adding 
everything 
to 
the 
ticket 
that 
Clinton 

cannot. Where Hillary has struggled to 
appeal to younger voters and millennials, 
Bernie has excelled. College campuses 
“feel the Bern,” nearly without exception. 
Additionally, though exit polls indicate 
that Democrats would be willing to vote for 
whichever candidate wins the nomination 
in November, Sanders would continue to 
draw massive crowds, bring new voters into 
the political process and excite the base. His 
message resonates with independents and 
moderates, standing in stark contrast with 
Clinton — an establishment figure flush with 
superdelegates and endorsements.

Furthermore, Sanders has consistently 

set the agenda on the Democratic side and 
steered the rhetoric that has governed both 
campaigns. In December and January, the 
conversation was about what it meant to be a 
progressive, a title he wears proudly. Clinton 
then spent weeks on the trail touting her 
credentials as a “progressive who gets things 
done,” courting voters and support on the 
left wing of her party. Recently, in her Super 
Tuesday victory speech, it was obvious that 
Clinton has taken a page out of her opponent’s 
book; she discussed income inequality and the 
role of corporations in our society, bemoaned 
the burden of student loans and called for 
“more love and compassion” in this country. 
To lose Bernie in the spotlight would be to lose 

the north star of the Democratic platform, a 
risk that Clinton cannot afford to take.

Hillary Clinton is viewed by many to be 

untrustworthy, cold, elitist and too closely tied 
to Wall Street — what better counterbalance 
than the likable, warm and populist Sanders, 
whose campaign is fueled by donations that 
average less than $30? Imagine how sharply 
her public image could change with Bernie’s 
charm and warmth at her disposal.

Granted, there would be drawbacks to 

this ticket. The party of diversity might not 
be best served by nominating two white 
New Yorkers whose combined age is 142. 
It might be difficult to reconcile Bernie’s 
desire for certain proposals that have been 
central to his campaign — universal health 
care and breaking up the big banks — with 
Clinton’s more moderate approach. And I 
have heard one question each time I have 
discussed this: Would Bernie even want to 
be Hillary’s VP?

Of course he would. For 35 years, since 

he was elected the mayor of Burlington, 
Vermont, he has been saying the same thing. 
He has been standing up for civil rights, 
the middle class and campaign finance 
reform. Watch floor speeches he made as a 
congressman in the 1990s — the wording has 
changed, but the message is the same. And 
for the first time since he began his career in 
politics, Bernie’s brand of liberalism has been 
resonating with millions of people. He has a 
microphone, and I doubt he’s willing to give 
it up just yet. At no point in his campaign has 
he expressed hatred or even any substantial 
animosity toward Hillary, saying often that 
she is qualified and calling her a friend. With 
the potential to follow in the foot steps of Joe 
Biden and Dick Cheney as strong political 
voices in the office of vice president, Sanders 
would surely enjoy substantial influence in 
the Clinton White House.

Perhaps the most obvious benefit of a Vice 

President Sanders to those in Hillaryland, 
however, would be the contrast between the 
two parties in 2016. Voters would see a broken 
party system in which the front-runner is a 
reality television star who is often racist and 
sexist, enjoying a casual relationship with 
the truth. The Republican race in 2016 has 
been a circus in which it is acceptable to make 
comments on the debate stage about the size 
of Donald Trump’s manhood. What’s more, 
the alternatives to Trump are the widely 
disliked Ted Cruz and the establishment 
favorite Marco Rubio, who inexplicably has 
only won one state and has resorted to a policy 
of “if you can’t beat him, join him” by implying 
on the campaign trail that Trump may have 
wet his pants, and reading some of his tweets. 
Because that is presidential.

A Clinton-Sanders ticket would unite the 

party. The Democrats would seem like the 
adults. Bernie would bring everything to 
the ticket that Hillary cannot, along with 
countless intangibles that she could not get 
from any other establishment pick or career 
politician. In early February, when asked 
about whether she would consider Bernie 
as a VP pick on the debate stage in New 
Hampshire, Hillary said, “If I’m so fortunate 
as to be the nominee, the first person I will 
call to talk to about where we go and how we 
get it done will be Senator Sanders.”

No one should be surprised if the ticket is 

set in stone by the time she hangs up.

Brett Graham can be reached 

at btgraham@umich.edu. 

Late 
last 
month, 
protesters 

marched through the streets of 
Ann Arbor and many other cities 
(including 
several 
thousand 

protesters in New York) to demur 
the conviction of ex-officer Peter 
Liang, the Asian-American NYPD 
cop who was convicted of second-
degree manslaughter after his gun 
accidentally discharged and struck 
Akai Gurley, an unarmed Black 
man, in the stairwell of his Brooklyn 
apartment building. Though Liang 
was supposed to administer CPR to 
his victim, he failed to do so as Mr. 
Gurley lay dying on the steps of his 
own residence.

The protesters claimed that 

Liang was only convicted because 
of 
his 
Asian-American 
racial 

identity, and he was consequently 
used as a scapegoat by the justice 
system (with the implication being 
that if Liang were a white officer, 
he would have avoided any formal 
punishment). The demonstrators 
brandished 
signs 
that 
read 

“condolences to Akai Gurley, justice 
for Peter Liang” and chanted 
“equal justice for all” throughout 
the protest. Regardless of what 
they explicitly said, however, many 
people, 
including 
myself, 
only 

heard a group asking, “Why can’t 
we get away with killing unarmed 
Black men, too?”

I am in no way trying to 

diminish the very real roadblocks 
the Asian community faces in 
this country. From unfounded 

prejudices 
and 
stereotypes 
to 

flat-out 
discrimination, 
Asian 

Americans are no strangers to 
the racist tendencies of American 
society. 
However, 
demanding 

“justice for Peter Liang” implies 
that justice has not already been 
served, or even worse, that being 
found guilty of second-degree 
manslaughter 
is 
somehow 
an 

injustice 
— 
that 
true 
justice 

would only be achieved if the 
court treated Liang with greater 
leniency 
or 
dropped 
charges 

altogether.

Second-degree manslaughter is 

defined as either a crime of passion 
that was not premeditated or — as it 
pertains to Liang — “a killing caused 
by dangerous conduct and the 
offender’s obvious lack of concern 
for human life.” While I am about as 
far from a legal scholar as one can 
get, it doesn’t take a Supreme Court 
justice to see that not announcing 
your presence while your finger is 
on the trigger is dangerous conduct, 
and standing idly while your victim 
dies helplessly shows little concern 
for human life. Peter Liang is guilty 
of 
second-degree 
manslaughter, 

and in my eyes — and the eyes of the 
court — the only injustice would be 
for him not to be charged with a 
crime he obviously committed.

To quote an op-ed from one of 

my coworkers at the Daily, “Since 
1999, there have been more than 
175 fatal shootings in New York 
City by on-duty officers. Of these, 

only three have led to indictments… 
only 
one 
shooting 
led 
to 
a 

conviction.” That statistic is why I 
feel the conviction of Peter Liang is 
just. For far too long, police officers 
have been treating their access 
to weapons like a hunting permit 
against oppressed minorities.

At long last, the justice system is 

standing up for the voiceless who 
are killed without a second thought. 
Even if this is a one-time thing, even 
if Officer Liang is being used as a 
scapegoat, calling his punishment 
an injustice is disingenuous. The 
fact that other officers get off when 
they kill unarmed minorities is the 
real injustice, not the fact that Peter 
Liang was convicted. Likewise, 
the other officers’ killings do not 
make Peter Liang’s shooting of 
Akai Gurley any more acceptable. 
Instead of asking myself, “Why 
should Liang be convicted when 
other officers are not?” I’m hopeful 
that in the future, all cops who kill 
innocent people — regardless of 
race —will be given the same justice 
that Officer Liang received.

Though 
I’m 
not 
optimistic 

that future officers who shoot 
guiltless people will receive similar 
treatment, this conviction is still a 
step in the right direction, because 
at least someone is finally being 
held accountable for killing an 
innocent person.

 Jason Rowland is a senior 

editorial page editor.

Finally, justice for Black America

BRETT 
GRAHAM

SUSAN

LAMOREAUX

 

—Sen. Bernie Sanders (D–Vt.), speaking about last night’s Michigan Democratic primary 

results

“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

I want to take this opportunity to thank the 

people of Michigan who kind of repudiated 

the polls that had us 20-25 points down 

a few days ago. 

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds. 

Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 

550 to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University 

affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

Feel the Bern, Hillary

JASON ROWLAND | OP-ED

