W ith Halloween fast approaching, so comes the narrative of costumes stained with cultural appropriation and racism. Yes, there are posters hung across the University of Michigan to say costumes like these are wrong, but there still are ignorant people who will choose to sport blackface or insensitive garb that incorrectly represents a culture of people. We’ll see it on the streets on our way to parties and we’ll see it all over the news in the days surrounding the holiday. Sadly, some people who wear culturally inappropriate costumes don’t think about how it could be wrong. They don’t think about how others react, believing it’s a joke and just all in good fun. They wouldn’t know what it would feel like to be made fun of in a horrific way. Cultural appropriation has been happening for hundreds of years, from Nazis persecuting the Jews to the days when intellectuals argued that African Americans had smaller brains than white Americans descended from Europeans. It still happens today through unfortunate dressing up, cartoons and racist comments, among other things. I’ve been lucky to grow up in a very diverse town of Black, white and Arab folks, where we learned about one another’s cultures and had great discussions about being respectful to each other when discussing topics like race and religion. I’ve been lucky to be born to a Black father and a white mother, seeing both of my races and what comes along when they collide and mix head on. Other people haven’t had the same experiences as me, being closed off into communities of one race, possibly unable to learn about what it’s like to walk in another person’s shoes. The time to eradicate this problem completely is now. Hatred from Donald Trump and some of his followers and hatred from your neighbor who may have said a racist comment cannot be tolerated. Some people think that making general assumptions is harmless, and they don’t see the fault in their ways or how it can make an entire culture look less sophisticated and misrepresented. We need to be more vocal in our discussion, for all involved to ask and answer questions. Without this, division, silence and racism perpetuate and progress toward inclusion and empathy is stagnant. When these situations occur, it’s very difficult for the offended party to speak up. Whether the person who feels compelled to say something has been personally attacked or just feels that the costume is flat-out wrong, confronting the insensitive person is difficult to do. First of all, being confrontational is a challenge and can even be affected by factors such as the surrounding environment and the relationship you have with the person in question. As the only Black man surrounded by a vast majority of white colleagues in almost all of my classes, every day I wonder what people are thinking about when I speak up. The situation only escalates when conversation becomes confrontational. The person defending themselves may be wondering where their support is and is likely more apt to remain silent because they feel alienated in their frustration. If you see this problem this Halloween weekend or ever, please say something. Don’t be silent and allow the ignorance to persist. You owe it to yourself, those who could be hurt and the person wearing the inappropriate costume to use your voice to point out the injustice. It may be awkward, but the awkwardness is worth doing the right thing. Just like it’s tough to be confrontational, asking and answering questions makes us extremely vulnerable. Both sides wonder if the person they’re discussing with will listen or understand where they’re coming from. For change to happen, we must be willing to take a risk in this way, moving past our fear in hopes of progress. People can be afraid of coming off as racist or insensitive if they ask questions about things they don’t understand. But a genuine inquisition will come through if they ask from a perspective of empathy, improving the conversation of representation for all. Halloween is dubbed as the scary holiday, but the real fright is racism and misappropriation. This fear digs right into the heart of many and is still a root problem in our nation. Hopefully someday we will no longer need posters explaining that cultural appropriation can happen through costume, but without conversation, we all face an uphill battle. Let our words be as strong as our actions. M y grandmother recently had the opportunity to upgrade her phone. She’s had the same flip phone for years, and during a recent trip to the Verizon store with my father and me, a salesman recommended that she upgrade to an iPhone. She turned to me and asked, “Why would I need this?” My dad chimed in that she could have access to her email account, and the salesman mentioned she’d have far superior texting functionality. This is a woman who just about always knows what she wants, and a new phone was not on her list. She explained that she didn’t need to text; she prefers calling. She didn’t need mobile access to her emails. If she’s out, she can just check when she gets home. She didn’t need to download the plethora of mobile applications so often associated with people of our generation — Snapchat, Tinder, Facebook and Spotify come to mind — because she just wouldn’t use them. For my grandmother, an iPhone (or an Android for that matter) would be more bling than tool. The implications of this interaction set up camp in the back of my mind, and I’ve since come to a somewhat stunning conclusion: I hate what my phone has done to me. Studies show that 89 percent of smartphone users aged 18 to 24 reach for their devices within 15 minutes of waking up in the morning. People in the same demographic exchange an average of nearly 110 text messages every day and are prone to texting more than calling one another. There is an argument in there somewhere for heightened connectedness or for encouraging people to communicate more appropriately. After all, you can’t get away with a phone call in a movie theater, but provided that you reduce your screen’s brightness, texting in that environment isn’t all that taboo. But research importantly reveals that texting is making us conversation-phobic, less sincere and in some cases, more isolated and sleep-deprived. So what are we clinging to? Our parents used to have to look up people’s phone numbers and call them if they wanted to talk; hell, so did we! There was ceremony involved in sitting down to catch up with someone or making plans with them. But hey, why hop on a quick phone call to deliberate plans for going out when we can take longer to sort through scattered group text conversations where everyone receives the messages at slightly varied time intervals? People used to read newspapers. Our Facebook- oriented generation scrolls down newsfeeds. We wade through trending videos of people dancing to “Juju On That Beat,” 35-second BuzzFeed Tasty food porn and recycled articles from April about Trump’s children forgetting to register to vote in the primaries before we happen upon our current events and politics for the day. At least I know how to make cheeseburger onion rings! Look, it’s not that I don’t like the slow crumbling of my posture brought on by texting, accidentally bumping into people (or inanimate objects) on my way to class or feeling like I can’t enjoy a moment unless I’ve chronicled it on my Snap Story. These are tenets of modern greatness! But the grass is always greener on the other side. On the days I’ve left my phone at home before taking a walk in the Arb, completely turned it off in class or had a face-to-face interaction without having a device to divide my attention, the experiences I’ve had have been more meaningful and memorable. Our use of technology isn’t inherently bad or unnecessary, but anything in excess can be detrimental, and I think we have a tendency toward excess. I’m all for “connectedness,” but maybe the irony is we can only achieve that if we know how to periodically unplug. In the meantime, I’ll be researching flip phones. Opinion The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com 4 — Friday, October 28, 2016 Going unplugged As it currently stands, the proposed legislation would prohibit local governments from enacting their own taxes or additional licenses, require companies to pay an annual fee and register with the state, mandate state and federal background checks and annual safety inspections, and compel drivers to take the most direct route unless the passenger specifies otherwise. Essentially, the bills create a space for ride- hailing services in the state’s laws, but they don’t address some of the more tenuous problems that come along with these services. First and foremost, there is a lack of substance when it comes to the enforcement of these regulations. The bill notes the suspension or revoking of licenses from drivers, but no other punishments for the company. Too often, customers are taken advantage of by taxis and ride-hailing options like Ubers and Lyft. Though accountability of some form exists due to the GPS system, there are many other methods by which a driver can scam a customer, especially tourists and out-of-state students who may not know the area they are traveling in very well. That said, a potential positive of the pending legislation is that it avoids the mistakes that other local governments have made, such as that of Austin, Texas. Earlier this year, Uber and Lyft pulled out of the 11th-largest city in the United States after the city proposed strict regulations, including the mandatory fingerprinting of all drivers. In their attempt to maintain the delicate balance between safety and innovation, local officials in Austin failed. However, the motivation behind the Austin policy — to provide maximum safety to citizens — is understandable and needs to be made a priority in any new legislation that regulate ride-hailing services. Among the popularity of apps such as Uber and Lyft, research suggests that there has been an increase in assaults against passengers in ride-hailing taxi settings. Three drivers in Chicago were charged with sexually assaulting their passengers over the course of the past two years; in more than one case, the victim was highly intoxicated. A similar assault occurred just last month around San Diego, when an Uber and Lyft driver was accused of assaulting three teenage passengers. Perhaps the most tragic and relevant example to pinpoint the necessity of new legislation occurred in February in Kalamazoo, when Jason Dalton killed six people and wounded two others (while driving for Uber). Hours after the shootings, he blamed his iPhone for the attacks, saying that it directed him both where to go and when to shoot. The evidence is clear that the current state of the company’s background checks is simply not doing enough to protect its passengers. It is a reasonable expectation of a customer that when they download this app, they will be transported safely from one place to another by someone who does not have a criminal background and is mentally stable. A recent bill in California makes important strides in this respect. This new bill prohibits companies such as Uber and Lyft from hiring registered sex offenders, as well as those who have been convicted of felonies or have driven under the influence in the last seven years and mandates a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000 when companies violate background check rules. This bill supplements the ride-hailing checks and provide for the safety of millions of citizens who use these services. Michigan should take note. Now that the Michigan state legislature is seeking to bring more regulation and specific legal status to these ride-hailing companies, it is a reasonable expectation that some of these more substantial regulations, like those that California has implemented, will follow and provide more accountability and safety to Uber and Lyft users across the state of Michigan. CHRIS CROWDER 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. SHOHAM GEVA Editor in Chief CLAIRE BRYAN and REGAN DETWILER Editorial Page Editors 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. Carolyn Ayaub 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 Kevin Sweitzer Rebecca Tarnopol Ashley Tjhung Stephanie Trierweiler EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS O ne of the most likely ways your friend, peer, student or child will die in college is by suicide. Though researchers at the University of Virginia have found that college students are less likely to commit suicide than those of the same age (18 to 24) in the general population, suicide is responsible for more student deaths than alcohol use. According to the American Psychological Association, the 2010 National Survey of Counseling Center Directors reported that the incidence of serious mental health issues on campus has risen 16 percent since 2000. The APA also admits that though significant measures have been put in place to address students’ mental health concerns, campus counseling centers struggle to maintain expanding student need. Something more needs to be done. The American College Health Association National College Health Assessment for spring 2014 shows that between spring 2013 and spring 2014, 13.5 percent of students reported depression as a factor that negatively affected their studies. The percentage of students who report depression as a prominent factor affecting their studies was much greater than student reports of drug and alcohol use, which stand at 1.8 percent and 4.1 percent, respectively. Furthermore, 2.5 percent of college students report having seriously considered suicide. Based on the ACHA data, alcohol use may increase the prevalence of suicidal ideation among college students. As alcohol use remains a salient issue on campus, it could be placed under the student mental health umbrella, under which all major student mental health concerns could be prioritized based on student need. The reported incidences of depression and suicidal ideation should not be ignored, nor should the link between student behavior and mental health. Let’s take a break from facts and figures, and bring this a little closer to home. Self disclosure: As a current graduate student in the School of Social Work, I have been diagnosed with anxiety and depression, still struggle to overcome it and have seriously considered suicide at various junctures in my life, roughly beginning when I was a teenager. There have been numerous times when I was afraid to talk about it with others, and my fear often kept me from acting authentically. As an undergraduate transfer student at the University of Michigan, I was required to participate in AlcoholEdu for College, an online program that has demonstrated success in reducing high-risk behaviors related to alcohol use among students. Student drinking is a public health concern, and programs designed to address the issue are important and can be effective, but I wonder if ableism contributes to the stigma attached to conversations about suicide and depression. A program similar to AlcoholEdu but geared to positively affect students’ more pressing mental health needs would confront institutionalized ableism and address what appears to be a greater student need. If programs like AlcoholEdu have been effective to limit risky student drinking behaviors, why have incoming students (as freshmen or otherwise) not been required to participate in a similar online program to address the more pressing issue of student suicide and the prevalence of depression? On April 26, 2015, University students gathered in the Diag to show support for a student who had posted a suicide note on the social media app Yik Yak. The note sparked a larger discussion about the reality of student suicide and depression and the importance of acknowledging the reality of mental health issues on campus. One student interviewed by MLive discussed that though Wolverines compete with one another in the academic setting, it is still important to reach out in support and demonstrate concern for other students’ well-being. Some “yaks” posted to the site after the incident stressed the importance a friend’s intervention played in keeping them safe. Recent social work literature would support what students said in their “yaks.” In Barry Duncan’s edited anthology, “The Heart and Soul of Change,” John Norcross, a professor at the University of Scranton, demonstrated that the effective use of empathy is among the most predictive components of positive psychotherapy outcomes — even more so than deploying a specific intervention model. This leads me to believe that students’ everyday practice of empathy can significantly transform student experience. An educational program providing some basic empathic techniques might be helpful in reducing the incidence of depression and suicidal ideation among students, as well as creating a more nurturing and respectful student body. In regard to the racism that exists on campus as evidenced by the recent flyer and hate speech incidents, a more empathic student body might not only reduce depression among students and begin to redress ableism on campus, but also might reduce the likelihood of racist and heterosexist attacks on vulnerable groups or individuals. I echo the sentiment that support from peers, often just feeling listened to, has greatly influenced my decision to keep going. It’s time we speak up for ourselves and one another and consistently challenge each other to learn to listen and confront privilege and oppression. Confronting ableism NATHAN SCHMALL | OP-ED Michael Sugerman can be reached at mrsugs@umich.edu. MICHAEL SUGERMAN | COLUMN Chris Crowder can be reached at ccrowd@umich.edu. MICHAEL SUGERMAN FROM THE DAILY Bill should address Uber safety O ver a year ago, the Michigan House of Representatives began debating the lack of regulations on ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft, attempting to clear up the legal gray area in which these companies have been operating. Now, the Michigan House Legislature is in the process of considering a similar package of bills that would seek to address this issue, as well as provide regulation for all transportation companies across the state. Though this proposed legislation seeks to provide a necessary answer to questions surrounding these companies place in the state of Michigan, it fails to address certain aspects of safety and accountability that surround this issue. Culture is not a costume CHRIS CROWDER | COLUMN NATHAN SCHMALL Nathan Schmall is a School of Social Work graduate student.