Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, March 30, 2018
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
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.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
The change comes following
a
two-month
self-imposed
ban on social activities by the
Interfraternity Council after reports
of hazing, drug and alcohol abuse,
as well as allegations of sexual
misconduct. The Zeta Beta Tau
fraternity’s national organization
also revoked its chapter at the
University for violating multiple
policies
and
endangering
its
members. We believe this policy
change is a step in the right direction
toward creating a Greek life system
that exists to improve the university
experience of students, especially
freshmen, instead of detracting
from it.
The decision by the University
will be most beneficial to the
new freshmen class and allow its
members more opportunities to
become better acclimated to their
campus community. Being a new
freshman can be daunting, and the
question of whether or not to join
social Greek life in the first semester
adds to the pressure. When
freshmen arrive at college, their
first friends are often those who
live in the same residence halls as
them. As the semester continues,
students
find
themselves
branching out and making new
friends through their classes and
student organizations. This allows
freshmen to try various activities
and find what they like best.
Fraternities and sororities often
sell the experience to freshmen
by promising an immediate new
group of friends and a great social
life. Greek life, however, is an aspect
of campus life that requires a large
time commitment and could cause
new students to insulate themselves
within their fraternity or sorority.
With this change, students will
have more time and energy to put
towards the equally important
academic transition from high
school to college. This will also allow
freshmen more time to find out how
they want to spend their time on
campus without first requiring them
to commit to a time-consuming rush
and pledge process.
Additionally, the new winter
rush process helps new students
become acclimated to the drinking
culture on campus. As most students
are aware, the social atmosphere
in college is usually vastly different
from high school. The expectations,
the amount of alcohol and other
drugs available and the number of
people with whom students can
engage in these activities drastically
increases during Welcome Week.
Nowhere is this more pronounced
than in fraternities, who host the
majority of Welcome Week events
and provide alcohol for thousands of
students every weekend.
There are obvious dangers
associated with this newfound
easy access to alcohol and other
substances, as evidenced by more
than 30 hospital transports during
the weekend of the Michigan
State game and seven during
Halloween weekend. With winter
rush, students will still go out and
experience college life, but will be
able to make better decisions about
the drinking culture that comes
with it, as they would have had time
to acclimate in the fall.
There
are,
however,
some
concerns about the new policy.
Suspending fall rush for fraternities
may also simply lead to an informal
rushing process that may exclude
some
freshmen
who
do
not
have the right connections. This
“underground rush” would also
be completely unregulated by the
University, though one could possibly
argue that currently the University
has very little oversight regardless.
Lastly,
this
decision
also
could unfairly affect multicultural
fraternities who provide a unique
space for the members of their
respective
communities.
When
minority students arrive at the
University’s predominantly white
campus, multicultural Greek life
can offer a support system that
the transition to winter rush could
threaten to delay.
Overall, however, the change
to a winter rush process is a strong
step by the University to improve the
first-year experience and limit the
insularity of Greek life on campus.
Freshmen will have an opportunity
to explore their interests and make
better-informed decisions about their
social life and future involvement
in student organizations. And, in
the face of recent controversies
surrounding Greek life both on
campus and nationally, lifting some
of the pressure to join the Greek
community freshmen often face
could have long-lasting benefits.
FROM THE DAILY
Winter rush, a step in the right direction
T
he University of Michigan recently announced that it would
transition to winter rush for social Greek organizations, starting in
the 2019-2020 academic year as a part of a plan to improve the first-
year experience. The new plan requires students to have completed at least
12 resident credit-hours and to be in good behavioral and academic standing
before they can participate in the rush process. The change will affect about
2,000 students annually according to an email sent by E. Royster Harper,
vice president for Student Life on March 21st.
T
he first time someone
tried
to
sell
me
Adderall was in my
high school library.
At the time, I did not
think anything of it.
I was inspired to
write this column
by the new Netflix
documentary
film,
“Take Your Pills,”
which
offers
an
interesting
look
into
the
use
of
stimulant
drugs,
such
as
Adderall
and Ritalin, both past and
present.
According
to
a
study
by
Johns
Hopkins
University’s
Bloomberg
School
of
Public
Health,
Adderall abuse is booming
among young people ages 18 to
25. In fact, non-prescription
Adderall use increased by 67
percent between 2006 and
2011 and Adderall-associated
emergency room visits rose
156 percent. At the University
of
Michigan,
24
percent
of students use stimulants
despite
only
8.95
percent
having had a prescription.
Adderall
and
related
drugs are central nervous
system stimulants. Adderall,
in particular, works as a
catecholamine
agonist,
meaning
that
it
binds
to
the
brain’s
receptors
for
catecholamine,
the
neurotransmitters dopamine
and norepinephrine. The drug
also inhibits the reuptake of
dopamine and norepinephrine
by brain cells, similar to
certain
antidepressants.
Catecholamine is associated
with pleasure and motivation,
so by taking a stimulant, a
person is basically pumping
their brain with chemicals
that
lead
to
feelings
of
euphoria, focus and alertness.
However,
those
chemicals
can also lead to insomnia,
anxiety, increased heart rate,
hypertension (elevated blood
pressure) and even psychosis.
That same study out of
Johns Hopkins also found that
treating
young
adolescents
with Adderall was on the
decline and that the rate of
nonprescription use in the
same population was neither
increasing
nor
decreasing.
This is eye-opening for the
many of us whose exposure
to the discourse surrounding
stimulant drugs has centered
around
the
perceived
overmedication of children
diagnosed
with
attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder
or attention deficit disorder.
I want to address the idea
of the “ADHD business,” a
concept featured prominently
in the one hour and 27-minute
runtime of “Take Your Pills.”
In fact, the very title of the
documentary
implies
that
drugs
like
Adderall
and
Ritalin are being forced onto
people.
Yes,
prescription
stimulants are projected to be
a 17.5-billion-dollar industry
by 2020. However, this boom
is being fueled by a trifecta
of
factors:
the
increased
recognition of ADHD as a
disease in foreign
countries
such
as
Saudi
Arabia
and China, more
Americans getting
diagnosed
and
treated for ADHD
because
they
now have health
insurance
under
Obamacare and a
rewriting
of
the
guidelines
for
diagnosing adults with ADHD.
Prescription stimulants have
a valid medical purpose and
should not be demonized.
Instead, my concerns lie with
people,
especially
college
students,
using
stimulants
without a prescription.
Another
aspect
I
found unsettling in “Take
Your
Pills”
is
the
scene
where
Lawrence
Diller,
a
pediatrician interviewed for
the documentary, equated the
severity of Adderall abuse to
that of the opioid epidemic,
calling it “right below the
threshold of the opiates.” It is
not so much the claim he made
that bothers me but how he,
at least in my interpretation,
insinuated
that
Adderall
abuse was not getting enough
attention because of opioids.
Prescription
stimulants
and
prescription
synthetic
opioids, such as oxycodone
and
fentanyl,
have
some
commonalities.
They
are
both classified as Schedule
II/IIN controlled substances
by
federal
regulations,
meaning that they have a
high potential for addiction
and
psychological/physical
dependence. Both are also
commonly sold and taken
without
a
prescription.
However, not all Schedule II
substances are created equal.
While Adderall and other
stimulants
can
have
life-
threatening effects, especially
when mixed with alcohol, the
fact of the matter remains that
opioids are responsible for the
vast majority of drug-related
deaths in America. In fact,
per the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention, half
of the top 10 drugs involved in
overdose deaths in 2014 were
prescription opioids. Adderall
and
other
prescription
stimulants did not even make
the list. Opioids are just more
dangerous than prescription
stimulants and implying that
one gets more attention over
the other masks the potential
merits behind that reality.
However,
the
strongest
critique I would level against
“Take Your Pills” is that the
filmmakers make stimulants
seem amazing. They even
included a snippet of an
interview with the late Keith
Connors,
the
psychologist
who
established
the
first
standards
for
diagnosing
ADHD, where he recounted
a time that he tried a Ritalin
pill from a barrel of them
supplied to his team by the
manufacturer for their study.
Connors then went on to
say with nostalgia that his
experience with Ritalin was
“great.” After watching the
documentary, I had an urge
to get my hands on some
Adderall despite never being
diagnosed
with
ADHD.
I
wanted it because I wanted to
do better.
Prescription
stimulants
are good for people with
ADHD, but what about the
rest of us? Should everyone
be taking Adderall? Despite
the obvious legal implications
of a potential felony, let us
turn to the ethical aspect of
taking stimulants without a
prescription. Everyone wants
to get ahead, and the truth
of the matter is that grades
have the potential to make
or break an application to
an internship or graduate
school. However, stimulants
can further enhance social
disparities
that
advantage
some and hold back others.
Not every University student
can afford to buy pills from
their peers and for certain
students, the consequences
of being caught selling or
using a Schedule II substance
illegally can be more severe
than for others.
At the heart of my ethical
concerns regarding the use
of Adderall and Ritalin as
performance
enhancers
is
a question of privilege. In
classes with grading curves,
students
using
Adderall
to help them score better
on the exams are directly
disadvantaging their fellow
students
not
taking
a
stimulant. How? By shifting
the curve in a way where the
students not on stimulants
will get a lower grade than if
everyone had taken the class
without enhancement.
I
doubt
that
anyone
taking
stimulants
without
a
prescription
will
give
much concern to thoughts
of privilege, after all, we
live in a dog-eat-dog world
where success is the only
objective.
Nevertheless,
the nonprescription use of
stimulants to improve one’s
academic
performance
is
inherently
unethical.
So,
you can count me out of the
Adderall craze.
Adderall, enhancement vs. epidemic
ALI SAFAWI | COLUMN
Ali Safawi can be reached at
asafawi@umich.edu.
The elephant in the (situation) room
MARGOT LIBERTINI | COLUMN
W
e are heading toward
six months since the
ubiquitous
hashtag
#MeToo was re-popularized by
Alyssa Milano. It’s been six months
since the Harvey Weinstein scandal;
six months that have been marked
by triumph over abusers in positions
of power such as politician John
Conyers and news anchor Matt Lauer
and by inspiring activism across the
nation. The past six months have also
included a confusing rollercoaster on
a plethora of crucial issues such as
immigration, healthcare, Russia, the
Iran nuclear deal and so on. So while
some powerful abusers have been
justly defeated, another has reaped
the benefits of a 24-hour news cycle
that cannot seem to remember what
atrocities occurred the week before.
President Donald Trump has
been accused of sexual assault by
21 women. His response has largely
been to dismiss and disregard their
allegations, once calling them all
“horrible liars.” For those who found
the testimony of more than a dozen
women to be unconvincing, a video
of Trump himself bragging about
groping women surfaced on Oct. 7,
2016. On Oct. 13 (less than a month
before being elected President), he
said “Look at her . . . I don’t think so”
about an accuser, implying that there
is a correlation between a woman’s
appearance and her likelihood of
being assaulted. And yet, the stories
and his reprehensible responses to
them managed to get lost in the chaos
that has been the past 14 months.
There are many reasons to
dislike Trump. There are many
reasons to call for his impeachment.
I feel that this particular aspect of
his existence should be covered
with the frequency and deference
that it deserves. Our president is a
serial sexual predator. We cannot
claim to be the beacon of democracy
and human rights as long as this is
true. It is a grotesque reflection of
a society that looks past criminal
behavior if the criminal is a wealthy
white heterosexual male who will
work to maintain the hierarchical
system that has privileged him.
Members of Trump’s team left
because of steel tariffs, but did not
bat an eye at these accusations.
The allegations were also largely
ignored at the height of #MeToo
movement. Whether it was because
our collective memory could not
stand to hold any more Trump
scandals than we already had or if
in our hearts we knew that he was
one predator we weren’t going to
topple, I don’t know. I know that as I
watched in awe at the brave women
coming forward to speak their truth
and be heard, there were at least 21
women who were watching while
their abuser sat in the Oval Office.
While I rejoiced as large, powerful
institutions
finally
held
their
leadership accountable, the Free
World couldn’t do the same.
That
image
disturbs
me:
millions of survivors feeling hope
for the first time in so long, while
simultaneously being governed by
an accused rapist. It also makes
me feel a little hopeless. When
21 women’s stories aren’t worth
any formal investigation, when
evangelical Republicans can back a
candidate who said, “I just grab ‘em
by the pussy,” when even the anti-
Trump feminists seem to forget
that in addition to being a racist,
sexist, homophobic bigot, he is also
a violent criminal, the state of justice
in this country feels quite bleak.
But recently, there has been a
glimmer of hope on the topic. One
of the “horrible liars” is fighting
back against our “Predator in Chief.”
Summer Zervos is filing a defamation
suit against Trump for calling her
a liar about the accusations. The
Trump team responded by claiming
that a sitting president cannot be
sued. A New York Supreme Court
Judge rejected that notion, saying,
“No one is above the law.” In one
of the most ironic plot twists of the
Trump era yet, this precedent was
set after Paula Jones sued former
President Bill Clinton in 1998.
This could end in Trump being
forced to speak under oath about the
allegations as Clinton did 20 years
ago when he famously said: “I did
not have sexual relations with that
woman (Monica Lewinsky).” First of
all, poor Hillary Clinton. When will
this nightmare end for her? Second of
all, I sincerely hope that #MeToo has
evoked something strong enough in
this nation’s conscience to lead us to
justice for Zervos and the 20 other
women who have been brave enough
to come forward with their stories.
I am not quite optimistic about the
prospects of that, but these recent
developments have certainly made
me less hopeless.
Margot Libertini can be reached at
mliberti@umich.edu.
ALI
SAFAWI
Stimulants can
further enhance
social disparities
that advantage
some and hold
back others.
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our Editorial Board meets Mondays and Wednesdays 7:15-8:45 PM at
our newsroom at 420 Maynard Street. All are welcome to come discuss
national, state and campus affairs.