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.