Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
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
H
ip-hop
star
Mac
Miller was found dead
in his home on
Sept. 7, 2018 at 26 years
old. His overdose hit
the media like a wave,
with strong responses
of mourning on social
media platforms from
both fans and fellow
artists who respected
his work. Miller was
extremely open about
his struggle with drug
use,
referring
to
it
in many of his lyrics
and
interviews,
oftentimes
acknowledging
the
negative
effects of continued use.
In
a
2015
Billboard
interview, Miller spoke about
his substance abuse at its peak,
saying, “It just eats at your
mind, doing drugs every single
day, every second. It’s rough
on your body.” This premature
tragedy comes in the wake of
pop star Demi Lovato’s well-
documented relapse earlier this
summer, when she was taken
to a Los Angeles area hospital
after
a
reported
overdose.
Lovato is another artist who
has consistently addressed her
drug habit (in addition to her
eating and bipolar disorders)
in music and with the press.
She had recently released a new
song “Sober” that recounted
her relapse when she overdosed
in July. Lyrics of the song
include “I’m sorry that I’m here
again. I promise I’ll get help.”
However,
Miller
and
Lovato are rare examples of
Hollywood elite who actually
acknowledge the devastating
effects
of
substance
abuse
disorders. To many, it seems
as
though
celebrities
are
destined to live their lives with
drug habits by virtue of their
exposure to a celebrity culture
that champions drug use. This
is only emphasized by the
constant glorification of drugs
and alcohol by our media, with
movies and music glorifying
the high while consistently
avoiding the struggle of living
with a substance abuse disorder.
The mental and physical toll of
continued drug use is extreme,
as evident from the 72,000
deaths in 2017 caused by drug
overdose, as estimated by the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Artists like Miller
and Lovato have attempted to
highlight this dark and hidden
portion of addiction to the
public, attacking the glamorous
view of drug use.
The narrative
of
chic
and
sophisticated
drug-using
celebrities leaves
out some crucial
facts
about
addiction. A life
of
substance
abuse
is
not
sustainable.
Celebrities
are
not untouchable.
Anyone can be
affected. 21.5 million American
adults (12 and above) were
reported to have a substance
abuse disorder in 2014. These
staggering numbers, and the
recent newsworthy examples
of Miller and Lovato highlight
that substance abuse does not
discriminate.
Regardless
of
your
net
worth or follower base, the
negative effects are going to
come. The highs are high,
but the lows lead a user down
a dangerous road. And the
dangers of this attitude are
not restricted to Hollywood,
but are rather increasingly
prevalent in our larger society.
This is especially true across
high
schools
and
college
campuses, where in place of
status equating invincibility,
students
and
young
adults
equate it with youth.
I would be remiss if I did not
point out that substance abuse
disorders are vastly different
than
casual
drinking
and
smoking, which are common
in all types of communities
and do not indicate severe
substance
abuse
issues.
Substance
abuse
disorders
are when these habits become
addictive, necessary to one’s
way of life. This reliance is
explained by the Center on
Addiction,
which
defines
addiction
as
“a
complex
disease of the brain and body
that involves compulsive use of
one or more substances despite
serious
health
and
social
consequences.” When someone
focuses on a consistent need for
drugs above good health and
social relationships, substance
abuse becomes a severe risk.
While
these
disorders
may originate from an initial
stage
of
choice,
addiction
quickly becomes compulsory.
Substance
abuse
disorders
should
be
tackled
with
the same tenacity as other
diseases, but in our society
only one in nine Americans
get support and treatment for
their addiction. The societal
view of drug abuse as fun and
cultural
discourages
those
who feel its daily struggles
from reaching out for help.
A general reliance on these
substances can be perceived as
weak and embarrassing, adding
to this fear of getting help.
While people are struggling,
overdosing and dying, others
continue to support a culture
that praises these habits and
then judges them when they
get out of hand.
When Miller passed away,
social
media
became
an
outpour of support, love and
mourning for the late artist.
After
hitting
mainstream
media with his debut album
Blue
Slide
Park
in
2011,
Miller was a prominent artist
in his genre. Other artists
looked up to his work, while
a large community of fans
were inspired, moved and
some would say raised on his
sound. Miller was preparing
for an American tour when
he passed away. His legacy
is incomplete, and the shock
of his tragic loss to both his
colleagues and fans should
be a signal to take substance
abuse off of a pedestal.
We
need
to
accept
substance abuse as a disease
and address its effects from
that perspective. We need to
stop focusing on momentary
release
and
instead
zero
in on long-term health and
happiness. We need strong
individuals to continue to
speak out about the darkness
and struggle that comes with
substance abuse so that people
can receive the help that they
need.
Substance abuse does not discriminate
Substance absue
disorders should
be tackled with
the same tenacity
as other diseases.
ERIN WHITE | COLUMN
Erin White can be reached at
ekwhite@umich.edu.
S
top
talking
about
special
counsel Robert Mueller and
his investigation. To close a
few loopholes of this request, I’d also
add Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn,
George Papadopoulos and any of the
other bit players in Trump’s orbit to
that list. It’s rarely more substantial
than media spectacle and offers only
an illusory sense of resistance
to those dissatisfied with the
current government.
President
Donald
Trump’s
victory in 2016 unleashed a particular
kind of liberal psychosis that wasn’t
triggered when they lost the Senate
in 2014, or when they lost the House
of Representatives in 2010, or when
they lost the Supreme Court with
Justice Antonin Scalia’s nomination
in 1971, or when they lost 910
statehouse seats during Barack
Obama’s presidency. As we began
to see with President George W.
Bush, and as we’re seeing fully
now with Trump, the Democratic
spirit is extremely lethargic. Unless
there’s a single monster to mobilize
against, American liberals tend
toward complacency.
This isn’t entirely surprising.
Conservatism rests on the idea that
there must be perpetual struggle
toward a prior state of society;
liberalism rests on the idea that
marginal improvements are enough
to keep the arc of history bending
toward justice. It takes something
dramatic — a reality TV star, a
billionaire without bourgeois values,
a man called incompetent by enemies
and allies alike — to break the patient
faith of liberals.
Mueller’s
special
counsel
investigation, which began May 17,
2017, has soothed the anxiety of many
people whose trust in American
institutions was shaken in 2016. A
narrative emerged from the chaotic
horror of November that year: the
noble underclass of the Midwest
was tricked into electing this man
by Russians, but the Americans
who aided and abetted them will
be brought to justice. Every news
story that comes out of Mueller’s
investigation — like former Campaign
Chairman Paul Manafort’s guilty
plea last Friday — is another nail
being pounded methodically into
Trump’s coffin.
The way this spectacle unfolds
— CNN and the New York Times
publish stories, a hashtag starts to
trend on Twitter, #Resistance grifters
like the Krassenstein brothers start
making bad jokes — is similar to the
way we react to prestige TV. A “Game
of Thrones” episode airs, people turn
to Twitter, celebrities start weighing
in. Rinse and repeat.
However, this isn’t — as dozens
of other columnists have said before
— reality TV. American politics has
given over entirely to what’s most
entertaining, and we wait with
anticipation for the next episode.
This isn’t inherently wrong — I’m
not particularly interested in parsing
whether or not the net benefit
from increased (but low quality)
engagement with politics is good or
not. What’s much more discomfiting
for me is the unironic, self-serious
way people participate in what isn’t
much more than D.C. media drama.
Superficial victories presented
like plot twists in a novel or television
show, such as Manafort and Flynn’s
plea deals and that anonymous Op-Ed
from within the administration, have
become acceptable substitutes for
actual victories. Manafort is a self-
interested, morally bankrupt leech
— one of thousands in Washington,
D.C. I don’t really care whether he
goes to prison or not because he
doesn’t control policy or legislation;
the Republican House, Republican
Senate,
Republican
presidency,
Republican Supreme Court and (in
a plurality of states) Republican state
governments do.
Even if the “blue wave” arrives
as forecasted, Democrats — the kind
who attack the president on Twitter
and glorify a man who opposed
them at nearly every stage of his
career — will only control one of
five battlegrounds. Maybe in 2020,
California Sen. Kamala Harris or
former Vice President Joe Biden will
beat Trump by sufficiently scolding
Americans about civility, and then
they’ll control two out of five.
The fundamental problem with
recovering political ground for the left
isn’t that Republicans are a party of
Machiavellian, ice-chewing maniacs
assisted by the Russian government —
they routinely elect some of America’s
most embarrassing citizens — it’s that
the Democratic base and founding
principles (i.e., liberals and liberalism)
are
unequipped
to
deal
with
radicalizing conservatism. The right
wing’s presentation of a Manichean
battle between everything you love
and everything you hate is a lot more
mobilizing than patient Democratic
centrism or the ostensibly apolitical
Mueller investigation.
The powerful should be brought
to justice when they break the law —
few people find that controversial.
When that process is turned into a
comforting spectacle offered in lieu of
economic, material progress, though,
it should be ignored. Focus on moving
the Overton window, pursue direct
action and stop following the Mueller
story — it’s not going to solve any of
our actual problems.
Liberal psychosis
HANK MINOR | COLUMN
Hank Minor can be reached at
hminor@umich.edu
T
o the Editor,
We
are
former
members of the Board
of Regents of the University
of
Michigan,
representing
different political parties and
times in office. What unites
us is our love of the University
that we so proudly served
and
our
frustration
with
the misimpressions of the
University’s Investment Office
and
its
relationship
with
U-M donors and benefactors
created by a series of articles
in the Detroit Free Press, the
most recent of which ran on
Sept, 13, 2018.
Creating
the
Investment
Office as a unit separate
from the Treasurer’s Office
in 1999 was an important
decision made by University
leaders at the time. These
leaders, including the Board of
Regents, understood well that
with declining state support
it was increasingly important
to
grow
the
University’s
endowment
through
the
generous
private
support
of alumni and friends. And
they knew it was important
to make prudent investments
with those funds that had the
potential to generate strong
returns to help meet our
academic priorities as public
sources of funding declined.
These include scholarships for
students with need, supporting
research to find better ways to
manage common diseases, such
as diabetes, cancer and heart
disease, and so much more.
Nearly
20
years
of
experience
has
continued
to
show
the
wisdom
of
this
decision.
Today,
the
University’s
endowment
stands
at
more
than
$11
billion. It is the largest public
university
endowment
in
the country other than the
flagship universities in Texas,
which receive oil royalties. It is
no exaggeration to say that the
University of Michigan would
not be the university it is today
— one of the best and most
highly ranked universities in
the world — without generous
donors and wise and dedicated
professionals who invest those
funds to maximize returns for
the public good.
The
documented
facts
should speak much clearly
and loudly: the Univeristy
offers
free
tuition
to
qualifying in-state students
from families with incomes
up to $65,000 a year; the
University’s
investment
performance puts it near the
top of all endowments; and
the
distribution
from
the
University’s endowment has
increased every year since
2003.
We are proud of our donors
and alumni, who have helped
us raise over $1 billion to
support our students in this
campaign alone. Attempting
to disparage our donors is
potentially
destructive
to
the culture of philanthropic
support
at
the
University,
which is one if its hallmarks. It
is also hurtful to some of our
most generous donors, whose
wisdom
and
involvement
has
helped
the
University
enormously. We are proud of
our current Board of Regents
and
University
leaders,
including the executive vice
president,
chief
financial
officer and the Investment
Office staff. Regent Andrea
Fischer Newman has long
served
this
University
with
distinction
and
her
dedication to this institution
is beyond reproach.
We
firmly
believe
that
the University of Michigan
deserves
better
treatment
by one of our state’s leading
news organizations.
We take great pride in
the success of our beloved
institution and the positive
impact it makes in the lives of
the people in our state.
FORMER REGENTS | LETTER TO THE EDITOR
David A. Brandon, Laurence B.
Deitch, Daniel D. Horning, Shirley M.
McFee, Robert E. Nederlander, Neal
D. Nielsen, Philip H. Power, Nellie M.
Varner
AMANDA ZHANG | COLUMN
We need to talk about sexism in tennis
L
et me be the first to say
Serena
Williams
is
an
inspiration by every metric.
As an African-American woman, a
mother and a 23-time Grand Slam
champion, she is living proof that
women can exude both power and
grace and that adversity is no match
for resilience. However, in regards
to her recent controversial match at
the US Open, Williams is fighting the
wrong fight.
For those unfamiliar with the
situation, Williams lost to first time
Grand Slam Champion Naomi Osaka
in the US Open women’s final after
the umpire, Carlos Ramos, made
three calls against her that proved
incredibly
consequential
to
the
match’s outcome. In the center of the
controversy is her third code violation
for “verbal abuse,” which she earned
by calling Ramos a “liar” and a “thief.”
As per the official US Open rules,
Williams received a game penalty,
which not only resulted in a $17,000
fine, but also shifted the match
drastically in Osaka’s favor.
Following the penalty, Williams,
in tears, asserted that male tennis
players “who do a lot worse” do not
receive such harsh punishments. Her
comments have sparked a massive
debate
online
with
prominent
members of the tennis community
such as Novak Djokovic and Billie
Jean King weighing in and people
from all walks of life offering their
support and criticism.
The truth is both Ramos and
Williams are to blame for the
controversy that overshadowed a
historic US Open final. Williams lost
her temper in a moment when she
needed it most, and Ramos neglected
to consider the gravity of his calls in
such a high stakes match. That being
said, Williams’ point still has validity.
Regardless of her actions at the US
Open, the onslaught of backlash
against Williams is proof that sexism
in tennis is a real problem.
Following
the
controversy,
the Herald Sun released a cartoon
depicting a monstrous Williams
furiously stomping on her racket.
The cartoon is a blatantly offensive
illustration
that
perpetuates
degrading
stereotypes
of
black
women, and while it has been met
with considerable backlash, it is far
from the first time Williams has dealt
with sexism and racism in her career.
Williams has long been associated
with derogatory terms like “gorilla,”
“manly” and “savage” by both the
public and sports commentators.
This is not a problem white men face.
We let the athlete entertain us with
her amazing power and dynamism
on the court and then criticize her for
developing the body and grit to do so.
Williams can hit serves that exceed
120 miles per hour, so why are we
expecting her to have anything less
than than a muscular build?
Williams has also faced her
fair share of adversity on the court.
Even as a 23-time Grand Slam
champion, a four-time Olympic gold
medalist and No. 1 ranked tennis
player for 186 consecutive weeks, her
accomplishments are still trivialized
compared to those of men. After a 14
month maternity leave, prior to which
she held a No. 1 ranking, Williams
was not welcomed back to the tennis
world with open arms and praise but
instead knocked down to No. 453
and offered an unseeded position at
the French Open. To make matters
worse, Williams’ eye-catching and
empowering black catsuit, which she
wore to her first match, was promptly
banned from the tournament.
The fact that taking time off
to have a child resulted in such
a significant blow to her athletic
standing is sexist. The fact that her
choice of clothing was a conflict at
a tournament designed to measure
physical ability is sexist. Williams is
an unparalleled athletic force, and she
has no shortage of accolades to prove
it, yet her femininity proves to be a
constant barrier to her success. Time
and time again, the athlete has battled
opposition her male counterparts
have never once seen.
Williams may be the most
well-known victim of sexism is
professional tennis but she is far
from an anomaly. Archaic double
standards hurt all women in the
sport one way or another. Whether
it is through a code violation for a
quick on-court shirt change as in
the case of Alize Cornet or being
asked to “twirl” after a sweeping
Australian Open victory as in the
case of Eugenie Bouchard, sexism in
tennis is a double-edged sword -- it
hinders women’s ability to achieve
success and diminishes its value
when they do.
The
Williams-Ramos
controversy was an unfortunate
conflict in which neither party was
completely innocent, but Williams
is not wrong to point out the flagrant
injustices against women in the
sport. At the end of the day, tennis is
a game of physical prowess and fine-
tuned skill. Players like Williams,
Cornet and Bouchard have invested
thousands of hours of practice into
their sport and have developed
athletic capabilities the rest of us
could not even dream of. It is time we
let those hard earned capabilities be
the sole determining factor in their
failures and successes. It is time we
recognize these women as athletes
first.
Amanda Zhang can be reached at
amanzhan@umich.edu.
ERIN
WHITE
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.