E
verybody’s talking about
firearms.
“Gun
control”
peaked in Google’s search
bar this year, and metal
detectors are popping up
faster than the October
leaves are turning red.
Implementation
of
strong security measures
seems to be contagious
among big cities, yet
Ann Arbor still lacks the
infrastructure and sense
of urgency needed to
make significant change.
A greater number of
states, cities and municipalities —
including Ann Arbor — need to
hop aboard the firearm security
bandwagon in order to see true
success in the effectiveness of policies.
Ann Arbor has a population of well
over 100,000, and if you’ve been here
on a Football Saturday, you know all
too well that visitors account for a
significant amount of the city’s make
up. If Ann Arbor follows the lead of
California, New York and Illinois
— states with some of the strictest
gun control laws — this would mean
having metal detectors in our sports
stadiums, bars and school buildings.
Metal detectors stand aside an
increasingly large number of doors
at sports and music venues. The NFL
provided them to all of their stadiums
in 2011, followed by the MLB and
NHL in 2015. The NBA was even
awarded a Safety Act certification
from the Department of Homeland
Security.
College
stadiums
are
implementing them as well, but
the schools doing so are (curiously)
Southern. Safety regulations at the
University of Michigan’s Big House
reflect national policies, listing guns
and other weapons as prohibited
items. The stadium does not have a
bag-check policy because bags are
prohibited entirely, and also lacks
metal detectors at the entrance. A
security check would take ages if the
more than 100,000 fans at each game
need to be screened.
The Michigan Theater, a landmark
of downtown Ann Arbor for the past
90 years, provides security at events
only when deemed necessary by both
the venue and artist.
“The objective is to make people
feel comfortable and to be mindful of
public safety,” Russ Collins, executive
director and CEO of the historic
theater, said. He explains that each
show attracts a distinctive crowd, and
each crowd carries a unique need for
security — some require no security,
while other, rowdier events have bag
checks, metal detector wands and
increased security personnel. Pop
concerts and controversial speaker
series fall into this latter category.
Though safety at shows produces
high levels of anxiety
among patrons, Collins
cannot
remember
a
time that the Michigan
Theater has had to turn
someone away due to
weapon possession.
Some downtown bars
around the country are
strengthening security
measures. I spoke about
this with Tom from
Scorekeepers Sports Grill
and Pub, a local spot that is favored by
many University students. Normally,
the bar has security to check purses
and backpacks at the front door, and
on weekends with a higher turnout
expected, extra personnel are hired.
When asked about a metal detector,
Tom responded frankly that there
is simply no room in the pub to fit a
metal detector. Additionally, as far as
he knows, security measures are put
in place by the bar itself and are not
mandated by the city of Ann Arbor.
School districts in larger cities
have started using metal detectors
in an attempt to prevent mass
shootings. In Detroit, for example,
high schoolers step through a sea of
vigilantly monitored metal detectors
every time they enter the building.
April Zeoli, an associate professor
in the School of Criminal Justice at
Michigan State University, spoke at
Palmer Commons this week on a
panel regarding innovative policy as
a preventative approach to firearm-
related violence. Zeoli explained to
me that recently Ann Arbor Public
Schools decided to completely ban
guns from their campuses, regardless
of an individual’s permit to carry a
weapon. They were sued by opposing
groups, but the Michigan Supreme
Court sided with the district.
Although the University is a different
entity, as is MSU, gun control policies
are still in place.
“There are absolutely no guns
allowed
on
Michigan
State’s
campus,” Zeoli explained. “You
cannot have them in buildings,
dorms, classrooms — essentially, you
can’t have them at all.” To implement
these rules, MSU relies on the honor
system. “It is inefficient to think
that we can post metal detectors
everywhere, search every backpack,
investigate every single possible
avenue a gun can come into a place,
and be successful. That’s just not
going to happen.”
Contrary to popular belief, “gun
control” doesn’t mean confiscation
of all firearms, but rather defines the
movement to analyze when, where
and why they are used. Some city-
dwellers are demanding Congress
pass policies that could “keep guns
out of the wrong hands” and thus
prevent mass shootings, but others
correspondingly argue that gun
control laws aren’t effective. Large
cities, including Las Vegas and
Chicago, create controversy in the
debate, as they are home to relatively
tough gun control laws and still
have high levels of gun violence —
however, Alaska has lenient control
policies and the highest rate of gun
deaths in the country.
This leaves us with two scenarios.
Maybe
gun
control
laws
are
ineffective and are only put in place
as a palliative measure — chronic
gun violence in Chicago is often used
as evidence for the ineffectiveness
of such policies. Or, alternatively,
gun control laws need to be more
stringent and ubiquitous. New York
state Sen. Brad Hoylman claims the
state has “the strongest gun laws
in the nation,” and this October,
New York City celebrated three
consecutive days without a shooting
— a feat that hasn’t occurred in 25
years. A city with 8.6 million people,
and for the first time in a quarter of
a century, no one shot each other for
an entire weekend. A recent Johns
Hopkins University study bolsters
this argument — their School of
Public Health published a meta-
analysis of 130 international studies,
and showed that firearm legislation
is indeed associated with fewer
firearm-related deaths.
While several sports arenas,
concert venues, bars and school
districts in Ann Arbor are raising
the bar for what they deem as
“safe,” we still lack a city-wide
consensus on firearm security and
prevention in public spaces, and may
continue to see that trend nationally.
Unfortunately, “gun control” has
slowly and surely become quite
politically
charged,
meaning
the entity most likely to address
concerns is the federal government,
not the local. A poll predicting the
upcoming 2018 election shows that
the country is split on how to move
forward regarding firearm policies,
meaning we probably will not see
any federally-sourced policy changes
in Ann Arbor in the near future.
Our city has the opportunity to be
proactive, rather than reactive, to
potential gun violence.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4— Friday, October 26, 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
ALANNA BERGER | COLUMN
Why mental health is a gendered issue
I
n the wake of high profile
suicides
such
as
designer
Kate Spade and celebrity chef
Anthony Bourdain, issues pertaining
to mental illness are particularly
relevant. It appears as though mental
illness, long ignored as a taboo
subject, is becoming more socially
acceptable to discuss in public. In
recent months, celebrities have
spoken out more honestly about
their own mental health struggles.
However, despite this increased
candor, many with mental illness
continue to struggle in silence. In
fact, 56 percent of American adults
with a mental illness do not receive
any form of treatment. Though
disparities in access to medical
care in the United States certainly
contribute to this disheartening
statistic, a lack of public awareness
of mental illness and the stigma
associated with it are dominating
factors. In modern American society,
much of this stigma comes down to
gender lines, with gender acting as
a major determining factor in how
individuals experience and treat
mental illness. The unique issues
presented to those with different
gender identities often obscure
symptoms of mental illness, creating
obstacles in recieving treatment.
In years past, the term “gender”
was often defined to refer to physical
anatomy in terms of genitalia and
reproductive
systems.
However,
along with the development of
social sciences, gender has come to
be understood as a social construct
shaping the life experiences of all
individuals. In the United States
and much of the Western world,
gender and related stereotypes have
a profound effect on the treatment of
mental illness.
Take,
for
example,
eating
disorders,
particularly
anorexia
nervosa.
While
anorexia
can
certainly occur in individuals of
all identities, it is drastically more
common in young women. This
is especially true when compared
to young males. These extreme
differences can largely be accounted
for when social gender standards are
taken into account. In countries of
the Western world, anorexia nervosa
and bulimia nervosa are more
prevalent than in developing nations.
These same Western nations are also
more likely to be bombarded with
a 24-hour news cycle. This cycle
includes television programming,
advertisements and print sources
such as magazines. In such media,
the so-called “thin ideal” for women,
in particular, is almost inescapable.
Women in leading roles on scripted
television shows, reality shows and
news programs often fit into this
ideal. If they do not, their weight
is often frequently discussed or
becomes central to their identity
— as a character or a public figure.
Magazines targeted toward women
often tout “success stories” of
extreme weight loss or particular
diets that can produce the perfect
body. Studies show that frequent
exposure to the thin ideal can lead
to its internalization within young
women, making them more prone to
eating disorders.
Conversely, men and boys suffer
from similar gender standards
when it comes to eating disorders.
Though it is much less common, it
is certainly not unheard of for males
to develop anorexia or bulimia.
Moreover, when such disorders do
present themselves in men or boys,
the associated stigma is often far
greater than it is for women and
girls. Males with eating disorders
experience what is known as a
“double stigma”, or feelings of shame
for having a mental disorder in the
first place, and then increased shame
for said disorder’s association with
femininity.
Additionally, gender standards
associated
with
masculinity
typically involve an intense norm
of self-reliance or the idea that a
“real man” would not need outside
support for emotional issues. This
is a stereotype that has proven
to be especially harmful to men
and boys. Gender differences in
suicide epidemiology support this.
According to statistics put forth
by the American Foundation for
Suicide Prevention, men are nearly
four times as likely to die by suicide
than women are. Furthermore,
men are much more likely than
women
to
self-medicate
their
mental illnesses with drugs and
alcohol, often leading to potentially
lethal substance abuse disorders.
This behavior is often in place of
seeking professional psychological
help, which women tend to be more
likely to do than men. Damaging
standards of masculinity, such as
the notion that “boys don’t cry” — or,
the “man up” mentality — can lead
to the stigmatization of men and
boys expressing their emotions, even
from young ages. Such standards,
in turn, create societal norms in
which males must internalize their
emotions to maintain an aura of
toughness.
Beyond
the
United
States,
gender
issues
within
mental
illness cause significant hardships.
Worldwide,
women
experience
unipolar depression at a rate
twice that of men. This may be
because women are more likely to
experience gender-based violence,
socioeconomic disadvantages and
stronger responsibility for the care
of dependents than men. Such
pressures, along with an increased
risk of sexual violence victimization,
create scenarios in which women
are more likely to experience
mental illness. These factors are all
strictly social in nature, resulting
from enduring gender stereotypes
that prevent women on the whole
from
becoming
economically
independent, normalize violence
against women and place undue
stress upon women to care for
children
and
other
vulnerable
populations.
It is clear that mental illness
is reaching a crisis point globally.
With suicide rates sharply rising
nationwide,
mental
illnesses
are preventing Americans from
living their daily lives and causing
significant disability. This rings
particularly
true
for
college
students. College students now face
more crippling levels of depression
and anxiety than ever before.
Many students are falling victim
to the same gender standards
and expectations detailed above,
as well as immense pressure to
succeed from a variety of outlets.
Additionally, many colleges have
proven themselves to be unable to
support their struggling students,
causing many to suffer needlessly
and endlessly. When it comes down
to it, the global mental health crisis
is largely a result of arbitrary gender
stereotypes
forcing
individuals
into certain roles, and as a society,
we have proven to be powerless in
providing any real solution.
Will we see gun restrictions in Ann Arbor?
JULIA MONTAG | COLUMN
Alanna Berger can be reached at
balanna@umich.edu.
Julia Montag can be reached at
jtmon@umich.edu.
DAVID HAYSE | COLUMN
Tribalism degrades civil discourse
I
n my AP English class, my
teacher, in an attempt to
broaden our perspectives,
talked to us about
different
“lenses”
literary critics use in
their writings, such as
feminism,
Marxism
and
psychoanalysis.
Often in class, when
discussing something
we had read, like “The
Road”
by
Cormac
McCarthy or Yann
Martel’s “Life of Pi,” it
seemed easy to notice
what
lenses
my
classmates
were
“wearing.”
These
perspectives just provided a
base for understanding ways
to think. My teacher’s most
important lesson, however, was
to encourage us to identify what
lenses we had on ourselves and
to encourage us to think freely.
If we are to consider ourselves
thoughtful, we must recognize
and resist the temptation to
view the world with only one set
of glasses, whichever color. This
includes if the bias is based on
ideology, personal experience
or influence, etc.
Pigeonholing someone else
by labeling them as “Democrat,”
“Republican,” “fascist,” “racist,”
“communist” or whatever else is
a serious problem and closes one
off to opposing and challenging
ideas. A problem just as serious
is limiting oneself to a label like
this and letting identities like
these dominate one’s thought.
Party affiliation has turned into
“tribalism.” It is now “a form of
personal identity that reaches
into almost every aspect of our
lives.” It has permeated, for
many people, into their personal
relationships
and
degraded
respectful conduct into mob
mentality.
For
many,
the
anger
in
Washington, D.C. and on the
news is appalling. Others also
try to justify it. A video of Eric
Holder this month
saying “When they
go
low,
we
kick
them,” surfaced on
the
internet.
This
statement
was
a
play-on
of
former
first
lady
Michelle
Obama’s “When they
go low, we go high.”
Unfortunately,
the
standard
of
what
“low” is has now
changed. Now, “going low” means
someone else acting on beliefs
which are contrary to one’s own.
This was explained very clearly by
the last Democratic presidential
candidate
Hillary
Clinton
when she said, “You cannot
be civil with a political party
that wants to destroy what you
stand for.” A former presidential
candidate, not only condoning,
but encouraging incivility in our
political discourse is dangerous
and irresponsible.
As a result of tribalistic
political identification, people
are no longer thinking logically,
but are instead deciding to
indulge in a battle to the death
over politics. Gone are the days
of men like Antonin Scalia, who
said, “I attack ideas. I don’t
attack people. And some very
good people have some very
bad ideas.” Justices Antonin
Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
though as ideologically different
as a goat and a cheetah are
different biologically, were great
friends over the years. They are
also highly-regarded role models
for each of their respective
political parties. Unfortunately,
their example is not being
followed.
I’m sure plenty of members of
Congress are friends regardless
of their party affiliation, but
that is no longer politically
expedient for them. Because
of growing anger among those
in the media and the general
population, stronger and harsher
statements from our politicians
about their colleagues and their
ideas gets them the publicity
they seem to so desperately
want. Senator Lindsey Graham,
R-S.C.,
with
applause
from
many Republicans, announced
after the confirmation of now-
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, that
he would — for the first time
ever — campaign against his
Democratic colleagues in the
Senate.
Many
Democrats,
rightly
so, were and are upset by some
of President Donald Trump’s
comments since he started his
campaign for the presidency,
which have often crossed the
line. Those elected to office
should exemplify the highest
ideals of this country. But the
reaction of the left now has
betrayed
Michelle
Obama’s
words, which she felt the need
to restate recently. Politicians
are being confronted at their
homes, in restaurants and on
their way to work. This conduct
is disgusting. Banging on the
doors of the Supreme Court
and screaming in the Senate
Chamber is disgusting. Threats
and insults hurled at politicians
on either side are disgusting.
Those who confronted Rep.
Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., this
week calling her a communist
and screaming expletives at her
acted disgustingly.
EMILY WOLFE | CONTACT EMILY AT ELWOLFE@UMICH.EDU
JULIA
MONTAG
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
David Hayse can be reached at
dhayse@umich.edu.
DAVID
HAYSE
Males must
internalize their
emotions to
maintain an aura
of toughness