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