Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Tuesday, September 3, 2019
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
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
S
en. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.,
must fancy himself a true
patriot, and for good reason.
In recent years, our Senate Majority
Leader — the longest-serving senator
in Kentucky history — claims he has
been safeguarding the American
people
from
the
Democratic
Party’s dangerously leftist agenda.
Speaking in his buttery Kentucky
drawl, McConnell boasted about his
reputation on “The Ingraham Angle”
this past June.
“I am indeed the grim reaper
when it comes to the socialist
agenda,” McConnell said, referencing
the plan Democrats would apparently
force upon the country. As it turns
out, McConnell’s “grim reaper”
moniker suits him for more than just
his success in stifling Democrats’
“socialism”— he’s also the grim
reaper for the American blood on his
hands.
In the early afternoon of Aug. 3,
America learned of a mass shooting,
this time in El Paso, Texas, that cut
22 lives short. McConnell took to
Twitter to console those impacted
by the massacre. “The entire nation
is horrified by today’s senseless
violence in El Paso,” he observed,
saying, “Elaine’s and my prayers
go out to the victims of this terrible
violence, their families and friends,
and the brave first responders who
charged into harm’s way.” In the early
morning of Aug. 4, another shooting
occurred in Dayton, Ohio, claiming
10 more lives. The following morning,
McConnell tweeted that news of the
event was “sickening to learn.” I have
no doubt that McConnell, like every
American, was deeply disturbed
by the shootings. But his words of
comfort are wholly irreconcilable
with his actions as Senate Majority
Leader, which makes his condolences
insulting and void of merit.
As part of his crusade against
the Democrats’ ostensibly insidious
leftism, McConnell has been a
stubborn advocate of gun rights, a
legacy that he is quite proud of. When
the Republican Party took control
of the Senate in the 2014 midterms,
McConnell became Senate Majority
Leader. His ascension to that office
has granted him incredible influence
as to the flow of legislation and debate
in the Senate, and during his five-year
tenure, he has obstinately obstructed
meaningful debate on gun control
legislation.
McConnell’s intransigence on
the matter accords him additional
blame for America’s gun problem.
While support for gun control
soars nationwide — 86 percent of
Americans, according to a 2015 Gallup
poll, support universal background
checks
for
gun
purchases
—
McConnell has methodically slowed
the Senate’s consideration of gun
reform. As recent as February, the
House of Representatives passed the
Bipartisan Background Checks Act of
2019, a bill that mandates background
checks for the exchange of firearms
between private parties, by a vote of
240-190. For six months, McConnell
has dragged his feet when it comes
to allowing a Senate debate and
vote on the bill. In doing so, he has
disrespected the will of 86 percent of
the country.
As
the
leader
of
Senate
Republicans, it’s easy to target
McConnell for the unforgivable
lack of progress on gun control.
But McConnell’s attitude is also
emblematic of a more general trend
that has limited gun control success
— the GOP’s zealous defense of the
Second Amendment, which seems
to have become a cornerstone of the
party’s platform.
The
Republican
Party’s
obsession with guns has become
more entrenched with time. While
conservative
Americans
have
long championed an originalist
interpretation
of
the
Second
Amendment, refusal to entertain
gun reform is a relatively new
development. As the Nixon tapes
indicate, President Richard Nixon,
who left the White House in 1974,
privately
floated
the
idea
of
a
wholesale
handgun ban. Nearly 50 years later,
the thought of a Republican president
vocalizing such a measure seems
absurd. Evidently, the problem is not
just McConnell’s present chokehold
of the Senate, but the culmination of a
decades-long process of conservative
radicalization.
While
Republican
resolve
to defend against “gun-grabbing
liberals” has solidified with time,
the terms in which conservatives
justify their firing position have
remained consistent. The argument,
as presented by McConnell & Co.,
is typically twofold, and involves an
invocation of the Second Amendment
and the assertion that gun reform
can’t
prevent
mass
shootings.
Arguing over the intent of the Second
Amendment with supporters of gun
rights is a fruitless exercise. While the
language of the amendment arguably
only permits gun possession for “a
well regulated militia,” conservatives
almost universally interpret the
Second Amendment as guaranteeing
gun
rights
for
individuals.
Fortunately for proponents of guns,
jurisprudence has historically sided
with the right, which is why appeals
to the Constitution have not been
the primary strategy of gun control
advocates.
Conservatives understand that
ink on parchment — even if that
parchment is the Constitution —
isn’t enough rhetorical ammunition
for the current state of debate.
Consequently, we frequently hear
the line that gun control wouldn’t
have prevented Dayton, or El Paso,
or Las Vegas or Parkland. We know,
however, that the perpetrators of the
August massacres purchased their
weapons legally. The shooters, of
course, may have gone through illicit
channels to obtain their firearms if
they could not legally buy them. But
the facts remain that compared to
other developed nations, the United
States suffers from gun violence on
an unmatched scale, and developed
countries that have implemented
gun control measures have seen
incredible declines in gun violence.
Partisan talking points aside,
it’s hard to dismiss public opinion
at a time when over 61 percent
of Americans want stricter laws
governing the sale of firearms as
of October 2018. Maybe the GOP
will recognize the way the wind
is blowing and choose to entertain
dialogue ahead of the 2020 elections.
Maybe Republicans will double down
on their current stance. I’d bet on the
former, at least to a degree, because
the polling is clear: More and more
Americans can no longer accept
Mitch McConnell’s prayers.
CHERYN HONG | COLUMN
Student life is already falling short with freshmen
A
s the summer wound
down and freshmen
prepared
for
their
first
semester
as
college
students, the class of 2023
received
an
e-mail
from
E.
Royster
Harper,
vice
president for Student Life.
The message contained
information on the online
modules all new students
are
required
to
take:
Sexual Assault Prevention
for
Undergraduates
and
AlcoholEdu
for
College.
What I found interesting was
how neutral I felt towards
the modules. It has come to
my attention that preparing
for college comes hand in
hand with the beginning
of
conversations
between
parents and students about
alcohol abuse and sexual
assault.
Both
are
serious
and
important
topics
of
conversation. However, most
of my peers have pushed the
modules aside, intending to
take them as late as they can.
Many don’t seem to consider
the topics as pressing or
important,
but
simply
another task to check off the
to-do list.
“I
think
most
people
already know at least some
of the logistics behind sexual
assault,” LSA freshman Tyler
Traskos said. “But I talked
to other guys from different
colleges who also had to
do the modules, and we
all agree that they present
the information in a way
which makes people want
to get through it as fast as
possible, rather than paying
attention.”
There are numerous other
universities,
along
with
U-M, that have reached out
to students to participate
in
the
courses,
however,
there remains a common
feeling of disinterest among
freshmen. While I greatly
appreciate the openness of
conversation and how many
schools across the nation are
participating, my skepticism
raises questions about the
effectiveness of the program.
The module is a lecture-
style
presentation
with
interactive
features
and
videos that admittedly grab
one’s
attention.
However,
after completing the exam, I
was unsure of what I should
be taking away from the
lesson.
Even with my knowledge,
I took the module somewhat
distractedly.
In
addition
to the repetitive questions
on the exams and verbose
facts from federal and state
law, there was something
missing.
There are tactics such
as not wearing a ponytail
while
walking
alone
at
night, using keys as claws
in-between your knuckles,
or never leaving your drink
unattended
—
all
simple
yet effective strategies for
students the modules could
promote. It isn’t enough to be
aware of the proper labels of
assault or where to find help
at the University, but to make
the issues more relatable and
applicable to the real world.
The module was informative,
but it didn’t reach the full
potential it could have.
Along with the modules,
freshmen
are
required
to
attend
two
in-person
sessions, each being two-
hour discussions, with regard
to sexual health and healthy
relationships.
Though
the
class of 2023 has yet to absorb
all
the
information
the
University is attempting to
share, it seems as though the
discussions set a standard for
other University of Michigan
students
to
discuss
these
issues.
“The in-person sessions
were
really
important
conversations to have, and
it brought everyone to the
same page,” LSA sophomore
Liliana
Arida-Moody
said.
“Overall, I think it’s a good
way to establish a healthier
culture with a big student
population.”
It is imperative to note
the privilege I had in high
school being able to receive
these lessons, as well as the
personal conversations I had
with teachers and mentors
who were aware of assault
and drug abuse. While it
isn’t perfect, the University
community is actively giving
students a chance to properly
educate themselves. Another
reason why these modules
are falling short is because
the students are not fully
harnessing what they learn.
It is the responsibility of
the freshmen to take the
information and use it the
best they can.
It’s an unfortunate reality
that the most effective way to
learn the true consequences
of alcohol abuse or sexual
assault
is
experience.
No
one understands the grim
truth of alcohol abuse and
sexual assault unless affected
personally, which is why I feel
the need to push universities
and even high schools to
educate students before they
reach a point of helplessness.
The United States still
faces
a
high
number
of
unreported
sexual
assault
incidents and alcohol abuse,
especially in college settings.
However,
many
families
and
educational
programs
do not have these necessary
conversations
until
the
students’ first year of college.
How we educate students
reflects upon our society
and how we discuss an issue
that
has
long
been
kept
underground.
My hope is that, along
with
the
online
modules,
in-person sessions and overall
conversation about alcohol
and sexual assault, there will
be a spark for an even larger
and
deeper
conversation
among University students.
This should be the starting
point for students to actively
seek
better
solutions
and speak up about their
experiences so the academic
community can become more
honest, progressive and find
more
effective
programs
for the incoming freshman
classes.
A
s
students
at
the
University of Michigan,
we are all at some
form of a crossroads in our lives.
College is a time when adolescents
transform into productive, adult
members of society, often residing
away from family for the first
time and becoming financially
independent. We explore new
ideas and develop stances that
shape our viewpoints for the rest
of our lives.
Among
these
experiences,
there is another junction that
often gets lost in the mix — a
biological one. After spending
our formative years growing
physically and psychologically,
we are now in our late teens
and early twenties and at the
beginning of the physical and
cognitive primes of our lives. It
is within the next decade that
most of us will be in the window
of time in which our minds
and bodies have capacities to
do more extraordinary things
than they ever have and ever
will again. Following this, many
aspects of this potential will
creep into a decline that continues
for the remainder of our lifetimes.
The question is: Should we make
it a priority to seize this moment
and capitalize on our maximum
biological potential while the
window is still open?
For a long time, my answer
to this question was “yes.” I
have always been a proponent
for seeing one’s potential to
actuality. As such, it made sense
to me that squandering time
during one’s twenties that could
be used for self-betterment was
a waste — how else is one to see
what they are truly capable of
physically and mentally?
The
physical
aspect
of
this notion was significantly
influenced by elite athletes’
career trajectories. A classic
example is Michael Phelps. Phelps,
considered by many as the greatest
male swimmer and Olympian ever,
broke the world record when he
won eight gold medals in Beijing at
just 23. He would never do it again,
and at the 2012 Olympics, 19 year
old Kristof Milak broke the then-
27 year old’s record. The fact that
Phelps reclaimed the gold medal in
the 200 meter butterfly and earned
four more at the 2016 Olympics,
at 31, makes him an anomaly as
male Olympic gold medalists in
swimming events are, on average,
about 21 years old.
Cognitive performance with
respect to age has been the
subject of ongoing discourse in
psychology. Processing multiple
tasks such as digit symbol coding,
digit span, and vocabulary, peaks at
about 20 years of age. While short-
term memory was measured in
different ways at each age, short term
memory typically peaks roughly
three times over someone’s life:
once at around 10 years old, the next
at 30, and the last at 50.
A decline in creativity, while less
rigorously studied, is still evident.
U2, one of the most financially
successful bands of all time, has
been actively releasing new music
for 40 years. For their first 20
years, U2 underwent dramatic
shifts in musical style several
times without any drop-off in their
massive popularity, a testament
to their ability to remain flexible.
However, the band’s last five albums,
starting with 2000’s All That You
Can’t Leave Behind, have been less
well-received, indicating perhaps
that they have lost their zeal for
reinventing themselves at this stage
of their lives.
Since I have started college, I have
thought about examples such as
these, and many others, frequently,
telling myself that it is important
to seize the opportunities in early
adulthood to see what my full
potential is as a person before
my biological clock sends me
over my peak and the windows
of my physical and cognitive
maximums
close.
However,
trying
to
maximize
every
aspect of oneself as a person
is a daunting and impossible
prospect, and at the end of my
sophomore year, I felt that I had
achieved little toward pursuing
this ideal.
Over this past summer, I
realized that statements such as
those above are implicative of an
erroneous assumption that our life
“peaks” must be realized during our
biological peaks. We are still humans
capable of doing incredible things
into mid and late adulthood.
The majority of people reach their
professional peaks well after their
biological peaks. The average age at
inauguration for presidents of the
United States is 55 years; Donald
Trump was inaugurated at age 70,
and top Democratic presidential
candidates
Joseph
Biden,
Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth
Warren are 76, 77 and 70
years old respectively. Part of
this is likely due to the value
of
experience.
While
fluid
intelligence may reach its apex
in early adulthood, crystallized
intelligence peaks at the middle
of a lifespan.
From this perspective, we
can actually turn back to sports
and learn from athletes in skill-
centered disciplines. LeBron
James, who has arguably been
the world’s best basketball
player for the past decade, was
the most dominant player in
the 2018 NBA playoffs at age
33, despite having had lost a
step physically, largely because the
diverse skill set he honed during
his career enabled him to pick
apart defenses in endless ways.
Both Serena and Venus Williams
continue to be world-class tennis
threats. Tom Brady won his sixth
Super Bowl at age 41. Tiger Woods
won the Masters at 43. Their body of
experience allows them to keep their
ceiling of performance extremely
high.
Though I am still a proponent
of people trying to leverage
their potential while they are
young, my idea of “maximum
potential”
has
changed.
At
the end of the day, many of us
have a vague idea of what our
personal or professional life
goals are — some of us may have
a bucket list of things we’d like
to do over the course of our
lives. My current viewpoint
is that achieving these goals
throughout one’s life, rather
than solely while young, and
living a fulfilling life are the
ultimate signs of fully-realized
human potential. Perhaps this
isn’t breaking news to most, but
it has changed the way in which
I view my personal trajectory.
What does maximizing our potential entail?
Cheryn Hong can be reached at
cherynh@umich.edu
MAX STEINBAUM | COLUMN
Max Steinbaum can be reached at
maxst@umich.edu.
Mitch McConnell’s meaningless prayers
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the
editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300
words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words. Send
the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
Dipra Debnath can be reached at
dipra@umich.edu.
DIPRA DEBNATH | COLUMN
SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK
The Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan
Daily for first-person accounts of sexual assault and
its corresponding personal, academic and legal
implications. Submission information can be found at
https://tinyurl.com/survivorsspeak2019.
There remains a
common feeling of
disinterest among
freshmen