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