Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, September 24, 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
ALANNA BERGER | COLUMN
Keep mental illness out of your criticism
E
arlier
this
month,
Democratic
presidential
candidate
Sen.
Kamala
Harris,
D-Calif.,
found
herself
under criticism for laughing and
responding “well said” to a voter’s
question in which they referred to
President Donald Trump’s actions
as “mentally retarded.” Harris has
since apologized, stating that she had
not heard these specific comments
and “that word and others like it
aren’t acceptable. Ever.” Despite the
apology, this moment reveals a larger
societal issue at hand: the widespread
use of terms relating to mental
illness to discredit an opponent or to
otherwise put others down.
In their criticisms of Trump,
many of his detractors have levied
accusations
of
mental
illness
against
him.
The
left-leaning
political website Vox referred to
him as “crazy” in a headline, while
sports and political commentator
Keith Olbermann has referred to
the president as a “psychopath” on
Twitter. Some have even gone as far
as to diagnose him with different
psychological disorders, including
narcissistic
personality
disorder
and dementia. These comments
continue to be made, despite the
absence of any legitimate medical
diagnosis made public by the Trump
administration.
Criticism directed towards an
individual’s actions on the basis of
a mental illness is not unfounded.
Indeed, Trump has engaged in
many
questionable,
damaging
and puzzling behaviors. However,
unsubstantiated claims of mental
illness are harmful to greater society
as a whole. Regardless of how one
feels about the president and his
actions, allegations of mental illness
and uninformed “diagnoses” of
different disorders perpetuate the
stigma of those living with legitimate
mental illnesses. The use of terms like
“crazy,” “insane” or “psychopath”
to discredit someone’s professional
capacities perpetuate the idea that
people with mental illnesses are
incompetent, dangerous, unstable
or weak. This stigma is ubiquitous
in American society. When typically
well-respected
figures
such
as
politicians or journalists levy mental
illness accusations to discredit an
opponent, the stigma is just enabled
to spread farther and become more
deeply ingrained. Out of fear of being
labeled as crazy, some mentally ill
Americans do not seek treatment for
their disorders. This trend goes on to
worsen the suffering and persistence
of symptoms associated with mental
health.
Whenever a critic calls upon
a mental diagnosis to invalidate
President Trump’s actions, they
are perpetuating the stigma that
those with mental illnesses are
individuals less capable of leading
productive lives and are a threat to
society. In fact, Dr. Allen Francis,
the former head of Duke University’s
Psychiatry Department, appeared
on CNN to denounce the misuse of
psychological terms as criticisms
of behavior. He said that the
combination
of
accusations
of
mental illness and politics can have
dire consequences for the general
public, mainly because it stigmatizes
the mentally ill, who are often
“well-behaved, well-mannered, and
good people.” Moreover, he stated
that “lumping the mentally ill with
Trump is a terrible insult to the
mentally ill and they have enough
problems and stigma as it is.” In their
efforts to criticize political strategies
and policies they do not agree with,
these individuals are unintentionally
targeting the millions of Americans
living with a mental illness.
The pejorative use of mental
illnesses
and
terms
associated
with them extends far beyond the
Trump administration. American
psychiatrists are governed by The
Goldwater
Rule,
barring
them
from providing their opinion on
the mental state of individuals they
have not personally evaluated under
their own medical care. The rule
itself stems from a 1964 libel suit
by Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz.,
against a magazine. The magazine
had printed an opinion compiled
by more than 1,000 psychiatrists
stating that Senator Goldwater was
mentally unfit for office. Though
this particular case is over 50 years
old, the American Psychiatric
Association maintains it is still
relevant today. This practice is not
in place solely to avoid lawsuits.
Psychiatrists worry that frequent
unsubstantiated claims of mental
illness
without
any
physical
evidence will undermine their
profession, making clients with
legitimate diagnoses of mental
disorders less likely to trust them
for medical treatment. The cavalier
usage of medical terms pertaining
to mental illness cheapens the daily
struggle faced by the mentally
ill and in turn delegitimizes the
treatment process. By doing so,
patients who already deal with the
often isolating effects of mental
illness furthermore feel as though
they have no resources to help them
deal with such issues.
Beyond the realm of politics,
the colloquial use of mental illness
in vocabulary continues to have
harmful effects. Many psychological
disorders have entered the common
vernacular as nouns to describe
different unusual behaviors or
idiosyncrasies
in
individuals.
Instances such as referring to a
propensity for neatness as “OCD,”
changes in demeanor as “bipolar” or
an occasional inability to concentrate
as “ADHD” are very common. While
it is unlikely that people use these
terms to intentionally diminish the
very real symptoms of mental illness,
language is integral to shaping how
we understand the world. Whether it
is high-profile politicians seemingly
condoning the use of slurs against
people with disabilities, criticisms
of the president or simple everyday
conversation, using mental illnesses
in a casual manner hurts everyone,
most importantly those struggling
with such disorders themselves.
Alanna Berger can be reached at
balanna@umich.edu.
Justin Trudeau fights his biggest enemy: his own image
ZACK BLUMBERG | COLUMN
BRITTANY BOWMAN | COLUMN
Stop salivating your genetic privacy away
I
was first exposed to the
concept of genetic testing
companies in a Biology 172
lecture my freshman year. The
professor at that time stated,
“This was one of the things I fear
most about revolutionary genetic
technology.”
Since the late 2000s, 23andMe
has emerged in a brand new field of
accessible genetic testing. Individuals
can simply buy a $99 ancestry kit or
$199 ancestry and health kit from
the
company’s
website,
deposit
their saliva into a vial, send it in and
wait for the results. The company
can then look at thousands of
microscopic regions of your DNA
or sites in your genome. At first, this
was for discovering quirky traits
that indicated you were genetically
predisposed to have flat feet, hair
photobleaching, motion sickness, a
unibrow, etc. There isn’t any inherent
issue with this, but this phase of
interest did not last long because there
is much more intriguing information
to extract from your DNA.
23andMe soon began including
purchasable packages that would
allow the consumer to know if they
were a carrier of certain potentially
life-changing traits. The “Health
Predisposition report,” found on
23andMe’s website, includes results
for the BRCA1/BRCA2 gene, Celiac
Disease,
late-onset
Alzheimer’s,
Type II diabetes and more. The
genomic regions up for analytics are
often telltale signs of the impending
onset of metabolic diseases or
increased risks for breast cancer,
among hundreds of other examples.
However,
any
product
that
is intended by the company as a
way of preventing or diagnosing
a disease needs to be deemed safe
and effective by the Food and Drug
Administration. So when 23andMe
shifted their marketing ploy closer
to diagnoses and individual health
knowledge, the FDA stepped in.
In July 2012, the company finally
began the process of obtaining
clearance from the FDA to sell the
kit they had been selling since 2007.
Fast forward another six years
to Oct. 31, 2018, when the FDA
finally “authorize(d) first direct-to-
consumer test for detecting genetic
variants that may be associated with
medication metabolism.” The FDA
recognized that consumers were
increasingly interested in using
genetic information to help make
decisions about their health care,
but they also pushed that these tests
needed to be designed in a way that
still heavily encouraged consumers
to seek out medical care by a licensed
physician or health care provider and
to confirm problematic test results
using
clinical
pharmacogenetic
testing.
However, the FDA is missing
the point. The purchasable options
23andMe provides are not primarily
intended to be utilized as medical
devices, which was the FDA’s cause
of concern. The kits offered are
façades for an immense gathering of
personal information that is taking
place directly under the noses of
those who participate. Doesn’t sound
like a big deal? Perhaps collecting
the DNA of thousands of consumers,
analyzing
their
genomes
and
learning what traits and diseases they
are disposed to is not particularly
scary. The problem arises when this
information is stored within the
company’s databases permanently.
Once this information is gathered, it
could potentially be made available
to
pharmaceutical
companies,
insurance brokers, employers or
family
members.
Your
genetic
information could be used against
you and is just another step towards
the total infringement of privacy.
Think
about
huge
search
engines like Google. The amount
of
information
stored
within
their databases exceeds numbers
comprehensible to a normal human
being. Every search query entered
into the Google search engine
is stored, right along with the
individually identifiable information
oozing from everyone’s laptops and
networks. This massive store of data
has undoubtedly become Google’s
best asset over time. Patrick Chung,
a board member of 23andMe,
stated, “Once you have the data, (the
company) does actually become the
Google of personalized health care.”
Eerily analogous to Google’s growth,
Chung also mentions that “the long
game here is not to make money
selling kits, although the kits are
essential to get the base level data,”
the goal of 23andMe is to create
and sustain mass data-gathering
operations.
There are many pros and cons to
a database full of millions of human
genomes. Co-founder of 23andMe
Anne Wojcicki stated, “I want 25
million people. Once you get 25
million people, there’s just a huge
power of what types of discoveries
you can make. Big data is going to
make us all healthier.”
When you think about hospitals,
pharmaceutical
companies
and
even the government, genetic
information on a monumentally
accessible scale is very likely
to be an excessively valuable
commodity. Of course, you consent
to give your genetic information
away. You buy the kit, deposit
your spit in the vial and mail it in
for analysis. Maybe you read the
privacy policies, stating that they
implement measures to ensure
confidentiality and integrity of
23andMe data and they do not
share customer data with any
public
databases.
Specifically,
23andMe states they “will not sell,
lease, or rent your individual-level
information to any third party
without your explicit consent.”
Revisiting the Google analogy,
we’ve all heard 23andMe’s pledge
before. In the online world of
storing
personal
information,
companies that strive to obtain
individually identifying data do not
deeply care about consent, whether
it be explicit or implicit. While the
FDA focuses on whether or not
the kits produced by 23andMe are
safe, they fail to address the issue
looming over all of our heads: What
are they doing with all the data?
Think about your relatives:
There is probably one aunt, uncle,
cousin or grandparent who has
sent in their vial of spit. Even if
you haven’t, the company on the
receiving end has valuable genetic
information about you through
the participation of blood relatives.
You never consented to handing
over your genomic information.
You may be heavily uncomfortable
with that idea. Things could be
discovered that you didn’t want
to know and this knowledge could
add vast amounts of anxiety to your
life. Someone could eventually use
this data against you: insurance
companies could deny you for a pre-
existing health condition, same with
employers. Surprisingly, 23andMe’s
terms of service even states if you
are “asked by an insurance company
whether you have learned Genetic
Information about health conditions
and you do not disclose this to them,
this may be considered to be fraud.”
Ironically enough, they also
include that “Genetic Information
you share with others could be used
against your interests. You should be
careful about sharing your genetic
information with others.”
Except for them, naturally.
Brittany Bowman can be reached
at babowman@umich.edu.
O
n Dec. 7, 2015, Justin
Trudeau stood in front of
the Canadian Parliament
and
delivered
his
first speech as Prime
Minister of Canada.
For Trudeau, the sky
seemed to be the limit:
At the young age of
43, he had helped the
Liberal
Party
win
back the government
for the first time in
nearly a decade, come
into office with an
impressive 63 percent
approval rating and
promised ambitious government
reforms,
including
more
transparency and accountability.
However,
fast-forward
to
today, and things look radically
different for Trudeau. In a political
system where incumbent prime
ministers are strong favorites,
Trudeau finds himself struggling.
His Liberals are neck-and-neck
with
the
rival
Conservative
Party, and his approval rating
has dropped into the 20s. As
with
most
political
issues,
there is no single component of
Trudeau’s government to blame.
Instead,
Trudeau’s
struggles
can be attributed to a multitude
of factors, most importantly
his inability to live up to his
self-created
political
brand,
combined with his vacillating
positions on climate change.
To begin, it is important
to
acknowledge
that
while
Trudeau’s
government
is
obviously far from perfect, it
has still accomplished a great
deal in certain areas. One of
Trudeau’s
campaign
pledges
was to create a gender-balanced
cabinet comprised of 15 men
and 15 women, a promise he
ultimately
followed
through
with. Additionally, while his
environmental record is far from
perfect, he has still shown some
effort to improve environmental
policy.
Outside
of
pure
politics,
Trudeau
has
also
been
enormously effective at crafting
his personal image, something
which plays to his strengths.
Similar to former President
Barack Obama in the U.S.,
Trudeau worked hard to brand
himself as a liberal politician
for the modern era: hip, cool
and charismatic, with a strong
social media presence and a
focus on political values held by
young people, like diversity and
environmentalism. For Trudeau,
this branding was enormously
effective. His aforementioned
gender-balanced
ministerial
cabinet, his Bhangra-dancing
and sari-wearing when he visited
India and his consistent presence
at
Canadian
Pride
festivals
are just some examples of how
well he’s marketed himself as a
charismatic liberal figure.
Additionally,
America’s
election
of
Donald
Trump
in 2016 turned Trudeau into
something of a liberal icon, with
his good looks, sharp dressing
and eloquent speeches making
him a natural foil to America’s
president.
Unfortunately for Trudeau, his
strong personal image is actually
at the heart of his struggles.
In
many
ways,
Trudeau’s image has
actually
been
too
effective, ultimately
hindering
him
once
real
political
concerns are present.
While
Trudeau’s
brand
represents
ambitious
ideas
and liberal values,
government politics,
gridlock and electoral
concerns have often
forced him to deviate from his
stated goals, most likely leaving
progressive
Canadian
voters
frustrated and disappointed.
Trudeau’s failure to live up to
his own political hype has been
apparent in his environmental
policies. Throughout his tenure
as
prime
minister,
Trudeau
has laid out ambitious and far-
reaching
plans
for
fighting
climate change, and he received
worldwide
attention
for
his
proactive role in the negotiation
of the Paris climate accord. After
President Trump pulled the U.S.
out of the Paris climate accord
in 2017, Trudeau even issued a
thinly-veiled rebuke, saying, “for
our part, Canada will continue to
fight for the global plan that has
a realistic chance of countering
it. We have a responsibility to
future generations and we will
uphold it.”
However, in contrast with his
stated goals, Trudeau’s actual
environmental measures have
been subdued and disappointing.
The most glaring example of
this came in spring 2018, when
Trudeau’s government decided to
nationalize the Trans Mountain
Pipeline for $4.5 billion CSD
to ensure it was expanded.
The pipeline, originally built
in the 1950s, carries oil from
tar sands in northern Alberta
to Canada’s west coast, and is
seen by liberals as an inhibitor
of Canada’s efforts to become a
leader in renewable energy and
environmental activism. Despite
those issues, and protests from
First Nations groups over the
potential concern of oil spills
on their land, Trudeau went
ahead
with
the
purchase.
Though Trudeau’s (somewhat
convoluted)
explanation
for
nationalizing the pipeline is that
if Canada can produce more oil,
it can make more money and
therefore invest more heavily
in renewables, it is also likely
a political move. The pipeline
provides a number of jobs in
Alberta, a place where Trudeau
is historically quite unpopular
but would like to garner more
support. Just last week, Trudeau
skipped a ministerial debate to
hold the second rally of his 2019
campaign in Edmonton.
Unfortunately for Trudeau,
issues like his environmental
policies and his mishandling of
the SNC-Lavalin scandal, which
ended with the resignation of
one of his government ministers,
have emboldened a swath of
leftist voters who believe he is
not sufficiently dedicated to his
stated goals. Both of Canada’s
other influential leftist parties,
the
New
Democratic
Party
(polling around 13 percent for
the upcoming election) and the
Green Party (polling around
10
percent)
have
released
statements
demanding
the
Canadian government take a
more aggressive position in the
fight against climate change.
The NDP even called Trudeau
out by name over his proposed
carbon tax reforms, saying in
an April 2019 press release,
“Unfortunately, Justin Trudeau’s
Liberals have failed to bring the
provinces together in support
of a federal carbon tax. At the
same time, they are asking
everyday Canadians to do more,
while practically eliminating the
carbon tax for some of our biggest
polluters.”
Ultimately, Trudeau’s problem
is not that he’s been a bad prime
minister. Instead, his issue is
actually that he branded himself
too effectively, creating hype
around
ambitious
proposals
which he was ultimately unable
to follow through on. Thanks
to this predicament, Trudeau
has faced attacks from the right
(he is still a Liberal PM, after
all) and left, with many liberal
voters feeling disenchanted with
Trudeau’s inability to implement
his lofty goals.
Trudeau’s image crisis has
been compounded in recent days
by a series of revelations about
his usage of blackface in his
younger years, something which
points to a similar problem, but
on a larger scale: While carefully
working to portray himself in
one way, Trudeau has covered
up or failed to take responsibility
for actions which go against his
self-created brand. In regard
to his incidents with blackface,
they undercut his strong rhetoric
on racial equality and call into
question his devotion to looking
good versus taking action, much
the
way
his
environmental
rhetoric has been undercut by
his policies in that sphere.
Ultimately,
while
Trudeau
is still the narrow favorite in
Canada’s
upcoming
election,
he finds himself in a radically
different position than he did four
years ago, with an onerous tenure
as prime minister shattering the
golden boy persona he had so
carefully cultivated in years prior.
Zack Blumberg can be reached at
zblumber@umich.edu.
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.
ZACK
BLUMBERG
In many ways,
Trudeau’s image
has actually
been too
effective