Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
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

American police are not equipped for mental illness
T

he July 18, 2016 shooting 
of 
Charles 
Kinsey 
is 
just one of many police 
shootings of unarmed Black men 
that has garnered media attention. 
Kinsey, a caretaker for individuals 
with disabilities, was allegedly 
accidentally hit by the officer’s 
bullets. The intended target was 
Arnaldo Rios Soto, a man with 
severe autism who had wandered 
away from the group home where 
Kinsey was employed. As Soto sat 
motionless on the ground while 
clutching a toy firetruck, which 
the officer allegedly mistook 
for a firearm, Kinsey tried to 
explain the situation and pleaded 
with the officers not to shoot. In 
this instance, Kinsey survived 
his 
injuries, 
and 
the 
North 
Miami officer who shot him was 
ultimately acquitted of attempted 
manslaughter charges. Beyond 
the connection to racial biases 
in the police force, this example 
highlights 
another 
problem 
plaguing law enforcement: the 
treatment of individuals with 
mental illnesses. 
There is no shortage of stories 
involving those with mental 
illnesses or other disabilities 
experiencing violence at the 
hands of police officers, and they 
often have more tragic outcomes 
than Kinsey’s experience. Take, 
for example, the 2017 fatal 
police shooting of a deaf man 
in Oklahoma, the fatal shooting 
of an 18-year-old man with 
schizophrenia and the brutal 
beating and tasing of a diabetic 
man experiencing altered mental 
status due to hypoglycemia. In 
fact, mental illness was involved 
in 25 percent of police shootings 
in 2017. Even more sobering, 
mentally ill individuals are 16 
times more likely to die from a 
police encounter than the general 
population. Based on these facts 
and the multitude of tragic deaths 
at the hands of police violence, 
it is clear that American police 
officers require further training 
on how to handle cases involving 
those with mental illnesses. 
The main problem contributing 
to the elevated levels of police 
violence 
toward 
individuals 
experiencing 
mental 
health 
crises is that law enforcement 
is often the first line of defense 
called to manage them. The 
mentally ill or those experiencing 
medical emergencies impacting 
their mental state are often 
perceived as threatening to those 
around them. The purpose of law 
enforcement is not to be a frontline 
in providing medical care, such 
as for mental health. However, 
when family members or loved 
ones of someone experiencing 
an acute mental health crisis 
call 911 in search of support, 

police officers often show up, 
rather than emergency medical 
technicians. In some states, such 
as Oklahoma, police officers are 
legally required to transport 
the mentally ill to the hospital 
for 
involuntary 
commitment. 
Oklahoma police officers even 
receive payment from the state 
mental health budget specifically 
for performing these transports. 
Even in states where the police 
are 
not 
legally 
required 
to 
transport involuntary commits 
to the hospital, it is often easier to 
have law enforcement do so. 
The involvement of police 
in mental health emergencies 
concerning 
involuntary 
commitment is often a matter of 
law or practicality. However, it 
often perpetuates the notion that 
the mentally ill are a dangerous 
population. In the vast majority 
of scenarios, people with mental 
illnesses are not a danger to others. 
They are simply in need of serious 
medical attention that can often be 
difficult to obtain. Yet, training for 
police officers seldom focuses on 
the correct management of mental 
health emergencies. Instead, the 
majority of training is centered on 
how to manage individuals who 
actually are dangerous, creating 
a disconnect for police officers 
between what they have learned 
and what they actually experience.

Seth Stoughton, a University 
of South Carolina law professor 
and former police officer, says 
that “do whatever you need to 
do to get home at the end of your 
shift” is the most important 
rule taught to training officers. 
Such a line of thinking clearly 
emphasizes 
the 
worst 
case 
scenario in all situations. Thus, 
police officers are trained to 
seem intimidating to those they 
are 
interacting 
with. 
These 
behaviors can include speaking 
with a loud, booming voice, 
moving closer to whom they 
are 
speaking 
with, 
keeping 
their hand on their weapon and 
maintaining a wide stance. To 
an individual of sound mind, 
such behaviors are unnerving 
and signal the necessity of 
compliance. However, to an 

individual 
experiencing 
an 
acute mental health emergency, 
interacting with police officers 
behaving in this manner is 
downright terrifying. As opposed 
to obeying officers’ commands, 
a mentally ill individual may 
begin to behave unpredictably. 
For example, they may lunge at 
the officer or otherwise try to 
escape the situation. When this 
happens, the officer may then 
resort to violence, such as tasing 
or shooting. Therefore, police 
training does not adequately 
prepare the officers to handle 
the 
complexities 
of 
mental 
health emergencies. 
Treatment of mental illness 
is 
often 
overwhelmingly 
complicated. There is no one 
universal approach on how to 
best handle an individual in 
mental crisis. That being said, it 
is clear that the current method 
of employing law enforcement 
to 
handle 
mental 
health 
emergencies is failing. In order to 
provide better treatment for the 
mental ill in medical crisis, some 
police departments have begun 
to implement Crisis Intervention 
Team 
programs. 
These 
programs are community-based 
and create connections between 
law enforcement, mental health 
care providers, hospital-based 
emergency services and mentally 
ill individuals. CIT programs 
look to educate officers on how 
to best handle mental illness 
without the use of lethal force 
or the arrest of the individual. 
The trainings aim to increase 
empathy and techniques on how 
to best de-escalate a situation. 
Police officers receiving training 
also listen to recordings to 
simulate auditory hallucinations 
sometimes 
experienced 
by 
schizophrenic 
patients 
and 
take multiple daily “pills” made 
of candy to demonstrate the 
difficulties in maintaining a 
treatment regimen. 
Mental illness is extremely 
common in the United States. 
With nearly half of all adults 
diagnosed 
with 
a 
mental 
illness at some point in their 
lives, it is increasingly likely 
that police officers will come 
into contact with a mentally 
ill individual throughout their 
daily work. Currently, police 
encounters with the mentally 
ill all too often employ the 
use of lethal force. In order to 
best provide for the nation’s 
mentally ill population, police 
departments and communities 
must come together to create 
an 
environment 
to 
provide 
assistance to those in crisis.

JOSHUA KIM | COLUMN

Andrew Yang offers the best of the 2020 Democrats

ALICE LIN | COLUMN
The Democratic debates are getting us nowhere
A

s I was watching the 
fourth 
Democratic 
debate, the realization 
struck me halfway through that 
I was bored. Since the summer, 
I’ve been following the televised 
discourses religiously to gain 
a better understanding of each 
candidate’s platform and gauge 
their responses to issues affecting 
our nation before the primary 
election. But the fourth time 
around, I just didn’t have it in me 
to sit through another three-hour 
show. With a fifth one scheduled 
to take place in November, the 
question nagged at me: Why do we 
need so many debates? 
Of course, the purpose is 
to allow the public to learn 
more about why one of these 
18 candidates is best fit to be 
president. But is there really 
anything new being said on stage? 
Ever since candidate Andrew 
Yang said it in the second debate, 
it has become more apparent these 
debates are really just “political 
theater.” Candidates still vie for 
standout moments where they 
can get a jab at another candidate 
or a slogan they can overuse — 
like the “I wrote the damn bill” 
line from Sen. Bernie Sanders, 
I-Vt. It stops feeling like a forum 
for the discussion of important 
issues and more like a moderated 
verbal sparring match. There’s no 
need for an excessive amount of 
debates when candidates are only 
going in circles with their talking 
points and nothing new is being 
introduced. 
The problem with these debates 
is the field of candidates hasn’t 
narrowed; while the third debate 
had only 10 candidates, the fourth 
had 12. The whole purpose of 
having a smaller pool of candidates 
is to get a deeper insight how their 
views and plans differ, but if the 
debates continue to include more 
candidates who probably will not 
win, it defeats the purpose. There 
is less time for each candidate 
to talk and many of the lesser 
known candidates barely get any 
speaking time compared to the 
frontrunners. Even at the last 
debate, the moderators spent a 
lot of time going back and forth 

between candidates who were 
arguing over one issue, which 
restricted the amount of air time 
other candidates got to speak. If 
anything, the qualifications to 
participate in these debates need 
to become more selective so the 
public can focus their attention 
on those who will most likely have 
the best chance at winning the 
primary. 
Furthermore, it felt like the 
candidates were just reusing their 
talking points at this last debate; 
a lot of the topics candidates are 
asked are recycled versions of 
questions from older debates that 
tie back into the larger umbrellas of 
foreign policy, gun control, health 
care and the economy. There is a 
lack of focus on other issues which 
also matter; Sen. Kamala Harris, 
D-Calif., called out the lack of 
focus on women’s rights while 
former Rep. Julian Castro added 
climate change and immigration 
to the list of neglected topics. 
It becomes repetitive to hear 
candidates recite the same lines 
about Medicare for All versus 
private plans when there are so 
many other health care issues the 
audience wants to hear about.

Another 
aspect 
about 
the 
structure of these debates that 
should change is how much 
the audience gets to contribute 
towards 
deciding 
what 
the 
candidates 
discuss, 
especially 
since candidates are running for 
the right to represent these people. 
While the debates are too large to 
follow the structure of town hall 
meetings where constituents get 
to directly ask questions, there are 

other ways to gauge the audience’s 
interests. 
The 
organizations 
hosting the events should allow 
constituents to send in issues they 
want to hear more about or even 
host a livestream where viewers 
around the nation could send in 
questions. While it is also true that 
candidates are able to change the 
subject to focus on women’s rights 
or climate change, it takes away 
from their time to give their input 
on other policy issues. It’s unlikely 
that any candidate would have 
changed their mind in the month 
between debates, so why not ask 
more relevant questions instead 
of forcing viewers to sit through 
another three hours of the same 
discourse? 
All 
of 
this 
comes 
into 
consideration since the University 
of Michigan is scheduled to host 
its own presidential debate next 
fall. Of course, the circumstances 
of this debate will be different 
— the pool of candidates will 
be much smaller and this time 
they will be on opposing sides. 
Even so, the structure of political 
debates 
can 
be 
improved, 
especially since students would 
want a chance to ask questions 
about issues they care about such 
as in previous debates. We should 
aim to make the experience more 
streamlined 
and 
productive 
especially since students have 
a 
personal 
investment. 
For 
many of them, it may be the first 
presidential election in which 
they get to vote. Furthermore, 
a lot of the proposed policies 
will actually impact the future 
of these students, so students 
should be given the opportunity 
to directly participate and gain a 
better understanding of pressing 
issues. 
The 
University 
itself 
stated its intentions to contribute 
as a whole to the development 
and understanding of issues that 
face the nation. With all eyes on 
it next fall, the school should take 
the chance it has to improve on 
the way that these debates are 
structured and set an example for 
the future.

Alanna Berger can be reached at 

balanna@umich.edu.

Alice Lin can be reached at 

alicelin@umich.edu.

W

e’ve all experienced 
this story before. A 
businessman comes 
out from the political dark. He 
has never held office before, 
neither local nor national. He 
has one main policy proposal 
that encourages a few people to 
give him a following. At first, he’s 
ridiculed by his peers, the media 
and the public, and few people 
decide to take him seriously, 
particularly online and on social 
media. The argument goes that 
this man is neither experienced 
nor qualified for the nomination. 
For the first few months, he 
lags behind his traditional and 
established competitors but starts 
to weed out established senators 
and governors. And when the 
primaries come around, he begins 
to galvanize the people. Suddenly, 
in one fell swoop, he secures the 
nomination and then shortly after 
the presidency. This is the story of 
Donald Trump. For some, it was 
a horror show highlighting the 
flaws within our political system. 
For others, it was a legendary tale 
of a man that, for lack of a better 
word, trumped the established 
political landscape. Regardless 
of how one may have seen the 
rise of Trump, it is undoubtedly a 
historic political feat.
Fast forward to the beginning 
of November 2017, a relative 
unknown joins the race as a 
Democrat, vying to challenge 
Trump for the presidency in 
2020. His main claim to fame 
— if one could even call his 
existence before the election 
cycle anything akin to “fame” — 
is that he was a tech executive. 
He has one main policy proposal 
that encourages a few people to 
follow him. At first, it seemed as 
though no one mainstream gives 
him attention and chalks his 
main policy as merely a gimmick. 
But, he continues nonetheless. 
While the mainstream TV media 
neglects him, a newer medium 
— the internet — carves him a 
following in the form of podcasts 
and videos. Moreover, he does 
something nearly unprecedented 
in modern America’s divisive 
political climate and crosses the 
partisan divide to speak with 

some of the opposition’s most 
provocative 
and 
influential 
figures. He has developed a 
passionate base on the internet, 
and that support has manifested 
into thousands showing up for 
his rallies. This man is Andrew 
Yang, and his flagship proposal 
is a Universal Basic Income, or 
“Freedom Dividend,” providing 
every adult in America $1,000 per 
month.
Considering the results of the 
2016 election, it would have been 
well-advised for the Democratic 
establishment 
and 
the 
mainstream media to be wary of a 
seemingly small political outsider 
with a fervent media following. 
But they weren’t. And now, a 
man with zero political chops 
hovers around the fifth favorite 
for the Democratic nomination, 
according to Business Insider’s 
polling, competing right behind 
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., 
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. and 
former Vice President Joe Biden.
Yang’s rationale for UBI stands 
on the fact that the immediate 
automation of labor fields will 
disenfranchise millions over the 
next decade. He proposes that 
UBI be the preemptive measure 
for America to brace for the 
Fourth 
Industrial 
Revolution. 
And even now, the ramifications 
of automation have begun to 
show. At the beginning of 2019, 
it was estimated that roughly 25 
percent of America’s jobs were 
threatened by automation and 
potentially 73 million jobs could 
be leveled by automation by 2030. 
Being a tech executive in Silicon 
Valley, Yang has spoken to the 
fact that automation is one of 
America’s greatest coming crises. 
Yet, 
at 
the 
September 
Democratic debate, Yang offered 
to give 10 families $1,000 per 
month for one year to prove the 
effectiveness of UBI, and he 
was met by laughter from the 
other candidates on stage — 
once again, shamelessly proving 
the disconnected nature of the 
Democratic 
Party. 
Millionaire 
Democratic 
candidates 
once 
again patronized average working 
families. These elitist millionaires 
laughed, but everyone else did 

quite the contrary. After the 
debate, the entire pilot paid for 
itself in the form of $1 million 
raised in just 72 hours after the 
debate from 450,000 donors. And 
in the October debate, just one 
month later after being laughed at, 
UBI and automation stood at the 
forefront of the debate. It doesn’t 
seem like anyone is laughing now. 
Furthermore, 
Yang 
has 
fervently placed emphasis on 
bridging the political divide. 
Instead of focusing on why Trump 
should not have been elected like 
other candidates, Yang humbly 
recognizes that there was a large 
and influential disenfranchised 
working class that felt abandoned 
by the Democrats and settled 
for Trump. Yang has become 
an advocate for the Midwest, 
catering to both Democrats and 
Republicans alike, arguing for 
more investment in the Midwest. 
His mottos are also inherently 
bipartisan: “Not left, not right, 
forward” and “Humanity First.” 
Yang’s 
followers, 
comically 
known 
as 
the 
Yang 
Gang, 
are comprised of a coalition 
of 
Democrats, 
Republicans, 
independents and everything else 
in between.
Possibly one of Yang’s most 
impressive 
feats 
is 
not 
his 
meteoric rise in popularity or 
his bipartisan commitment to 
bettering humanity, but his ability 
to dodge the explosive, immature 
wrath of Trump. Ever since the 
announcement of his campaign, 
Trump has barely tweeted about 
him. Think about it. Trump. 
The man who has an opinion on 
everyone and everything has yet 
to speak about Yang. Before, one 
could say it was because of his 
relative obscurity. Now, he has 
reached the main stage, and still 
nothing. There’s something else 
going on here. Andrew Yang is the 
political paradox: He resonates 
with the people like Trump did – 
minus the reckless temperament 
of Trump – and is extremely 
substantive, presenting dozens 
of comprehensive and innovative 
policies.

Joshua Kim can be reached at 

joshica@umich.edu.

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/survivespeak.

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.

Employing law 
enforcement 
to handle 
mental health 
emergencies is 
failing.

The qualifications 
to participate in 
these debates 
need to become 
more selective.

