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.