Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
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
SONEIDA RODRIGUEZ | COLUMN
College students should escape the vape
I
magine, for a second, that
your health is your grade
point average. Right now,
regardless of how high or low
your GPA is, it does not have an
impact on your ability to meet
your day-to-day needs. Your GPA
doesn’t prohibit you from eating,
sleeping or finding a decent part-
time job. However, perhaps your
first “Welcome Week” turned into
a “Welcome Semester” and you
ditched the library for tailgates.
Whether it’s interviewing for
your dream job or applying to
graduate school later down the
road, you are likely to face some
regret and pain for the decisions
you made when you were younger
and less experienced. The same
can be said about your health.
Like your freshman year GPA,
when it comes to your body’s
health, there are no do-overs.
Just as partying, skipping class
and failing exams can take their
toll on your GPA, habits such as
vaping can come at a price.
Vaping in recent years has
grown in popularity and evolved
into its own culture. The practice
is no longer confined to smoking
cessation; students taking a hit
between classes or at the library
are no longer an uncommon sight.
As one VICE article explained,
“vaping
can
mean
different
things to different people.” In
essence, vaping is the inhalation
of
vaporized
e-liquid
using
e-cigarettes, including JUULs
and similar devices. E-liquid
is either propylene glycol or
vegetable glycerin mixed with
nicotine or marijuana (THC or
CBD) and can contain artificial
flavoring.
Vaping’s
increasing
popularity is not unique to the
University of Michigan’s campus.
The
University’s
national
“Monitoring the Future” study
found the percent of college
students vaping marijuana and/
or nicotine doubled between 2017
and 2018.
Unfortunately, we are just
beginning to witness the impact
that this cultural phenomenon is
having on our short-term health.
As of Sept. 2019, six people
have died from lung illnesses
related to vaping nicotine or
THC. According to the same
VICE article, about 450 cases
of vaping-associated illness are
suspected in hospitals across the
United States. MeiLan K. Han,
professor of internal medicine
in the Division of Pulmonary
and
Critical
Care
Medicine
at
Michigan
Medicine,
told
VICE that “at this time there
is no guaranteed ‘safe’ form
of vaping,” because the cases
have been linked to e-liquid
containing
marijuana
and
nicotine. Perhaps this growing
epidemic can be traced to lack
of regulation. As the VICE
article states, currently there is
no regulation or inspection of
e-cigarette
manufacturers
or
vape shops, so there is no way to
tell if a device or liquid is from
a reputable source. Without
regulation from the U.S. Food
and
Drug
Administration,
e-liquid manufacturers have free
rein to mislabel the contents of
their product and do not have
to meet a single standard during
the manufacturing process.
Furthermore, the long-term
health costs of vaping are just
as steep as the short-term
consequences.
According
to
VICE, some studies have found
vaping CBD can cause some
users to experience irritability,
lethargy, reduced appetite or
urination,
gastrointestinal
distress, rashes, breathing issues,
or in the worst instances, liver
problems or exacerbations of
mental health issues. Proponents
of vaping often argue it’s a better
alternative to smoking cigarettes
and has enabled them to find a
sense of community. However,
a recent Stanford University
investigation of flavored e-liquids
found that even without nicotine
e-cigarette use, flavorings may
increase one’s heart disease
risk. As important as it is to find
a support group, it shouldn’t
have to come at the expense of
your health. While we should
acknowledge that e-cigarette
use has helped smokers reduce
or eliminate their addiction,
we can’t ignore the fact that
vaping is also inspiring the next
generation to become addicted to
nicotine.
When it comes to preventing
the practice of vaping in the
first place, the work of state
governments
is
worrisome
at best. As long as our state
governments
continue
to
generate revenue from tobacco
product sales, the idea of states
running and funding tobacco
prevention programs seem to be
a complete conflict of interest.
During the 2019 fiscal year, all
50 states will collect over 27
billion dollars in total revenue
from tobacco settlements and
tobacco taxes. However, only 2.4
percent of this revenue will go
towards tobacco prevention and
cessation programs. Michigan’s
tobacco
prevention
program
funding currently ranks 45th out
of all 50 states with a budget that
is only 1.5 percent of the funding
levels
recommended
by
the
CDC. The reality is that tobacco
products are a significant source
of revenue for the state; from
a fiscal standpoint, why would
the state fully fund prevention
programs
that
jeopardize
a
revenue source? Placing the
responsibility of preventing drug
use in the hands of the same
institution that is profiting from
it doesn’t make sense.
Luckily for college students
at the University and across
the country, there are ample
resources available on campus
to help students with substance
abuse. Programs are in place
within the University Health
System to break down financial
and immigration status barriers
that might impede access to
these resources for students.
However, this is only accessible
if students are willing to ask for
help. Nevertheless, the resources
available on campus represent a
reactive solution to this growing
epidemic. Students often do not
access these resources until after
vaping has become a substantial
problem. As vaping continues
to grow in popularity, resisting
peer pressure to start vaping
regularly will only prove more
difficult.
Consequently,
high
school students on their way to
college do not fully grasp these
consequences of vaping. If we
want to make sure students are
making an educated choice to
vape and discourage students
from starting in the first place,
we need a proactive solution.
As
college
students,
our
firsthand experience navigating
the stressors and social pressure
of college life makes us uniquely
qualified to educate students
on how to avoid or reduce
consumption
of
e-liquids.
College students should take
the lead on educating the next
generation on the consequences
of vaping. As the leaders and the
best, we have a responsibility
to educate the next generation
of college students about the
reality of substance use and
consequences on campus.
In life, rarely do we ever
purchase
something
without
knowing its price. By failing to
properly educate youth on vaping
and its potential health risks, we
are allowing young vapers to
blindly jeopardize their health,
both long term and short term.
Just like your freshman year
GPA, your body’s health doesn’t
get a “do-over.” As a student
body, we have a responsibility to
take advantage of the resources
available to curb vaping for those
who do not believe it’s worth
the expense to one’s health.
We also have a responsibility
to educate the next generation
of college students about the
consequences of vaping and the
resources available to help them
quit. Vaping should not be a blind
choice: It should be an educated
choice.
Soneida Rodriguez can be reached
at soneida@umich.edu.
ALLISON PUJOL | COLUMN
S
oon
after
Venezuelan
President Nicolás Maduro
secured a second term
in an election that has since
been widely regarded as rigged,
the
president
enthusiastically
greeted crowds of Venezuelans
gathered outside the presidential
palace in Caracas for an election
night celebration. “This was a
historic day! The day of a heroic
victory! The day of a beautiful
victory — of a truly popular
victory,” Maduro said.
But other countries don’t
exactly share Maduro’s gusto
for those re-election results.
The Venezuelan leader has faced
international backlash in the past
year because he had intimidated
or
barred
opponents
from
running. In January, opposition
leader Juan Guaido assumed an
interim presidency amid public
outcry
against
the
corrupt
Maduro
regime,
advocating
for free and fair elections. The
United States, Brazil, Argentina,
Colombia, Chile, Peru, Britain,
Germany, France, Spain and
more
than
a
dozen
other
members of the European Union
have all recognized Guaido as the
legitimate leader of Venezuela,
and there are indications of
rising military defections from
Venezuela.
Less
than
a
week
ago,
El
Salvador’s
president
Nayib
Bukele
announced
that the country would be
severing diplomatic relations
with Venezuela. As part of
this
decision,
Venezuelan
diplomats were given 48 hours
to
vacate
the
Venezuelan
embassy.
In
retaliation,
Maduro chose to expel the
El
Salvadorian
diplomats
from Venezuela, making it
clear that relations between
the two countries reached
an all-time low. The abrupt
diplomatic shift has caught the
attention of other countries;
Guatemala’s government has
since indicated an interest in
breaking ties with Maduro’s
government on Twitter as well.
Why all the hostility around
Maduro’s election and past
political position? Venezuela’s
political stability has been
the center of international
conversation as a result of
former President Hugo Chavez
and Nicolás Maduro’s recent
terms, which have spurred
what some have termed the
country’s “free fall”: Hyper-
inflation,
food
shortages,
stifled
dissent
and
mass
migrations out of the country
have led many to believe that
the ongoing systemic crisis in
Venezuela is exacerbated by
an unresponsive and corrupt
president. In particular, the
recent waves of food and water
shortages have had devastating
effects on Venezuelans. Earlier
this summer, BBC reported
on power cuts throughout
the country that forced some
families in Venezuela to forgo
cool air in the summer and eat
rotting meat that decomposed
in
no-longer-cool
fridges.
Thus, El Salvador’s government
has maintained the claim it is
no longer worth it to continue
diplomatic negotiations with
a country whose leadership
has shown an unwillingness to
change its disturbing behavior.
However, it would be wise to
exercise some restraint in any
decision to cut off negotiating
efforts. Even if El Salvador
has decided to cut ties with
Venezuela, the United States
should
carefully
consider
its own posture towards the
increasingly dictatorial regime.
One relevant consideration is
that sanctions and embargoes
have mixed legacies both in
the United States and abroad;
empirical studies have shown
that these policy tools are
more likely to create economic
pressure without the necessary
political pressure to spur regime
change. Failing sanctions on
Iran
have
correlated
with
increasing Iranian violations
of the nuclear deal, and the
Cuban
embargo
has
only
further
cemented
the
rift
between Cuba and the United
States, without much political
progress. Democratic countries
should recall that attempts to
isolate other governments can
only further drive Venezuela
away from the ideals they wish
to uphold.
Even if we believe that
Maduro is to blame for the crisis
in Venezuela — even if we choose
to
forget
the
oft-forgotten
history of U.S. meddling in
South and Central America —
Maduro’s claim that the West
has acted to intervene in Latin
American politics for personal
imperialist
gain
certainly
becomes much more persuasive
when other countries refuse
to make deals with Venezuela.
Abandoning
diplomacy
only
risks further pushing Venezuela
into the arms of countries that
will allow further oppression
at Maduro’s hands. Indeed,
Maduro’s solid grip on political
power in Venezuela despite the
mass unrest within the country
has been sustained by close
ties to allies such as Russia.
Russia’s
overall
motivations
in Venezuela are likely too
complex to fully explore here
(oil plays a large role in the two
countries’ relation), but a side
effect (intentional or otherwise)
of
the
recent
Russian-
Venezuelan alliance is its effect
as a “spoiler” for United States-
based efforts in Latin America.
Even if negotiations between
the United States and Venezuela
are difficult, the risk of some
political deal remains possible
yet distant given the right
positive incentives.
But El Salvador’s decision has
closed that future off entirely,
as well as attracted the ire of
a country already teetering
on
domestic
pressures
and
instability. The United States
should be wary of attaining
the same result: After all, it’s
conventional
wisdom,
and
perhaps
intuitive
political
reasoning, that honey works
better than vinegar.
Allison Pujol can be reached at
ampmich@umich.edu.
Isolating Venezuela is a dangerous game
Just like your
freshman year
GPA, your body’s
health doesn’t get
a “do-over”
It would be wise
to exercise some
restraint in any
decision to cut
off negotiating
efforts
Addressing racial disparities within the student debt crisis
JARED STOLOVE | COLUMN
O
ver the past 17 years, the
amount of outstanding
student loan debt in the
U.S. has increased more than
sixfold, from less than $240 billion
to $1.46 trillion. As the value of
student loan debt has increased,
so has the longevity of the loans.
More than 7 million Americans
over the age of 50 were still paying
off their student loans in 2017, as
compared to less than 5 million
in 2007. With college tuition
continuing to outpace inflation
year after year, this trajectory is
set to continue.
In response to this crisis, almost
all of the Democratic presidential
candidates have proposed some
sort of student debt forgiveness
policy.
For
example,
Sen.
Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has
proposed cancelling up to $50,000
in student loan debt for over 40
million Americans who qualify
based on their income. More
radically, Sen. Bernie Sanders,
I-Vt., has proposed forgiving all
student loan debt, even for the
very rich. While many of the
other candidates’ plans are less
ambitious than those of Warren
and
Sanders,
all
remaining
candidates
have
identified
student loan debt alleviation as an
important issue.
These policies are much more
than “handouts” to individuals
who took on more debt than they
could possibly repay. While the
causes of the student loan crisis
are complex, it’s undeniable that
government policies, such as the
deregulation of for-profit colleges
and the utilization of private
student
loan
servicers,
have
greatly exacerbated the issue.
Given the federal government’s
role in causing this crisis, it has
a responsibility to address its
consequences.
Moreover,
the
negative
consequences of excessive student
debt affect all Americans, not just
debtors. Studies have shown that
excessive student debt dampens
wealth accumulation, hampers the
growth of small businesses and
pushes individuals out of lower-
paying public service professions.
The explanation here is simple:
College
graduates
with
large
amounts of student loan debt are
forced to take jobs that maximize
their ability to meet their debt
payments, reducing their ability
to take risks or invest in long-term
careers. Forgiving the existing pool
of student debt is therefore in the
interest of all Americans.
While
the
Democratic
candidates should be praised for
their ambitious plans to tackle this
issue, each of their proposals fail
to address the way that the student
loan crisis has disproportionately
affected people of color. Data
released by the Department of
Education in 2017 revealed that
the student debt crisis has affected
Black
and
white
Americans
significantly
differently.
Most
shockingly, the data shows that,
12 years after taking out student
loans,
the
average
African
American
borrower
owes
12
percent more than they initially
borrowed. In contrast, the average
white borrower is three times
more likely to have paid off their
debt at that same 12-year mark.
These numbers aren’t simply
reflective
of
the
correlation
between race and other factors,
such as income and geography;
they reflect additional challenges
that Black students face at every
stage of their loan’s life cycle.
Lawsuits
against
for-profit
colleges that have defrauded their
students have revealed that these
businesses intentionally target
minority students through their
branding. For example, Ashford
University, a largely online for-
profit university with a 16 percent
graduation rate, bragged in a 2018
press release that it had been
recognized as a “Top 100 Minority
Degree Producer.”
Moreover,
Black
borrowers
may be pushed into paying higher
interest rates on their student
loans than their white peers.
While relatively little is known
about discrimination in student
loan markets, many studies have
found that Black borrowers are
discriminated against when they
apply for credit cards, auto loans
and mortgages. For example,
one study found that African
Americans are twice as likely as
whites with similar risk profiles to
be charged a subjective “markup”
over their base interest rate on
auto loans.
However, emerging evidence
shows that the largest divergence
between Black and white student
debt
burden
appears
after
college. A Brookings Institution
study found that, at graduation,
Black students owe $7,400 more
than their white counterparts,
a number that balloons to over
$25,000 in the next four years.
The study found that a quarter of
this difference was attributable
to lower repayment rates, which
partly reflects the large degree
of racial discrimination present
in the labor market. However,
most of the postgraduate increase
in the Black-white debt gap
stemmed from African Americans
attending
for-profit
graduate
schools at higher rates, suggesting
that for-profit colleges also target
minorities for graduate school
enrollment.
Each Democratic presidential
candidate
has
attempted
to
position himself or herself as an
advocate for people of color. Yet,
no Democratic candidate has
addressed any of these widespread
issues in their student debt policies
thus far. If Democrats are to truly
enact social justice, they need to
engage with the ways that every
policy is filtered through a structure
of intentional and unintentional
racial discrimination. The existing
plans, which only forgive loans
based on income and attempt to
control costs, will simply leave this
structure intact.
Jared Stolove can be reached at
jstolove@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.