Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Michael Russo

Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
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

MAX STEINBAUM | COLUMN

Populism’s popularity

ISABELLE SCHINDLER | COLUMN

Information leads to tolerance

W

hat started as a custody 
battle in Texas over 
seven-year-old 
twins 
has transformed into a cultural 
debate 
that 
underscores 
the 
damaging effects of intolerance and 
misinformation about health care for 
transgender people.
The custody battle between 
Jeffrey 
Younger 
and 
Anne 
Georgulas made national headlines 
in late October due to the couple’s 
disagreement 
over 
the 
gender 
identity of their child. One of their 
twins, who chooses to go by Luna, 
was assigned male at birth but 
identifies as female. Luna first began 
expressing a desire to be a girl at 
around age three. Since then, her 
mother has taken Luna to doctors 
who have recommended certain 
gender-affirming actions, such as 
allowing Luna to dress as a girl and 
identify as a girl in public. These 
so-called gender-affirming actions 
follow the American Academy of 
Pediatrics’ guidelines on how best to 
support children like Luna.
Luna’s father, however, refused to 
follow these recommended steps and 
would not recognize his daughter 
as a girl. He continued to use male 
pronouns for the child, called Luna 
by her birth name and refused to 
allow her to dress in female clothes. 
As he and his wife entered into a 
custody case, Younger also began 
publicizing the court battles, using a 
website created to raise donations for 
himself. He claimed that Georgulas 
was forcing Luna to identify as a girl 
and was going to push a medical sex 
change on Luna. Younger also used 
his website and subsequent media 
coverage for personal monetary 
gain. He is said to have made over 
$139,000 as a result of his actions.
It did not take long for right-

wing media to pick up on this story 
and add further false information, 
including claiming that Georgulas 
was going to “chemically castrate” 
Luna. Soon, the case became fodder 
for conservative politicians. Sen. Ted 
Cruz, R-Texas, claimed Luna was 
being used as a “pawn in a left-wing 
political agenda,” and Gov. Greg 
Abbott, R-Texas, said he had referred 
the case to the Texas Department of 
Family Services.

These comments by politicians 
only serve to misinform people 
about transgender health care. 
For young children such as Luna, 
it is recommended to use gender-
affirming actions such as allowing 
them to choose a new name, choose 
their pronouns and wear what they 
want. If children continue to identify 
with the gender they choose, they 
can begin undergoing treatment 
to block the onset of puberty in 
early adolescence. These hormonal 
treatments are reversible. Only 
later are the decisions made about 
undergoing surgeries.
On Oct. 24, Judge Kim Cooks 
decided to award the couple joint 
custody 
without 
compelling 
Younger to recognize Luna as a 
female. This unfortunate ruling 
will undoubtedly have a negative 

effect on Luna. 
Upon reading about this court 
case, I brought it up in conversation 
and was shocked to find many 
people whom I interact with in 
my daily life incorrectly believed 
that young children would receive 
irreversible medical treatments 
to change their gender. Most of 
these individuals are very tolerant 
of the LGBTQ community but are 
unfamiliar with the process of 
how gender affirmation works in 
regards to young children. 
For these people, it was simply a 
lack of information or even worse, 
the spread of misinformation. One 
of the most shocking things about 
this whole story is the role of fake 
news and hyperbole. Not only 
were websites pushing Younger’s 
claims, but so were elected officials 
such as governors and members of 
Congress. These are people who 
at face value we believe we can 
trust, but in reality, we cannot. 
Though it may be tedious, it is more 
important than ever for us to be 
cautious and to question the media 
we consume. We will all be better 
off if we read critically and ensure 
that what we are reading is actually 
rooted in fact.
If people ensured they read 
credible articles on this case, 
they would likely be able to find 
out about the benefits of gender-
affirming actions and would, 
therefore, be more accepting of 
parents and children who are 
using these actions. If we want 
to build a more tolerant and 
accepting world for children like 
Luna, it is up to all of us to embrace 
information that is based in truth.

Isabelle Schindler can be reached 

at ischind@umich.edu.

O

ne hundred and ninety-
five 
years 
ago, 
the 
Democratic-Republican 
Party 
tapped 
a 
hot-tempered 
Tennessean 
nicknamed 
“Old 
Hickory” to headline 
its 
presidential 
ticket. 
Andrew 
Johnson, the hero 
of 
the 
Battle 
of 
New Orleans — an 
entirely 
self-made 
man who grew up 
impoverished 
and 
orphaned in the Waxhaws 
region 
of 
South 
Carolina 
region of the Carolinas — 
received more than 45,000 
more popular votes and 15 
more 
electoral 
votes 
than 
his 
nearest 
competitor, 
National 
Republican 
John 
Quincy Adams, but fell short 
of the electoral vote majority 
necessary to secure the Oval 
Office. In accordance with 
the 
Twelfth 
Amendment, 
the election was therefore 
to be decided by the House 
of Representatives. Through 
congressional maneuvering — 
nefarious or adroit, depending 
on perspective — Adams, the 
son of Founding Father John 
Adams, won the House vote in 
February 1825. 
Supporters felt that Jackson, 
who had received a clear 
plurality, had been snubbed by 
Adams and his congressional 
allies. Four years later, the 
1828 election featured a second 
showdown between Jackson 
and the incumbent Adams, 
offering an opportunity to 
rectify the outcome of 1824. 
Much of Jackson’s base, rooted 
in the rural South and western 
frontier, 
disdained 
Adams 
as a pampered New England 
aristocrat. In Jackson, a man 
of the humblest origins, they 
had found a champion and 
protector 
of 
the 
common 
man against the blue-blooded 
Washington 
establishment. 
The 
populist’s 
resounding 
victory, therefore, was the 
first electoral triumph of the 
everyday American against the 
elite class to which the first six 
occupants of the White House 
belonged.
The 
electoral 
outcome, 
Jackson 
beamed, 
was 
a 
“triumph 
of 
the 
great 
principle of self-government 
over 
the 
intrigues 
of 
aristocracy.” The forgotten 
man, engaged in a perpetual 
struggle 
for 
recognition 
in a world dominated by 
elite interests, now had a 
champion at the highest seat 

in American government. 
Like an ocean tide that 
advances and recedes, the 
resurgence 
of 
a 
populist 
animus 
against “the elites” 
to the forefront of 
American politics is 
inevitable. The 2016 
election 
witnessed 
a rebirth of this 
perennial struggle. 
With the clinching 
of 
Wisconsin’s 
10 
electoral 
votes, 
Donald 
Trump 
became 
president-elect 
at 
2:30 a.m. November 9, 2016. 
An hour later, the brash New 
Yorker took to Twitter and 
acknowledged 
the 
populist 
wave that carried him to 
victory. “The forgotten man 
and woman,” Trump promised, 
“will never be forgotten again.”
The national populism that 
came to define Trump’s brand 
resonated 
with 
Americans 
who, like Jackson’s supporters, 
felt 
disaffected 
and 
disconnected with the world 
around them. Hillary Clinton, 
cast by her opponent as a self-
serving elitist, was an iteration 
of 
John 
Quincy 
Adams; 
Trump, an energetic disrupter, 
promised due consideration 
of the common man. In what 
was 
evidently 
perceived 
as a bold stand against the 
establishment 
machine, 
Trump framed himself as the 
brusque Jacksonian champion 
of blue-jeans America. 
Feelings of alienation — 
legitimacy aside — is what 
makes populist rhetoric so 
attractive. 
The 
fact 
that 
right-wing 
dimensions 
of 
populism have surged in the 
United States in recent years 
is no accident, because it was 
conservative populations who 
felt alienated in the lead up to 
the 2016 election. 
Take 
immigration, 
a 
spotlight issue in the last 
election 
cycle. 
Trump’s 
antipathies 
toward 
illegal 
immigrants were a rhetorical 
centerpiece of his presidential 
campaign; 
he 
has 
even 
since 
characterized 
illegal 
immigration as an “invasion” 
that has “violently overrun” 
America’s 
southern 
border. 
In promising a border wall, 
Trump seemed to reassure 
Americans 
that 
under 
his 
administration, 
unwelcome 
outsiders would not overtake 
Americans 
in 
their 
own 
country.
The 
populist, 
anti-
establishment 
character 
of 
Trump’s 
campaign 
rhetoric 

is evident in these statements 
too. “The fundamental problem 
with the immigration system 
in our country,” Trump said 
at an August 2016 campaign 
rally in Arizona, “is that it 
serves the needs of wealthy 
donors, 
political 
activists 
and powerful politicians. Let 
me tell you who it doesn’t 
serve: it doesn’t serve you, the 
American people.”
Conservatives, 
however, 
by no means have a corner on 
populism. A political narrative 
that juxtaposes the “common 
man” with the “elite,” the 
cornerstone of all populist 
ideologies, has found refuge 
in left-leaning rhetoric, too. 
While conservative populism 
has devoted much of its energy 
to immigration, Sen. Bernie 
Sanders, I-Vt. — the left’s most 
prominent 
populist 
— 
has 
railed against big business, 
corporate interests and the top 
one percent.
The progressive emphasis 
on tackling inequality has 
found increasing support: 29 
percent of Democrats were 
self-described “progressives” 
in 2016, a figure that rocketed 
to 44 percent by last year’s 
midterms. While none of the 
presidential candidates are as 
left-wing as Sanders, several of 
the presidential hopefuls have 
championed populist policies, 
such as sweeping health care 
reform and antitrust measures.
What has become clear from 
all this is that populism is in 
fashion because the theme 
of the common man against 
the elites is resonating with 
Americans 
of 
all 
political 
stripes. Four years ago, a 
New York developer observed 
this reality, built a campaign 
around it and took the White 
House 
through 
a 
populist 
wave. 
Three of the most important 
states in the 2020 election 
are 
Michigan, 
Wisconsin 
and 
Ohio, 
which 
together 
command 
a 
potentially 
decisive 44 electoral votes. 
With their Midwestern, old-
school idealism, voters in these 
states could very well buy into 
a liberal brand of populism. 
While 
most 
Democratic 
candidates fare well in head-
to-head 
polling 
against 
Trump, they would still do 
well to consider why Trump 
was able to turn these states 
red in 2016 — a question whose 
answer is rooted, of course, in 
populism’s popularity.

Max Steinbaum can be reached at 

maxst@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.

FROM THE DAILY

Building on CAPS

A

s the winter months quickly approach, many University 
students may begin to feel their moods darken as the weather 
gets drearier and schoolwork becomes more intense. During 
such times, mental health support services are in high demand.

For 
many 
students, 
the first line of defense 
against 
mental 
health 
struggles is the University 
of 
Michigan’s 
Counseling 
and Psychological Services. 
However, as wait times for 
appointments reach upward 
of two weeks, it is clear 
CAPS may not be accessible 
to 
all 
students 
seeking 
assistance. 
Many University students 
frequently criticize CAPS 
as 
ineffective, 
largely 
because of the long wait 
times. 
Services 
such 
as 
CAPS are deeply important 
to the University, and we 
encourage all students to 
seriously seek help if they 
need it. However, as students 
at the University, we feel 
there are fundamental and 
structural 
changes 
that 
CAPS must make in order to 
ensure that students are able 
to obtain the proper care. 
For many students, the 
actual 
purpose 
of 
CAPS 
is unclear. They do not 
prescribe medications for 
mental illness, but rather 
serve 
as 
a 
resource 
for 
short-term talk therapy and 
can act as a pipeline to other 
services on campus. They 
mainly act as a treatment 
center 
for 
acute 
issues 
and 
not 
for 
long-term, 
specialized care. However, 
the often prohibitively-long 
wait times do not reflect 
this 
aspect 
of 
providing 
care for short-term issues. 
Additionally, 
for 
many 
students on campus who 
may not have diagnosable 
mental 
disorders 
but 
regardless 
struggle 
with 
the 
demands 
of 
college 
life, talk therapy should 
certainly be prioritized over 
other 
treatment 
options 
such 
as 
medication. 
For 
this reason, they are an 
excellent resource for many 
University students. Yet the 
inability of CAPS to meet 
with students over a longer 
period of time is a hindrance 
to such individuals. The 
fact that they are unable to 
provide for such services 
with its current budget is 
understandable. 
However, 
CAPS should serve as a 
pipeline to other options 
for students in need of 

longer-term care. This can 
include services such as 
local 
therapists 
holding 
“office 
hours” 
to 
speak 
with students in need a 
few times a week, referrals 
to therapists in Michigan 
Medicine 
and 
access 
to 
professional 
therapists 
covered 
by 
insurance 
or 
with need-based aid. 
With that in mind, it would 
be helpful to students if 
CAPS took action to amplify 
their outreach and expand 
their 
resources. 
Certain 
steps 
have 
been 
taken, 
including 
North 
Campus 
recently opening their own 
Wellness Zone, but there 
needs to be more available 
to students living on North 
beyond the sun lamps in 
this space. CAPS has also 
taken steps to create school-
specific 
therapists 
for 
students on North Campus 
and beyond. This includes 
the 
implementation 
of 
“embedded” 
psychologists 
and social workers: At least 
one specialized and full-
time 
counselor 
in 
each 
University school, including 
those on North Campus. 
CAPS now even has two 
counselors 
conveniently 
available for all students in 
the College of Engineering. 
While these school-specific 
counselors 
do 
help 
to 
increase 
the 
therapist-
student ratio, there are more 
areas that need funding and 
resources.
While we acknowledge the 
work of CAPS with school-
specific 
therapists 
and 
counselors for non-binary 
and trans individuals, CAPS 
should continue to expand 
resources so more students 
are 
more 
comfortable 
readily 
accessing 
them. 
Implementation 
of 
the 
CAPS Trans Care Team, 
a group of mental health 
care providers specifically 
trained 
in 
providing 
affirming 
care 
to 
trans 
and 
non-binary 
students, 
is a great step in the right 
direction. 
Unfortunately, 
long wait times and limited 
professional resources can 
still compel students feel as 
if they cannot or should not 
seek adequate help. After 
all, knowing that there is 

scarce availability can make 
students hesitant to take 
those resources away from 
a fellow student who might 
“need it more.”
We 
acknowledge 
that 
CAPS on their own cannot 
simply 
revolutionize 
the 
current plan and implement 
new, radical programs. For 
that reason, the University 
should consider allocating 
more 
funding 
to 
CAPS 
so new ideas can be seen 
through and more staff can 
be hired. U-M’s budget for 
Counseling 
Services 
this 
year is nearly $3 million, 
a 
nearly 
$800,000-dollar 
decrease from that of the 
previous year. The University 
does not seem to have a 
lack of disposable income 
— 
the 
Michigan 
Union 
renovation, just one of many 
major campus construction 
projects, had a budget of 
$85.2 million. A new medical 
building is purported to cost 
U-M more than $900 million. 
It 
seems 
deeply 
illogical 
to cut funding to CAPS. 
There is an outstanding and 
chronic issue with mental 
health among students on 
campus, and U-M should 
recognize 
and 
respond 
to this demand for more 
mental health resources. It 
is arguably more important 
to have healthy, happy and 
treated students than a new, 
shiny building.
CAPS does a lot for our 
campus, 
but 
they 
could 
do a lot more and reach 
a 
much 
broader 
range 
of 
students 
if 
increased 
funding was poured into 
the program. While we do 
not want to negate the help 
they currently provide for 
thousands of students, we 
do challenge that this help 
is 
often 
temporary, 
and 
resources 
for 
long-term 
care often fall short. With 
the winter season steadily 
approaching, and as daylight 
continues 
to 
decline, 
we 
encourage better and more 
expansive 
mental 
health 
options and programming 
for students on campus.

MAX 
STEINBAUM

It is more 
important than 
ever for us to be 
cautious and to 
question the media 

If you or someone you know is in 

need of counseling and psychological 

services, CAPS can be reached at 

(734)-764-8312.

