Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, December 2, 2019
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Grace Hermann
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Michael Russo
Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Lola Yang
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
VARNA KODOTH | COLUMN
We cannot continue to fail our suvivors
“
Now that we are speaking,
let us never shut up about
this kind of thing. I speak
up to make certain that this is
not the kind of misconduct that
deserves a second chance. I
speak up to contribute to the end
of the conspiracy of silence.”
This is from the very end of
actress Lupita Nyong’o’s op-ed on
her one-on-one encounters with
producer Harvey Weinstein in
The New York Times published
back in 2017. I reread it now
and then to better understand
her story, as it likely shaped her
as a woman and actress. Maybe
it’s because I feel that I owe her
and all the women at least that
much. No matter how many
times I try to read it I find myself
wondering: Where did we fail
her? How do we continue to fail
every single female warrior who
has come forward with their
truth? I struggle to read through
all the #MeToo stories because
I already know the sequence of
events that follows extremely
vulnerable,
courageous
acts
like Nyong’o’s: The story gains
plenty of traction, elicits a strong
response (typically more so from
women) but then is forgotten
over time. Where is the justice in
this? It is unimaginably difficult
to offer the world your personal
story and to speak up about a
deeply personal experience.
More specifically, the female
voices stepping forward from
the film industry to share their
harrowing
experiences
with
Weinstein
deserve
justice.
There’s
a
power
difference
between these actresses and
Weinstein here that cannot go
unnoticed. It’s an unfortunate
thematic
element
of
most
sexual assault narratives. So
let’s call it exactly like it is:
Harvey Weinstein is a white,
heterosexual established male
in
a
challenging
industry
who preys on young, early-
professional women. It brings to
light the disadvantaged position
women — and women of color
in particular — are placed in
from the moment they choose
to enter a career in Hollywood.
Every story I read, I am
taken aback by the confidence
Weinstein
presumably
held:
the very same confidence that
drove his ability to mentally
manipulate budding stars and
to toy with their passions and
life paths. Based on the social
identities he holds, it is not a
coincidence that he also holds
dominance
in
the
industry
and therefore he is cushioned
by his success. The power
dynamics are important here
because what he did is worse
than
simply
disrespecting
women; he disrespected their
hard work. It’s the same reason
why Weinstein is able to plead
not guilty despite the damning
evidence and the same reason
why he’s comfortable making
a public appearance though he
is soon to be on trial and faces
rape allegations.
Just the other week, at
Rutgers University, a minor
was arrested for sneaking into
the Livingston dormitory on
campus and sexually assaulting
a college student. What scares
me is that, as I read this, I
didn’t feel phased by the story.
It wasn’t until I read a follow-
up on the case a few days later
that I reflected and began to
feel disturbed by the young
age of the assailant and the
fact that this took place in
what’s supposed to be a safe,
on-campus location with card
swipes and security. Stories
like this are happening all the
time, all over the world, and
while there is media coverage
of higher-profile situations,
it doesn’t seem there are any
steps taken to prevent this
from happening again and
again. This is the crux of the
situation. When, and how do
we start making strides to fix
it?
I particularly struggle to
read
the
Weinstein-related
sexual
harassment
stories
because
I
always
wonder
how Weinstein changed the
feelings of his victims toward
their hard-earned work. I
learn about the strong women
behind the words and I want
to help them in the only way
that I can: I want their stories
to be heard and I want it to be
their narrative. Sharing stories
is an incredible and powerful
practice and I am proud that
there are mediums and safe
spaces for these stories to
be shared, increasingly so
in contrast to the rest of the
world. Yet, there needs to be
a purpose to sharing these
stories. There needs to be some
reciprocation from the social
justice end.
We cannot afford to let
Weinstein
slip
through
the cracks. We cannot let
Weinstein
re-enter
the
public
sphere.
We
cannot
continuously fail the victims
of sexual assault. We cannot
continue to only listen to these
voices and then not confront
reality. The justice system is
absolutely failing our victims,
but so are we. We must actively
support and advocate for the
victims, as victims shouldn’t
be the only advocates. So until
Weinstein goes to trial on Jan.
6, 2020, don’t just sit back and
watch what happens. Educate
yourself on the allegations,
read the victim cases and
actively support the survivors
who bravely share a piece of
themselves with us.
Varna Kodoth can be reached at
vkodoth@umich.edu.
ALANNA BERGER | COLUMN
Billionaire tears
I
n early November, Michael
Bloomberg, billionaire and
former mayor of New York
City, entered the 2020 Democratic
primary for president of the United
States. Bloomberg entered the race
to add to the moderate lane because
apparently one billionaire and
another mayor of New York City just
weren’t enough.
Bloomberg’s entry into the race
could be motivated by concerns
about the rise of Sen. Elizabeth
Warren, D-Mass., and her wealth
tax, which would tax two cents
on every dollar of one’s assets
beyond $50 million. This policy
would
disproportionately
affect
billionaires, because billionaires
own a disproportionate amount of
wealth in the U.S. In fact, the top
three richest men in America —
Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren
Buffett — own more wealth than
the entire bottom 50 percent of
the U.S. population, which is about
160 million people. It is important
to note that gender and racial
disparities in wealth inequality are
particularly prevalent in the U.S. Yet,
Bloomberg isn’t alone in attacking
Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders’
stances against billionaires. In fact,
Bloomberg’s
fellow
billionaires
Leon Cooperman, Gates, Mark
Zuckerberg, Ken Lagone and Jamie
Dimon have also criticized Warren
and Sanders for their commentary
on billionaires.
Coopeman came out in support
of Bloomberg’s candidacy, saying:
“He understands how the world
works. He’s not a hater.”
Later in the month, Cooperman
responded to an ad by Warren’s
campaign
that
addressed
billionaires,
saying:
“She’s
disgraceful. She doesn’t know who
the f*** she’s tweeting. I gave away
more in the year than she has in her
whole f***ing lifetime.”
The billionaire feels threatened.
Poor billionaires. Well, except for
the fact that neither Warren nor
Sanders’ tax policies for billionaires
would substantially reduce their
amount of money.
In response to the growing
whining by billionaires, Warren
released
her
billionaire
tax
calculator. It has ready calculations
of how much billionaires like
Bloomberg and Republican donor
Charles Koch would pay under her
wealth tax. Bloomberg’s estimated
net worth is about $54 billion;
he would pay about $3 billion in
taxes, leaving him with a meager
$51 billion. Gates, who recently
complained about Warren taxing
him $100 billion, would be taxed
about $6 billion, leaving him with a
paltry $101 billion.
Some argue that we should
be
thankful
for
philanthropic
billionaires like Bill Gates. Gates,
famous for being a co-founder of
Microsoft, also co-founded the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation. It
wasn’t for purely altruistic motives,
though.
Anand
Giridharadas,
author of “Winners Take All: The
Elite Charade of Changing the
World,” has said, “Gates was the
first one who really started and
shifted his image really drastically
from sort of … well, Darth Vader (by
engaging in philanthropy).”
To
be
fair,
the
Gates
Foundation has done a lot of good
in the public health realm — such
as supporting efforts to eradicate
malaria, improving access to
vaccines and expanding access
to contraception worldwide. Still,
Bill and Melinda Gates donated
only $4.78 billion in 2017, which
is about a billion and a half less
than what they would pay under
Warren’s wealth tax. It is also
important to note a billionaire’s
philanthropic
donations
are
not guaranteed; they could stop
flowing or significantly decrease
at any moment. Philanthropy is
not a substitute for taxation. A
plan like Warren’s or Sanders’
would guarantee they pay their
fair share to society.
Warren’s wealth tax could be
used to fund universal childcare,
student loan debt cancellation,
universal free college and more.
Her six-cent tax on every dollar
in net worth over $1 billion will
be used to pay for Medicare
For All, which would guarantee
health care to every single
American as a basic human
right.
What’s
really
frustrating
about this entire conversation
is that we are only listening to
these people because they have
a lot of money. Billionaire Tom
Steyer has bought his place on to
the Democratic debate stage —
by spending $10 million dollars
just to gain $1 from the required
130,000 donors — and continues
to survive in the race because
he can spend millions on TV
ads. Being the CEO of a popular
coffee company or being a hedge
fund manager does not make
you qualified to be president of
the U.S. any more than being a
reality TV host and fraudulent
real estate businessman does.
Why aren’t we seeing the
same amount of — or more —
coverage of people whom these
policies would help? Where
are the interviews of people
working three jobs to support
their families or those who are
being crushed with medical
debt? Why do we care more
about the opinions of a few rich
people than the millions who
are not insured at all or the 45
million people who would have
their student loan debt canceled
under Warren’s policy?
Well,
Americans
are
particularly inclined to love rags-
to-riches stories and find rich
people aspirational. Millionaires
and billionaires are ostensibly
the American dream come true.
And yet, economic inequality
hurts everyone, even the rich.
Bloomberg’s entry into the
primary — and the collective
tears
of
billionaires
—
is
emblematic of how people who
are empowered by the status quo
will always work to maintain that
status quo. Power is hard to let
go. They’ll dig their heels in and
clench their firsts, but we can
change the systems that allow the
rich to get richer while the rest of
us get poorer. The billionaires are
scared. And that’s how we know
we’ve got ‘em.
Marisa Wright can be reached at
marisadw@umich.edu.
MARISA WRIGHT | COLUMN
How rehab facilities fail their patients
I
n her new podcast series
“Last Day”, author and
activist Stephanie Wittels
Wachs introduces listeners to
her younger brother, Harris
Wittels. She begins by detailing
Wittels’s
almost
meteoric
rise to success as a comedy
writer, beginning with his
first major writing job at age
22 for “The Sarah Silverman
Program.” From there, Wittels
was hired as a staff writer for
NBC’s “Parks and Recreation,”
where he eventually became
executive producer. In this
time period, he coined the
term
“humblebrag,”
which
eventually
entered
the
dictionary and was the basis
for a book he later published.
As “Parks and Recreation”
approached its series finale,
Wittels was set to move to
New York City to co-star in
and write for Aziz Ansari’s
acclaimed
series
“Master
of None.” But less than a
week before the “Parks and
Recreation”
final
episode
aired, Wittels died of a heroin
overdose at the age of 30.
What many in his life did not
know was that throughout his
various successes, Wittels had
been struggling with substance
abuse of opioids stemming
from a previous back injury.
He had entered and completed
a
rehabilitation
program,
which
was
successful
for
some time before he suffered
a
relapse.
Soon,
Wittels
turned to injecting heroin for
a cheaper, stronger high. By
the time of his death, Wittels
had completed three stints
in
different
rehabilitation
facilities.
The three-time failure of
rehabilitation
facilities
to
provide lasting recovery for
Wittels is not an isolated
case. In fact, between 40
to 60 percent of those with
substance abuse problems who
enter treatment experience
relapse. The reason for these
failures is not because of an
inability on the part of the
patient to get clean, but an
institutional failure on the
part of the facility to provide
therapeutic
processes
that
actually work. In the United
States
today,
rehabilitation
for drug and alcohol abuse
disorders is a multi-billion
dollar industry, yet it is also
an
industry
that
fails
in
providing lasting recovery for
those seeking help. In order
to remedy this issue, society
must look into why these
facilities have been able to get
away with their failures and
hold them accountable for the
lack of standards that lead to
an ineffective system.
For individuals dealing with
substance
abuse
disorders,
rehabilitation centers are the
first step on a difficult path to
recovery. However, there is no
nationally accepted definition
of standards for rehabilitation
facilities.
This
lack
of
definition means that there
are no federally regulated
standards that facilities have
to meet to be considered
a
legally
sanctioned
rehabilitation
center.
The field of treatment for
addiction is overwhelmingly
underregulated and under-
supervised. In many states,
the process of becoming an
addiction counselor does not
even require that one gets
a high school degree or has
any specialized training. As a
result, rehabilitation centers
continue using old treatment
programs that do not have
scientific
evidence
that
supports their effectiveness.
To
understand
the
programs
that
abound
in
most rehabilitation facilities,
it is important to be familiar
with the “12-step program.”
This program has been the
gold standard in addiction
treatment
for
decades.
In fact, the exact 12-step
program
used
today
in
Alcoholics Anonymous was
first developed more than
80 years ago, in a time when
neuroscience was a fledgling
field of study. Additionally,
the program was developed to
largely serve alcohol abusers
participating
in
Alcoholics
Anonymous, not those with
addictions to drugs. Ruben
Baler, a health scientist for
the
National
Institute
on
Drug Abuse, emphasizes the
popularity of these 12-step
programs but states there is
no scientific evidence they
actually work. Baler further
explains the only evidence
used
by
rehabilitation
facilities to prove the efficacy
of such treatment programs is
purely anecdotal.
The
widespread
use
of
the
often
ineffective
12-step program is just one
manifestation of failures in
addiction treatment. A 2012
study from the National Center
on Addiction and Substance
Abuse at Columbia University
found that a low number
of patients with alcohol or
drug abuse disorders who
seek
treatment
receive
any care that even closely
approximates
evidence-
based care. Instead, many
rehabilitation facilities pour
their budgets into treatments
like equine therapy. While
such
facilities
boast
the
benefits of equine therapy as
stress-relieving
and
mood-
boosting, there is no empirical
data to support claims that
they help in substance abuse
recovery.
In the face of antiquated
treatment processes, it is no
wonder why many patients
at
rehabilitation
facilities
relapse shortly after finishing
treatment.
However,
many
substance
abuse
treatment
centers boast inflated success
rates. In fact, many assert
success
rates
of
over
80
percent for their patients.
Yet, when they are pushed to
provide evidence to support
these claims, they are unable
to do so. In more realistic
terms,
the
generally
prevailing success rate for
treatment programs is about
30 percent. Even after the
realization that 70 percent
of patients receive no benefit
from their time spent in
rehabilitation
centers,
a
figure many experts still
believe is too low, the reality
of rehabilitation treatment
gets more abysmal. A 2015
study found that patients who
solely received psychological
support in their treatment
program are twice as likely
to die from overdoses than
those who receive opioid
replacement
medications
such as methadone. Despite
this,
three-quarters
of
substance abuse patients are
treated without the use of
replacement medications.
As the opioid epidemic
continues
to
reach
crisis
proportions, the market for
those in need of treatment
is as large as ever. When
done properly, rehabilitation
centers have the power to
change lives for the better.
But a lack of accountability
and scientific evidence for
treatment efficacy combined
with a desire to maximize
profits create an industry
that fails its patients. Those
with
substance
disorders
are led to believe that these
facilities prioritize patient
recovery. Yet the fact remains
that there is more money in
recurrent patient relapses for
rehabilitation facilities than
there is in long-term patient
recovery.
Perhaps
this
is
the reason why treatment
centers continue to utilize
programs with no scientific
evidence of their efficacy and
simply perpetuate a cycle of
patient recovery and relapse.
It is a cycle that led to the
death of Wittels, the famous
musician Prince and millions
of
anonymous
Americans
seeking
treatment.
If
rehabilitation centers want
to become more capable of
providing lasting recovery,
they must abandon the 12-step
program as a one-size-fits-
all
model.
Additionally,
they must increase access
to
medication-assisted
treatment with drugs like
methadone as an acceptable
treatment
model,
allowing
patients to ease themselves
into a longer lasting recovery.
Finally, the American public
must hold the rehabilitation
industry
accountable
for
its unethical practices and
corruption. In its current
form, rehabilitation processes
provide inadequate care to
give their patients lasting
recovery.
By
implementing
these changes to the system,
those
suffering
from
substance abuse disorders can
access the recovery that is all
too elusive to them today.
Alanna Berger can be reached at
balanna@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.
How do we
continue to fail
every single
female warrior
who has come
forward?
Philanthropy is
not a substitute
for taxation.