2

022. As every new year 
does, 2022 presents the 
chance to start fresh. 
A little over a month 

ago, my favorite soccer team, 
Manchester 
United, 
replaced 

head coach and club legend Ole 
Gunnar Solskjaer with a German 
manager, a first in the club’s 143-
year history. A fortnight before 
Christmas Eve, the Indian cricket 
team adopted split captaincy for 
the first time. This was uncharted 
territory for India, a country that 
loves cricket. Before the clock 
struck 12 on Dec. 31, we saw the 
University of Michigan compete 
in the College Football Playoff for 
the first time since the playoff’s 
creation, generating a new era for 
a roster and coach its adoring fan 
base can finally rally behind. As 
the three teams my life revolves 
around entered new phases of 
their journey, I was served a 
stark reminder that sports is a 
cut-throat industry. It’s made 
up of individuals who are under 
pressure and expected to deliver, 
on and off the pitch. Hence, they 
often quickly learn an art that 
many take years to master: the art 
of dealing with change.

Change 
is 
a 
phenomenon 

that 
many, 
including 
myself, 

find difficult to deal with, but 
it is one that is often inevitable. 
An amygdala hijack refers to a 
situation where the brain senses 
danger and immediately orders 
the body to react in a way that 
might counteract that danger. 
Change is one such trigger that 
the brain might consider a threat, 
which 
is 
why 
many 
people 

often resist even the smallest 
of changes; be it getting used to 

a new morning coffee shop or 
traveling halfway across the world 
to complete your undergraduate 
studies in a significantly colder 
and significantly smaller city than 
the one you grew up in. Everybody 
has their own reasons for avoiding 
change, but most of us would 
also agree that change is not only 
required, but more often than not, 
it is beneficial. So, as the new year 
begins, how can we better equip 
ourselves to cope with the changes 
that it will bring?

Emerson 
Human 
Capital 

Consulting, a company that aims to 
help firms get the most out of their 
employees, cites Gleicher’s formula 
as a way to help people deal with 
change. The formula focuses on 
the idea of dissatisfaction with the 
way things currently are, a picture 
of a better tomorrow and taking the 
initial steps toward making that 
vision a reality. A dissatisfaction 
with the performance of the U-M 
football team, an image of what 
Manchester United football club 
should stand for and making the 
decision to split the Indian cricket 
team’s captaincy are all examples 
of Gleicher’s formula being used by 
athletic institutions at the highest 
level, and it’s not difficult to see 
why. A big part of resisting change 
is being tied to the past. Why would 
anybody want to try a new coffee 
shop if the current one added an 
extra shot of caramel and threw 
in a cookie on the house every now 
and then? Why go through the 
hassle of adapting to something 
new when you can keep things the 
way they are? 

Nostalgia is a powerful tool, 

one that fuels my devotion to the 
things and people I love. It keeps 
me connected to them and gives 
me a reason to keep going. Because 
of this, when I’m in a situation 
where greener pastures are within 

sight, I hesitate. I’m afraid of an 
eventuality where I look back 
and regret. When I flew out of 
Mumbai — my hometown — and 
into Ann Arbor for my college 
experience, I promised myself that 
I would embrace the change with 
an open mind. I promised myself 
that I wouldn’t look back and Dr. 
Strange my way into alternate 
realities, trying to imagine what 
would have happened if I hadn’t 
left. I’m a pretty dramatic person, 
and I like to treat my life like 
it’s one long movie, so I posted 
a picture on Instagram to mark 
this moment. Within the post’s 
comments, I found the people that 
mattered over the last 19 years. I 
instantly found comfort in the idea 
that even though I might not see 
them or meet with them as often, 
they’d always be there. Being back 
home over winter break further 
solidified that belief. It changed 
the way I perceive change.

New beginnings are like a 

messy desktop, with everything 
from jpegs and tiffs to pdf and 
docx files. Taking the next step 
in your journey is like dumping 
all of those files into one folder, 
often lazily named “Desktop” or 
something. It doesn’t mean that 
the files within are forgotten, and 
it doesn’t mean that they don’t 
matter. In fact, they matter a little 
too much (which is why they aren’t 
in the trash). They’re in that new 
folder because if the desktop ever 
gets too messy again, and it will, 
everything you’ve been through 
before will literally be a click of a 
button away. Not only does that 
give me the power to face change, 
but it also makes me excited for it. 
The last four months, my first four 
in Ann Arbor, have shown me the 
wonders that change can do and 
make me compelled to say: here’s 
to 2022.

 The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
 Wednesday, January 19, 2022 — 9

PAIGE HODDER

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.

JASMIN LEE

Editor in Chief

JULIAN BARNARD 

AND SHUBHUM GIROTI

Editorial Page Editors

ficial position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Julian Barnard
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino

Ben Davis

Andrew Gerace
Shubhum Giroti

Min Soo Kim
Jessie Mitchell

Zoe Phillips

Mary Rolfes

Nikhil Sharma

Jack Tumpowsky

Joel Weiner
Erin White

A

dam McKay, the director 
of childhood classics such 
as “Step Brothers” and 

“The Other Guys,” along with more 
recent, politically-conscious films 
such as “The Big Short” and “Vice,” 
has a new movie: “Don’t Look 
Up.” It’s about a pair of Michigan 
State University (I know, yuck) 
astronomers trying to stop a comet 
from wiping out the human race. 
Spoiler alert: The comet represents 
climate change. “Don’t Look Up” is 
McKay’s attempt at showing that 
climate change is an extinction-
level threat. The film itself, though, 
represents 
climate 
advocates’ 

continued inability to focus on the 
crisis without being distracted by 
other political issues. 

The 
biggest 
problem 
with 

McKay’s newest film, according 
to critics, is that it isn’t just about 

climate change. “Don’t Look Up” 
features biting criticism of social 
media-obsessed 
culture, 
the 

greedy military-industrial complex 
and the hedonism a little fame can 
bring out in an otherwise humble 
midwestern 
professor. 
It 
also 

highlights the unnerving power 
massive corporations have over our 
government and our personal lives. 
One reviewer calls the film “a blunt 
instrument in lieu of a sharp razor.” 
McKay doesn’t focus on climate 
change alone; he panders to a suite 
of progressive priorities. 

McKay’s willingness to subdue 

his message on climate change in 
favor of broader left-wing activism 
is not a phenomenon in filmmaking 
alone. U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio 
Cortez’s, D-N.Y., Green New Deal 
was denounced by so many in part 
because it contains a plethora of 
progressive promises completely 
unrelated to the staving off of 
global catastrophe. Guaranteeing 

a living wage, universal healthcare 
and ending discrimination against 
numerous groups are certainly 
noble causes, but none of them 
pose the same existential threat as 
a warming climate. Furthermore, 
conservatives’ 
ideology 
and 

constituencies bar them from even 
considering a bill with so many 
progressive priorities. That means 
opponents can stop a bill like the 
Green New Deal without directly 
confronting climate science. 

Robinson Meyer recently voiced 

similar criticism of the Build Back 
Better Act: “What is so frustrating 
is that the largest disputes over the 
bill aren’t about climate policy.” 
Indeed, the cost of Build Back 
Better — something Sens. Joe 
Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten 
Sinema, D-Ariz., are particularly 
concerned about — is found mainly 
in the social programs. The climate 
provisions in the House-passed 
Build Back Better Act total around 

$500 billion, well within the two 
senators’ preferred $1.75 trillion 
limit. In fact, Manchin reportedly 
offered White House negotiators 
$500 billion to $600 billion in 
climate spending in his own 
proposal.

Beyond harming the feasibility 

of congressional action, lumping 
climate change advocacy with 
other liberal priorities politicizes 
the crisis and the science behind it. 
This is something “Don’t Look Up” 
exemplifies as well. CNN’s Holly 
Thomas recently penned an article 
about the film’s tendency to mix 
science with liberalism in general, 
calling it a “critical mistake.” 
Similarly, when conservatives see 
climate change programs as a part 
of a larger liberal package, they 
see climate change as a part of the 
Democratic platform, not scientific 
fact. 

Thomas points to Dr. Anthony 

Fauci’s desire to remain apolitical 

early in the COVID-19 pandemic 
as further proof. As Republican 
politicians began to label Fauci 
as partisan, trust in him as an 
authority on the pandemic shrank. 
Similarly, when diligent adherence 
to COVID-19 restrictions became 
more associated with Democrats, 
the 
science 
motivating 
these 

decisions became less relevant. 
The same thing is happening 
with climate change — it’s seen as 
just another liberal issue, not an 
existential threat to people from all 
political backgrounds.

Climate change doesn’t even 

have 
someone 
like 
Fauci, 
a 

spokesman who has at least tried to 
remain apolitical. The world’s most 
prominent climate-change activists 
are known liberals. Ocasio-Cortez 
is a vilified progressive. Sir David 
Attenborough once quipped that 
the best way to deal with former 
President Donald Trump was to 
“shoot him.” Greta Thunberg, 

perhaps the best-known climate 
activist, has done well to avoid 
party 
politics. 
But 
even 
she 

endorsed Biden before the 2020 
presidential election. 

While those embracing the 

danger of climate change are so 
often liberal, it is important to 
acknowledge the growing number 
of conservatives acknowledging the 
problem. Climate change is stated 
as one of Utah Sen. Mitt Romney’s 
“greatest fears for the US.” U.S. 
Rep. John Curtis, also from 
Utah, started the Conservative 
Climate Caucus last June — with 
55 of his Republican colleagues. 
Even Republican voters, young 
moderates in particular, are open to 
some government action on climate 
issues. These are the type of people 
advocates of environmental action 
could bring in if they weren’t so 

I

n calendar year three of 
the 
COVID-19 
pandemic, 

fatigue is reaching an all-

time high. As of Jan. 15, 2022, 
COVID-19 has claimed more than 
850,000 American lives. Every 
reasonable measure should be 
enacted to defeat this virus. That 
said, students cannot be expected 
to put aside our best interests in 
fear of COVID-19 spreading in low 
risk classroom environments. The 
calls to “e-pivot” in-person classes 
— though in good faith — are not 
in the best interest of the student 
body. 

The relative risk to University 

of Michigan students of serious 
complications as a result of COVID-
19 is low and even lower when 
compared to the devastating toll 
that remote learning has inflicted on 
students’ mental health. In-person 
classes are not the primary method 
of spreading COVID-19 throughout 
the U-M community, but they do 
continue to create meaningful 
connections 
between 
students 

and add irreplaceable academic 
experience. 
Some 
measures 

taken by the University, like the 
ResponsiBlue mobile app, function 
more like “hygiene theatre” than 
an actual method of verifying 
a 
person’s 
health. 
With 
the 

implementation of more regular 
testing, 
though, 
ResponsiBlue 

could become a much stronger 
weapon against COVID-19. The 
Winter 2022 semester should then 
continue in person as planned, with 
the added public health measure of 
mandatory weekly testing for all 
students taking classes in or living 
on campus. 

College students experienced 

a mental health crisis during the 
semesters of online learning last 
year. A study surveying college 
students during the 2020 school 
year found that 71% of respondents 
felt a higher level of stress and 
anxiety in response to COVID-19. 
Stressors included the physical 
health of the students and their 
loved ones, the loss of social 
interaction and lower academic 
performance. 
Most 
worrying, 

the study found that 8% of the 
student sample reported thoughts 
of suicide, compared with 3-7% 
in pre-pandemic studies. This 
disturbing trend is a grim reminder 
that protecting the mental health 
of students is just as important as 
protecting their physical health. 

Research has affirmed time and 

time again that overall, in-person 
learning is a superior form of 
education 
for 
undergraduate 

students. 
In 
addition 
to 
the 

aforementioned harmful effects 
on mental health, studies found 
that “students in online courses 
generally get lower grades, are less 
likely to perform well in follow-
on coursework, and are less likely 
to graduate than similar students 
taking in-person classes.” While 
remote learning may have been a 
necessary precaution in the pre-
vaccine era, it is not worth reviving 
the harms of remote learning at a 
school where 98% of students have 
received at least the first two doses 
of the vaccine and are required 
to receive a booster shot by next 
month.

Nevertheless, it is important to 

acknowledge the valid fears that 
students have about in-person 
learning in a time of massive 
spread of the disease. There 
are 
many 
reasons 
for 
these 

students to be concerned, be they 
immunocompromised 
or 
those 

worried about some of the long-
term effects of COVID-19 that we 
are only beginning to understand. 

Some professors, this semester, 

have provided the option of 
asynchronous 
participation 

by 
utilizing 
lecture 
capture 

software or uploading recorded 
lectures from a previous semester. 
Encouraging more professors to 
follow suit would allow the majority 
of students to enjoy in-person 
instruction 
without 
forcing 

concerned students to make the 
choice between education and their 
health. In cases where one course is 
in a recordable space while another 
is not, course coordinators should 
be allowed to upload recorded 
lectures onto a Canvas page 
accessible to all students taking that 
course. 

Discussion 
sections 
pose 
a 

unique 
problem 
for 
students 

and 
instructors 
due 
to 
the 

impracticality of having only a 
few students attending virtually. 
To 
avoid 
any 
complications 

associated with University-wide 
accommodations, 
Services 
for 

Students with Disabilities should 
facilitate 
agreements 
between 

immunocompromised 
students 

and their instructors that grant 
those students greater flexibility 
and/or necessary accommodations 
for 
safe 
participation. 
Similar 

flexibility should be given to 
students who are unable to attend 
class because of a positive COVID-
19 test, close contact notification or 
anxiety over the pandemic. 

The current testing framework 

only mandates that unvaccinated 
and 
exempt 
students 
procure 

a 
weekly 
negative 
test. 
To 

maintain in-person instruction, 
the University needs to update 
its testing protocol and make 
regular testing mandatory for the 

vaccinated student body as well. 
The Feb. 4 booster shot mandate 
will 
ensure 
that 
community 

members are better protected 
against COVID-19 and assuage 
fears about developing serious 
complications from contracting the 
virus.

However, 
as 
we 
know, 

asymptomatic spread can account 
for a large portion of community 
transmission. As such, mandatory, 
regular testing would be an effective 
method of preventing unknowingly 
infected individuals from infecting 
others. Increased opportunities 
for asymptomatic testing, through 
the pre-established Community 
Sampling and Tracking Program, 
will be especially crucial to the 
campus 
community 
as 
they 

gradually receive booster shots 
before the Feb. 4 deadline.

Previous testing requirements 

imposed during the Fall 2020 
and Winter 2021 semesters were 
the University’s first attempts at 
campus-wide testing. Although 
financially costly, increasing testing 
capacity 
gave 
administrators 

a clear picture of the level of 
transmission on campus and kept 
community members informed 
about their health. This semester, 
MHousing provided two at-home 
tests to all residents in student 
housing, but the effectiveness of 
that strategy depended on students 
honestly reporting positive test 
results. There has also been a rising 
demand for at-home tests around 
the world, partially fueled by the 
U.S. government, particularly in 
response to the Omicron variant.

A framework working towards 

mandatory weekly testing for 
everyone who comes on campus 
is 
essential 
for 
maintaining 

in-person 
instruction 
and 

limiting 
unnecessary 
COVID-

19 
transmission. 
Furthermore, 

while it would require increased 
staff and resources, University-
administered testing would likely 
be a more resolute solution given 
the unreliability of rapid tests and a 
question mark over the honor code 
that comes with self-reporting.
Although intentions behind an 
e-pivot are sound, its consequences 
could be dire for a student body that 
is showing visible signs of fatigue 
when it comes to online learning. 
Moreover, if the correct steps are 
taken and with the cooperation of 
the University and the community 
as a whole, the coming semester 
can still be the most “normal” 
one of recent times. In its third 
calendar year, it is more clear than 
ever before that defeating COVID-
19 will require everyone, from 
students to professors to U-M 
officials, to work toward a common 
goal.

Let’s not make the same mistake ‘Don’t Look Up’ does; stop politicizing our climate

From The Daily: Total e-pivot is not the solution

THE MICHIGAN DAILY 

EDITORIAL BOARD

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

QUIN ZAPOLI
Opinion Columnist

Here’s to new beginnings

RUSHABH SHAH
Opinion Columnist

Y

ik Yak, a social media 
app originally shut down 
in 2017, was rereleased 

last summer and has since built 
up a considerable presence at the 
University of Michigan. 

For those of you unfamiliar with 

Yik Yak, it allows all users to post 
anonymously. The catch? Only 
people within a five mile radius of 
you can comment on, upvote and 
downvote your posts. Upvotes and 
downvotes are similar to a like or 
dislike on other social media apps. 

The distance sensitive feature 

of the app creates a small bubble of 
users, and therefore a tight circle 
for gossip. The creators of the app, 
Tyler Droll and Brooks Buffington, 
actually intended to create an outlet 
for college students to gossip about 
their peers when they first released 
Yik Yak in 2013. 

As 
you 
can 
imagine, 
the 

anonymity and close proximity of 
users created a breeding ground 
for cyberbullying and threatening 
messages. In 2014, some users from 
San Francisco posted Yik Yaks 
that made fun of students who had 
been raped. Also in 2014, one user 
posted a bomb threat, sending a 
high school in San Clemente, Calif. 
into lockdown and prompting 
involvement from law enforcement. 
There was even a student at the 
University of Missouri who was 
arrested for making violent posts 
directed at Black people. At the 
University of Mary Washington, 

a student named Grace Mann was 
murdered shortly after chilling 
posts were made about the feminist 
club she was a member of. A Yik 
Yak user made a post saying they 
were “gonna tie these feminists to 
the radiator and grape [sic] them in 
the mouth.”

A former Yik Yak employee 

recounts 
that 
a 
majority 
of 

the posts she moderated were 
harmless, but the terrible ones 
were rattling enough to take a toll 
on her mental health. The former 
employee said that at Yik Yak’s 
headquarters in Atlanta, employees 
were encouraged not to discuss the 
disturbing posts. The only action 
taken in these troubling incidents 
took the form of a few employees 
being pulled into a room to quickly 
debrief. As they would exit the 
room, they would act as if nothing 
occurred, encouraging the other 
employees to continue on with 
their work and “make the app run.” 

Yik Yak did in fact take efforts 

to rectify these problems by 
implementing georeferencing, a 
way of blocking access to the app 
in certain locations. This allowed 
them to block students from using 
the app at 85% of high schools in the 
United States.

Despite Yik Yak’s improvement 

efforts, the app quickly gained a 
controversial reputation. Interest 
began to decline, with 75% lower 
usage between 2015 and 2016. Its 
waning popularity ultimately led 
to it being taken off of app stores in 
2017.

However, on Aug. 16, 2021, the 

app was relaunched. The app is 

now marketed toward people 
ages seventeen and older. It also 
emphasizes anti-bullying from the 
moment you download the app. 
Offensive posts can be reported by 
other users and are automatically 
removed if they are downvoted 
enough times. When certain words 
or emojis are used, the post is 
automatically removed as well. 

Despite these safeguards, the 

content posted on Yik Yak continues 
to walk a fine line between crude 
humor and blatant insensitivity. 
Users of the app have figured out 
ways to work around the words 
and emojis that cause posts to be 
automatically 
removed. 
Rather 

than using the words “suicide” or 
“kill,” users post about “unaliving” 
themselves or someone else. 

Overall, the relaunched version 

of Yik Yak has not come close to the 
level of insensitivity that caused its 
original demise. While many of the 
posts have been raunchy or petty, 
there have not been any outstanding 
issues with violent targets aimed 
toward any specific individuals. 
There have undoubtedly been 
mean-spirited posts about certain 
groups, but not with intent to cause 
harm toward that group. If Yik 
Yak’s claim to being a strong anti-
bullying platform is true, at the first 
instance of violence or bullying, I 
expect they will launch into action 
to address that issue. 

While Yik Yak seems to be doing 

fine so far, the app as a concept 
is bound to be problematic. The 

Yik Yak is back, but where is it going?

ANNA TRUPIANO

Opinion Columnist

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

