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