M

y 
whole 
life 
I’ve 

struggled with mental 
health. 

As a child, sometimes I would 

start feeling really sad and I wouldn’t 
know why.

When I was about 8 years old, 

my parents got me a royal blue iPod 
Nano. It had my Dad’s music library 
— mostly dad rock and some stuff 
from the 90s.

Among the selection was U2’s 

1988 
hybrid 
live/studio 
album 

Rattle and Hum. The album’s final 
song, a ballad called “All I Want Is 
You,” is about love, heartbreak and 
broken promises, things you don’t 
typically have much real experience 
with when you’re 8. All I really 
understood about this ballad was 
that it was tragic.

When I used to dip into this 

unexplainable sad place, I would 
listen to it on repeat. I can vividly 
remember sitting on a bus to 
summer 
camp, 
alone, 
isolated 

from my friends, feeling off and 
disconnected from myself and those 
around me — not knowing why but 
just wanting to be alone. 

“All I Want Is You” provided me 

with catharsis and a way to explore, 
feel and embrace this darker side 
of myself that as a child I didn’t 
understand, but looking back, I 
needed it greatly. When I wanted to 
be alone, the song gave me a place to 
hide and feel what I needed to feel; it 
gave me “a river in a time of dryness, 
a harbor in the tempest.”

As I got older, I started to have 

anxiety. Sometimes it was crippling; 
obsessive. In high school, there was 
one girl in particular who, after she 
rejected me for my best friend at 
the time, made walking the halls of 
school a terrifying experience. I was 
always panicked, constantly trying 

to make it to my next class as fast as 
I could so that I wouldn’t pass her by 
chance.

Eventually, it got to the point 

where it constantly felt like there 
was a massive pit in my stomach. 
It was the kind you get before a big 
performance or test, but I felt it 
almost every day.

At the end of my sophomore 

year of high school, I got into a big 
fight with my mom over something 
probably very stupid, and in the heat 
of the argument, she suggested I go 
see a therapist.

And to spite her, I did. 
At my first session, I was cautious. 

I wasn’t sure if I was ever going to 
go to another appointment, but I 
actually ended up liking it. It was 
just a conversation with someone 
who made you feel understood 
and offered their advice. It was like 
having a friend, the only difference 
being that you paid them.

So I kept going for almost two 

years.

And it was a godsend. High school 

was a tough time for me, as I’m sure 
it was for many others, but in the 
good times and the bad, my therapist 
was there for me and helped me 
manage my mental health. She also 
helped me through some of the 
lowest moments of my life. There 
were times I was so depressed that 
those once-a-week sessions were 
really all I looked forward to. 

Eventually though, it came time 

for me to leave the nest. I went 
to college and stopped seeing my 
therapist, believing that it was time 
for me to venture forth on my own 
— a conviction that my therapist 
agreed with. I had improved my 
mental health, bettered myself.

But from time to time, I still 

struggle. I still go to that sad place. 
Earlier this year I reached back out to 
my therapist. I wanted to meet with 
her again, but on a more irregular 
basis. She told me that because of 

the huge increase in demand for 
therapy onset by the pandemic, she 
was overbooked and couldn’t see 
me, and advised me to contact the 
University of Michigan’s Counseling 
and Psychological Services (CAPS).

So I did. 
For context, the CAPS process 

starts with a mental health history 
questionnaire, 
and 
then 
you 

schedule an initial consultation. It 
took me two weeks to get an initial 
consultation, which is kind of a 
repeat of the questionnaire. It really 
was just an appointment where 
someone asks you questions about 
your history with mental health and 
therapy to get a read on how urgently 
you need to be seen. They ask you if 
you have a history of violence, self-
harm, substance abuse, etc.

During this consultation, they 

inform you that CAPS is not really 
therapy, as students attend an 
average of only 3.5 sessions and 
usually do not go to more than five. 

It’s also not in person because of 
the pandemic; it’s conducted over 
the phone — you can’t do Zoom or 
FaceTime either. With this virtual 
form of counseling, the multitude 
of 
benefits 
from 
face-to-face 

communication are lost.

If you’re still interested at this 

point, they’ll inform you that they 
can schedule an appointment for you 
but the wait time could be between 
three and six weeks, depending on 
availability. I was still interested, 
thinking that the unexplained 
sadness I had been feeling might 
resurface at that time and that a 
session would be helpful.

About a month later, I had my 

appointment, coincidentally being 
in that sad place again. The therapist 
I was assigned to spent the first 15 
minutes of the call talking to me 
about what they could offer me. 

 The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
 Wednesday, January 26, 2022 — 9

L

ast 
summer, 
when 

President 
Joe 
Biden 

proclaimed to Ameri-

cans that we were “closer than 
ever to declaring our indepen-
dence” from COVID-19, it seemed 
unfathomable the nation would 
find itself in the throes of yet 
another pandemic surge just six 
months later. Yet, here we are 
again. Even with over 500 mil-
lion vaccines administered across 
the country — and over 70% of 
Americans age 12 and older fully 
vaccinated — COVID-19 has once 
again upended daily life. By some 
measures, 2022 feels eerily like 
2020 all over again.

The current surge is fueled 

by the highly-contagious omi-
cron variant of COVID-19, which 
has spread through the nation at 
unprecedented speeds and sent 
case counts to dizzying heights. 
On Jan. 10, health officials report-
ed 1.48 million new cases, more 
in a single day than at any other 
point in the pandemic, shatter-
ing the previous record set just 
days before. With the explosion 
in cases has come a spike in hospi-
talizations, pushing many health-
care facilities, doctors and nurses 
to the brink. In Michigan, hospi-
tals across the state are near or at 
capacity as pandemic hospitaliza-
tions break records.

In the midst of all this, some 

governments are responding with 
the harsh tactics we’ve all become 
familiar with over the past two 

years. In Canada and Europe, 
which face similar surges, gov-
ernments have instituted a slew 
of measures including lockdowns 
and closures of schools and busi-
nesses to combat the spread. 
Though it may seem at first glance 
that current conditions warrant a 
similar move by President Biden 
and governors across the country, 
it’s critical we update our COVID-
19 game plan and avoid the same 
traps we’ve fallen into before.

As alarming as the latest pan-

demic metrics are, they have to 
be put into perspective. First and 
foremost, experts believe the 
omicron variant — which now 
accounts for over 98% of new 
COVID-19 cases in the country 
— is less severe than previous 
strains like delta. A new study 
found patients who contracted 
omicron were 53% less likely to 
require hospitalization and over 
90% less likely to die than those 
who suffered from the delta vari-
ant. As in earlier waves, Ameri-
cans who are fully vaccinated 
continue to have a good progno-
sis. While omicron has evaded 
some of the vaccine’s protection 
against symptomatic infection, 
the vaccines are still extremely 
protective against severe dis-
ease. A booster shot, which more 
Americans are receiving every 
day, bolsters protection further. 
Following Canada and Europe’s 
lead and shutting down schools, 
colleges and businesses as cases 
surge simply isn’t supported by 
the data.

Returning to harsher contain-

ment measures wouldn’t only 

be unwise because omicron is a 
milder variant relative to earlier 
strains of COVID-19. Omicron is 
also wildly transmissible, even 
more so than the highly-infec-
tious delta variant. In the early 
days of the pandemic, closing 
down large sectors of the coun-
try proved to be an effective tool 
in slowing the spread. But today, 
with omicron skyrocketing in 
almost every county across the 
nation, preventing every individ-
ual case is no longer possible or 
practical.

“Omicron, with its extraordi-

nary, unprecedented degree of 
efficiency of transmissibility, will 
ultimately find just about every-
body,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said, 
noting the vaccinated and boosted 
who do get infected will “do rea-
sonably well in the sense of not 
having hospitalization and death.” 
Though lockdowns may reduce 
cases in the short term, they won’t 
stop the virus from spreading over 
the long run. It’s imperative that 
American leaders, from the local 
to the federal level, prioritize pre-
venting severe disease over cases, 
which are almost always mild for 
the vaccinated and even some-
times asymptomatic. 

Already, President Biden has 

turned his focus toward prevent-
ing hospitalization and death, 
reassuring most Americans that 
it’s “very unlikely that you become 
seriously ill.” The Biden admin-
istration recently took action to 

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

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

W

hen the Regents of 
the 
University 
of 

Michigan 
decided 

to terminate former University 
President Mark Schlissel, they 
released 118 pages of Schlissel’s 
communications along with their 
announcement. These documents, 
containing emails, text messages 
and images, while important in 
the name of transparency, were 
promptly snapped up by a ravenous 
student body. One reddit comment 
remarked that “Never had this 
many undergraduates been so 
keen to do primary source research 
on a Saturday night.” The emails 
were 
memefied 
immediately, 

with merchandise coming to the 
market within the week, making 
fun of our lonely president m. 
This transparency is refreshing 
and 
Schlissel’s 
indiscretions 

were serious, but one naturally 
wonders, 
especially 
considering 

the predictable student reaction, 
whether this dump of salacious 
documents is anything other than 
an attempt to shield the Board 
of Regents — not necessarily the 
University as an institution — from 
blame and embarrassment.

It was no secret that Schlissel 

was not particularly popular on 
campus; 
discussions 
regarding 

Schlissel were frequently filled 
with frustration or disappointment. 
These grievances have led students 
to often question his decisions. 
However, many of the trademark 
bad decisions made by Schlissel 
were directed, or at least directly 
influenced, by the board. 

Take the unpopular decision to 

prematurely bring students back to 
campus for the fall 2020 semester 
— prior to the development of 
COVID-19 vaccines. This was not 
a unilateral decision by Schlissel 
and his administration but was 
a subject of major frustration for 
students who felt they had no voice 
in this decision. One board member, 
University Regent Ron Weiser 
(R), who has a financial stake in 
off-campus housing, even donated 
$30 million to the University days 
before its announcement to reopen. 
No one can quantify the impact of 
the regents, especially those with 
vested interests, on these decisions 
conclusively, but we must reflect on 
their influence.

While Schlissel’s actions were 

both damaging to the University’s 
reputation and an abuse of the 
power he held over U-M employees, 
numerous faculty accused of sexual 
assault 
and 
harassment 
were 

allowed a far more graceful exit. 

When former American Culture 

lecturer 
Bruce 
Conforth 
was 

reported to University officials 
for attempting to engage in sexual 
relationships with three students 
in 2008, he was allowed to retire 
otherwise unpunished in 2017 — 
inarguably a much more private 
departure than that of Schlissel. 

Former Music, Theatre & Dance 

professor David Daniels was fired 
by the board for allegations of sexual 
misconduct in March of 2020. Not 
only did the board not include a 
similarly large disclosure report, 
they began the process of formally 
firing Daniels over a year earlier, in 
July of 2019, based on allegations 
made public in August of 2018. 
Schlissel was reported, investigated 
and terminated in under two 
months.

In the well-known case of former 

Provost Martin Philbert, the board 
released an 88-page report based 
on an investigation into his sexual 
misconduct. However, releasing 
118 pages of memeable emails 
does not have the same effect that 
releasing a dense WilmerHale 
report does. Hundreds of jokes were 
not inspired by this in-depth report, 
only a fraction of which consists of 
Philbert’s actual communications. 
Secondary sources like this report 
tend to obscure the actual nature 
of the relevant content, as actual 
words inherently convey more 
than descriptions. The Regents’ 
decision to release a mass of 
personal messages deviates from 
its customary form of transparency 
about its activities, which typically 
consists of formal reports like the 
one regarding Philbert. 

In their official release, the board 

said they were releasing Schlissel’s 
communications “In the interest of 
full public disclosure.” Was this kind 
of visibility not necessary in those 
previous cases? Was the speed with 
which the board investigated and 
removed Schlissel not necessary 
before? 

This is not to criticize the Board’s 

decision to be transparent. If the 
board is going to adequately combat 
the ongoing and historic issues of 
sexual assault and harassment in 
the University, as they should, a 
consistent approach is necessary. 
This is to say that releasing 
important documents related to 
similar allegations should be the 
norm — not exclusive to figures 
with a negative public image like 
Schlissel. 

But 
apart 
from 
Schlissel’s 

strained relationship with students 
and faculty, it is worth noting that 
he fell out with the Board of Regents 
in the past year too. In light of the 
severity with which Schlissel’s 
case was treated in comparison to 
other aforementioned cases, it is 
clear that the board chose to use 
Schlissel’s actions as a means to 
(rightfully) remove an adversary 

of theirs. While these emails 
were insightful and undeniably 
humorous, this is a politicization 
of the process of dealing with 
sexual misconduct that will serve 
to taint future investigations with 
the stench of bias. Only a consistent 
protocol will ensure that this does 
not occur.

The board and administration 

must 
release 
a 
comprehensive 

plan of action for any future sexual 
assault 
or 
misconduct 
reports 

against professors, administration 
officials or any employed University 
official. Such a comprehensive plan 
will ensure that every case is treated 
seriously and with consistency 
to ensure that transgressions are 
treated with the seriousness and 
transparency they deserve. A system 
where allegations of misconduct 
are treated on a case-by-case basis 
allows for certain individuals, like 
Conforth, Daniels and Philbert to 
get away with their behavior for 
years. Sexual misconduct can occur 
at any level of the University. Only 
taking strong, public action against 
the most recognizable figures fails 
to address the broader issue. 

While firing Schlissel is a step 

in the right direction, the Board 
of Regent’s choice of an interim 
replacement, 
President 
Emerita 

Mary Sue Coleman, is not untainted 
herself. Coleman was reportedly 
aware of allegations against Martin 
Philbert during her tenure as 
president. Despite the allegations 
and Coleman’s knowledge, Philbert 
was allowed to continue serving as 
Dean of the School of Public Health 
for the rest of Coleman’s term and 
nearly six years afterward.

If Coleman’s appointment was 

meant by the board as a return to 
normalcy, to the “scandal free” 
era before Schlissel, it just shows 
how deeply tolerance of sexual 
misconduct is ingrained in the 
University’s 
administration. 

The flood of sexual assault and 
harassment 
allegations 
against 

faculty and administrators during 
Schlissel’s term was by no means 
unique. The issues of sexual 
misconduct within this university 
have been tied to Mark Schlissel; 
losing him means losing a figurehead 
to rally against and replacing him 
with a less controversial former 
president who people remember 
fondly. Once the jokes about these 
emails die down, we will still be left 
with an administration that turns 
a blind eye to sexual misconduct, 
but this time one that commands 
less scrutiny from the public. This 
cannot become the case. We have 
to remain vigilant about this issue. 
To avoid further negligence and 
complaisance, we must hold the 
board accountable for consistent 
and fair actions when faced with 
such situations.

What CAPS gets wrong

From The Daily: Schlissel is gone, now what?

THE MICHIGAN DAILY 

EDITORIAL BOARD

EVAN STERN
Opinion Columnist

It’s time to update our COVID-19 game plan

M

isogyny in academia 
is a special breed, 
even in “progressive” 

universities. 
What 
makes 

misogyny in academia unique is the 
unnecessary competition between 
different fields, particularly STEM 
and liberal arts: which is more 
necessary, which is more lucrative, 
which is more ethical and all sorts 
of other superlatives. As a woman 
with a liberal arts major, I not 
only often feel this competition, 
but also experience and witness 
internalized misogyny between 
women in STEM and women 
in 
liberal 
arts. 
The 
debate 

between STEM vs. liberal arts 
inaccurately reflects the true 
value of academics, and worsens 
misogyny by keeping us occupied 
with in-fighting instead of fighting 
patriarchal structures. 

The 
debate 
is 
not 
only 

irrelevant, 
but 
fundamentally 

flawed. 
Although 
containing 

different courses, degrees and 
careers, the two are functionally 
connected; 
one 
cannot 
exist 

without the other. How else would 
we have well-written lab reports 
reflecting 
scientific 
research, 

technologically-advanced 
museums demonstrating history, 
digital art and online books? While 
independently 
important, 
the 

interdisciplinary nature of STEM 
and liberal arts keeps the world 
advancing, tangibly and intangibly, 
factually and emotionally. 

We 
aren’t 
only 
competing 

over our academic beliefs, but 
the existence of misogyny itself 
towards the other party. Misogyny 
in academia is not one-size-fits-
all, but is uniquely based on our 
specific interests. When women 
have already been exposed to 

internalized misogyny our entire 
lives (who’s prettier, smarter, 
wealthier, etc.), academics add 
yet another layer. We’re not 
only driven further apart, but 
it becomes more difficult to 
communicate and respect one 
another in our experiences.

For STEM majors working 

in a “man’s world,” women are 
often 
discriminated 
against 

and not given the same voice or 
opportunities. Despite increasing 
numbers of women as researchers, 
authors and reviewers, they are 
still underrepresented in research 
projects, publications and grant 
rewards. Marginalized women, 
such as women of color and 
transgender women, have even 
more difficulties with gaining 
recognition. The mere presence of 
women in STEM fields has caused 
backlash with scientists trying 
to justify the gap with different 
theories, including that women 
are biologically less fit for STEM 
or biologically less interested than 
men — both of which have been 
proven false.

On 
the 
other 
hand, 

misconceptions 
about 
the 

importance 
of 
liberal 
arts 

programs and their economic 
value have led some universities 
to cut funding for the programs 
altogether. I believe a key part of 
this trend is that liberal arts is 
often seen as “women’s work.” 
Throughout history, when once 
male-dominated fields, such as 
teaching and social work, became 
women-dominated, those fields 
are then seen as less important. As 
a result, liberal arts coursework is 
seen as less difficult and necessary 
in the grand scheme. Women are 
encouraged to change career paths 
or even drop out. Just recently, U.S. 
Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R–N.C., 
encouraged students to drop out 

of college unless they “become a 
doctor or lawyer or engineer.” 

In STEM or liberal arts, when 

the work and achievements of 
women are undervalued on a 
personal and industry level, there 
is no point debating which form of 
misogyny is worse. When we fail 
to recognize different experiences 
with misogyny and its harm, 
we allow it to continue. Though 
passive, we all take responsibility 
when other women suffer. 

Seeing women in STEM make 

new strides and push for equality, 
I have admittedly felt embarrassed 
over my major and even resentful. 
I fear that I’m not doing enough for 
feminism by working in a women-
dominated field. For this, I’ve also 
felt ignored in my experiences 
with misogyny, because it’s not 
seen as being “as bad” as what 
other women in college face. 
Conversely, I’ve been praised for 
choosing a creative field and not 
one that’s “boring” or “typical” as 
some have inaccurately described 
STEM. 

This is why I’m extending 

not an olive branch but rather a 
metaphorical treaty. We cannot 
accept praise for our achievements 
at the expense of other women and 
their goals. My work in liberal arts 
is both influential and lucrative, 
and STEM is becoming more 
common because of our developing 
world. When so many differences 
and ignorances distract us from 
fighting for equality, we shouldn’t 
let this false narrative deter us even 
further from our goals. Is “girls 
support girls” an oversimplified 
motto? Yes, but I don’t think 
“STEM girls support liberal arts 
girls and vice versa” has to be 
so complicated. Changing our 
mentality on academic purpose 
is one step towards eliminating 
academic misogyny.

Hey, women in STEM, let’
s form an alliance

ELIZABETH WOLFE

Opinion Columnist

JARED DOUGALL

Opinion Columnist

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

