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