The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
Wednesday, February 23, 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
Zoe Phillips
Ben Davis
Andrew Gerace
Shubhum Giroti
Min Soo Kim
Jessie Mitchell
Mary Rolfes
Nikhil Sharma
Jack Tumpowsky
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Anna Tupiano
B
ipartisan
support
for
stock-trading
bans on members of
Congress has risen in the last
year, largely due to the several
violations of the Stop Trading
on Congressional Knowledge
(STOCK) Act just weeks before
the COVID-19 pandemic hit
the United States. Insider trad-
ing is illegal, and the STOCK
Act prohibits members of Con-
gress from utilizing “nonpub-
lic information derived from”
their position to trade stocks.
Former Sen. Kelly Loeffler,
R-Ga., as well as Sens. Richard
Burr, R-N.C., Dianne Feinstein,
D-Calif., and James Inhofe,
R-Okla., were accused of insid-
er trading in early 2020. Even
before this, an investigation
by The Wall Street Journal
yielded hundreds of instances
in which “(federal judges) or
their family members owned
shares of companies that were
plaintiffs or defendants in the
litigation” over which they
presided.
Public backlash stemming
from this show of government
corruption has given rise to
widespread agreement within
Congress to restrict legisla-
tors’ trading, particularly with
individual stocks. Just last
week, House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi’s, D-Calif., flippant dis-
missal of any restrictions was
met with both public and pro-
fessional backlash before she
reluctantly agreed to further
action to stronger regulations.
As we approach congressio-
nal elections this November,
the incentive for many elected
officials to address the issue
of stock trading restrictions is
becoming apparent. A ban on
members of Banning lawmak-
ers from trading stocks has
the support of around three-
quarters of the electorate,
making it an easy political vic-
tory to support it. Naturally,
legislators must now address
how these restrictions will be
put into place, what they will
restrict and whom they will
impact.
A proposition embraced by
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cor-
tez, D-N.Y., calls for assets to
be set aside into blind trusts to
be managed by a family mem-
ber or friend. Unfortunately,
blind trusts have not histori-
cally done a great job of pre-
venting conflicts of interest,
with possible loopholes for
active trading influenced by
congressional business. Per-
haps
the
most
prominent
example of the dangers of
blind trusts came with Presi-
dent Trump, who repeatedly
came under fire for the unlike-
lihood
of
wholly
unbiased
decision making when he gen-
erally knew what the assets in
his blind trust were composed
of.
A more tenable framework
might be found in the Federal
Reserve regulations released
following recent trading scan-
dals that led to the resigna-
tion of multiple Fed governors.
By banning the trading of
individual stocks, bonds and
cryptocurrencies, the updat-
ed standards limit governors
to index funds and diversi-
fied equities. By restricting
investments to highly diver-
sified positions, even mem-
bers of Congress who take an
active role in the management
of their investments will be
mostly unable to act in ways
that bolster their portfolio.
By extending this ban to the
spouses and direct dependents
of members of Congress, most
direct conflicts of interest will
be covered under new legisla-
tion. While by no means com-
prehensive, such regulations
would be a tremendous step
towards
accountability
and
restoration of trust in Con-
gress.
With this framework in
mind, another major consid-
eration in any new legislation
is enforcement, which remains
poorly addressed by existing
regulations.Although
public
backlash can incite change on
multiple levels in the behav-
ior of individual members of
Congress, much more must be
done at the legal level in terms
of “punishment” for insider
stock-trading offenses.
The goal of the 2012 STOCK
Act was to increase transpar-
ency between the public and
members of Congress, requir-
ing officials to file disclosures
concerning their trading activ-
ities. Under this law, members
of Congress are banned from
gaining any “nonpublic” infor-
mation when it comes to stock
trading, as they are public citi-
zens in their roles as elected
officials. Still, politicians con-
tinue to ignore these rulings,
rather unashamedly using pri-
vate information to trade and
keeping their trade maneuvers
out of the public eye. Change is
needed in terms of transpar-
ency and efficacy.
Multiple plans of action have
been introduced in the Senate
surrounding punishment for
insider trading offenses, rang-
ing from economic punishment
(such as paying a fine similar
to or more than your salary in
Congress), to criminal punish-
ment (like jail time). In the
middle is a proposition intro-
duced by Sen. Sherrod Brown,
D-Ohio. Brown’s bill, the “Ban
Conflicted Trading at the Fed
Act”, would fine offending
members of Congress at least
10% of the value of the stock.
This measure, among oth-
ers concerning enforcement of
said law, seems like an accept-
able
middle
ground
when
it comes to punitive action
against insider stock trading.
It puts a heavier burden on
those wealthy politicians who
do not rely solely on the ben-
efits of the stock exchange and
does not significantly harm
those middle-class representa-
tives who rely on smaller, less
frequent investments. In the
end, no politician is seriously
fiscally damaged, but they are
taught a lesson: their insider
trading is recognized, and a
fine establishes that this is not
acceptable to the general U.S.
population.
The issue of insider stock
trading by members of Con-
gress is a bipartisan one, both
in terms of offenders and
opposition. These investments
are the antithesis of the role of
“public servant” these officials
serve. Offending politicians
are profiting off of their posi-
tion of political power. In ban-
ning representatives and their
immediate dependents from
such investments, and taxing
direct offenders, there may be
better financial transparency
and trust amongst the people
and their government. Public
service is what we have elect-
ed them to do, not a private
smoke-filled-room
business.
There need to be consequenc-
es.
From The Daily: Congressional
stock trading needs reform
C
ollege will be the time of
your life.” A sentiment
that
every
teenager
has heard multiple times in
their life. For high schoolers,
it serves as a justification for
a less than satisfactory high
school
experience.
For
new
college students, it provides hope
that the next four years will
be unforgettable. And for the
students reaching the end of their
college years, it can be two things:
a truth, or a “what could have
been.”
After
completing
my
first
semester of college, I stopped to
consider this expectation. In so
many ways, college has exceeded
my expectations. I didn’t have
a big, close-knit friend group
in high school, nor did I spend
my weekend nights at parties
or on unforgettable adventures.
Instead, my closest friends and
I navigated high school in a
different way; we played sports,
focused on school, hung out
at each other’s homes and on
weekends spent time outdoors,
whether we were hiking, surfing,
skateboarding or something else
(this remains one of the main
perks of the Bay Area). My first
relationship was a long, peaceful,
healthy one with one of my
best friends. Looking back, this
lifestyle contained all the aspects
of true happiness, yet at the time,
I felt unfulfilled. Where was the
chaos of the American teenage life
I had been so conditioned to want?
College took a sharp 180.
Within one month, everything
about my life had completely
changed. Every second I wasn’t
studying or sleeping, I was being
social. Romantically, I had guy
and girl drama in every corner,
and for the first time I felt like
someone that people could truly
be attracted to. My instagram
slowly filled up with pictures of
me and my new friends at football
games, parties and other events.
I could finally do what I wanted
without my parents checking my
location, being home by curfew or
constantly having to prioritize my
safety. It truly was the American
teenage dream, so I should have
been the happiest I’ve ever been,
right?
What wasn’t shown on my
social media stories or texts home
to my friends, however, was the
other side. The endless hours
spent crying at random places
around campus, the anxiety of
wondering if my friends liked
me, the never ending pressure of
college classes, the relationship
drama
that
consumed
my
thoughts, the feeling of being
too far away from my family
and my home, the hate for the
way I looked and the complete
overwhelmingness of being in a
new state, in a new school, with
new friends and absolutely no
sense of familiarity.
When we search for happiness
in college, we are truly looking
for distraction. Stress is released
when we become too intoxicated
to remember our problems and
continue the facade we put on
for the week. We wear clothes
we hope will make others like us,
because we yearn for validation
from them instead of giving it
to ourselves. When homework
becomes too much, we go on a
“5 minute” TikTok break that
suddenly morphs into hours, then
we are consumed by the guilt that
follows. When the world feels
like it’s ending, we search for our
friends to help us push that feeling
off for a bit, until it returns later. So
much of the idealized large state
school experience is derived from
students finding ways to distract
themselves from the anxiety that
comes with entering such an
overwhelming new environment.
The issue then, is the feeling
of being alone. When everyone
around us curates this image
of having so much fun, and our
parents or aunts and uncles keep
reminding us how revolutionary
their college experience was,
we feel like failures when it’s
not perfect. Yet, we are often
portraying the same image in
an effort to fit into the puzzle,
all it takes is one conversation
with any student to realize that
this portrayal is not true to life.
So why don’t we have these
conversations?
As a society, we are working
towards a goal of destigmatizing
mental
health,
however,
one
important topic often gets left out
of the mental health conversation:
struggling without a diagnosis.
One of the things that has
consistently held me back from
truly reaching out to my friends
and asking for help when I need
it is the fact that I suffer from no
mental disorders. A feeling of
guilt arises when I feel hopeless,
because I feel that whatever I’m
feeling must not be as bad as
those who have diagnosed mental
illnesses. So I do what many of
my peers do: push away what I’m
feeling for as long as possible.
When
that
feeling
returns,
however, it feels bigger and more
dangerous. And so the need
for a distraction becomes more
imminent.
So let’s learn to talk about it.
Let’s learn to ask our friends
how they are and reach out in
moments of crisis. And let’s erase
this idea of college being the
most perfect time of your life.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t
work to find happiness, because
there is so much happiness to be
found in college. I’ve met friends
so far in my first semester that I
hope will be the friends my kids
call “auntie” and “uncle” in 30
years. I’ve made memories I can
imagine reminiscing over at the
dinner table years in the future.
In just one semester, I’ve learned
so much about my academic
interests, and I’m excited to
learn more. But these things
don’t come from intoxication,
or letting everyone on my social
media know I’m having a great
time.
They
come
from
the
moments when I’m not thinking
about what others think, or if I’m
doing enough academically and
extracurricularly. The first step
to truly being happy is living life,
instead of distracting ourselves
from it.
Happy or distracted?
CLAUDIA FLYNN
Opinion Columnist
THE MICHIGAN DAILY
EDITORIAL BOARD
A
s
someone
who
occasionally
scrounges Yik Yak
for funny content, there is an
unending source of “looking-
for-someone” posts. The app
is anonymous and annoying to
scroll through, but it’s easy to
recognize patterns. You find
things like: “Are there any
other gay girls on campus?
Asking for a friend,” or, “how
do u meet wlw in aa, please
help,” constantly — especially
on weekends. It seems the
queer women on campus need
rest, too.
According to “The Statement
2021 Sex Survey,” more than
30% of University of Michigan
students
surveyed
did
not
identify
as
heterosexual.
That’s a lot of queer people,
but how do you meet them?
It’s really not easy. Unless you
already have an entire network
of
gay
people
you
found
during your freshman year on
accident or brought from high
school (like I did), then you
must resort to Bumble, Tinder,
Her or maybe even that one
girl your roommate thinks is
bisexual.
And once you have found
someone, what do you do?
There are not many helpful
queer
dating
how-tos
for
college-aged
students
right
now. There are online articles
about where to find other
queer people, and there is Yik
Yak, where an anonymous
asker may meet an anonymous
answer. Dating is already hard
enough for us teenagers and
20-somethings. Queer dating
is even harder, and meeting
your very own queer network
is a whole different bag of
worms.
Living in Kerrytown, the
unofficial-official Ann Arbor
gay-borhood, I have a lot
of access to queer people.
While I have never visited the
Spectrum Center on campus,
nor any organized queer club,
I still live in a bubble of Gay.
I often forget that there are
people on campus who do not
have at least five other gay
friends, and I wonder, are
these the people on Yik Yak?
The Spectrum Center and more
general queer-student clubs
are not popular with the people
around me. One of my friends,
a bisexual man, tried the
club oSTEM (Out in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics), and left after
freshman year. Being on Zoom
for an hour once a week was
not a meaningful way to meet
new people for him, nor did
the year before make him any
new queer friends.
The people on Yik Yak
looking
for
hookups
and
relationship
advice
aren’t
going to these places either.
They are going on Yik Yak
and
@collegefessing
on
Instagram.
These
places
hold an anonymity that the
Spectrum Center does not. I’d
like to believe that other clubs
have more successful social
opportunities for queer people
when they invite anyone to
come. For example, I recently
went to the United Asian
American
Organizations’
(UAAO)
“Femme
+
Queer
Skate” in early November. It
still did not feel like a place
to meet people, but it was fun
to go to with another queer
friend. There were lots of
femme queer people, and, while
some were a part of UAAO, a
lot were also just interested
in a non-judgemental skating
atmosphere.
One
of
the
organizers told me that there
were more people signed up
than she thought there would
be. I asked her if there would
be another meeting like this,
and she said there could be.
And that was it.
I don’t know anyone in a
queer-student club. It often
seems to me that co-ops are
more
queer-friendly
spaces
to
meet
people
than
any
organized club on campus.
I wonder if those people on
Yik Yak simply do not live
in Kerrytown, or their dorm
hall during their freshman
year was not at least half gay.
Necto’s “Gay Night” for anyone
18+ seems to be more popular
with those that are confident
and outward in their identities
as queer people. Attending
Necto’s “Gay Night” myself, it
did not feel like a place to meet
friends, especially not friends
who prefer a Friday night in.
I know that not every space
on campus is queer-friendly,
despite what I may hope is
true. Not every professor asks
for your pronouns in your
introduction, though you can’t
help but appreciate the ones
that do. Especially in non-
liberal arts majors, there are
very few students that you
may be able to recognize as
gay in cultural cues or fashion,
which is why it’s important to
have places like the Spectrum
Center and create clubs like
oSTEM. Unfortunately, I don’t
think that every lonely queer
person is going to these places.
Anonymous
sites
like
Yik
Yak are more accessible and
less scary for these people,
especially during a time of
such serious health concerns
with meeting in person.
For those people on Yik
Yak who are looking for a
simple “like” so that they don’t
feel so alone and are being
encouraged by other “Yakers”
commenting
the
same
questions in solidarity: keep
looking. There are places here
for you, and there are places to
find people like you. Whether
it’s a Co-op, an art class or
someone with a rainbow pin
in the library, you can find
people. Just maybe outside of
Yik Yak.
Yik Yak isn’t the place to find queer love on campus
GISELLE MILLS
Opinion Columnist
Ethics 101 with Schlissel
Design by Tamara Turner