A
s
college
students,
we’ve all been in those
situations where we’ve
pulled
desperate
all-nighters
before exams or had to work well
past when we wanted to. If you’re
a student at the University of
Michigan, chances are that you’ve
experienced at least one of these
scenarios. More often than not,
we take the practice of sleep and
its necessity for granted. After
all, roughly one-third of our lives
seems like more than enough
time to sacrifice for this one task.
We don’t really need eight hours
of sleep every night, do we?
The practice of sleep hygiene
actually impacts our biological
well-being more deeply than we
recognize on an everyday basis.
Strong sleep hygiene involves
shaping your life choices and
bedroom
to
suit
“consistent,
uninterrupted sleep.” Benefits,
ranging
from
cognitive
to
physical
to
psychological
health and ability, can derive a
substantial boost from sleep. The
list of benefits can be endless
when it comes to the body’s
reliance on sleep. The body uses it
to consolidate memories, regulate
emotions and ultimately organize
the framework for our cognition
while we are awake. Essentially,
the literal length of our life span
and the quality of life we will live
throughout that time holds direct
ties to our sleep habits.
This can be an understandably
intimidating lens to view a habit
we’re inherently programmed to
do. But ultimately, it’s a necessary
practice. Studies have shown
that over 70% of college students
get insufficient sleep, which can
have consequences that go past
lifelong damage to our physical
well-being.
Certain
types
of
memory are actually known to
correspond with certain types of
sleep stages, with our procedural
memory being dependent on
the quality of our rapid-eye
movement
(REM)
sleep
and
declarative memory depending
on non-REM sleep. In short, our
very efforts of sacrificing sleep in
order to get ahead in school are
actually undermining our ability
to achieve this goal in the first
place.
Unfortunately, as nice as it
would be, merely recognizing the
importance of sleep is not enough.
Any student can tell you that they
need more sleep, but cultivating
good sleep habits in college can be
difficult for most. When trying to
balance it on top of assignments,
exams, a social life, exercise,
self-care, extracurriculars and
whatever
other
commitments
that life demands of us, it
seems even more daunting. On
top of that, common habits of
college
students
like
alcohol
consumption, technology use and
caffeine consumption directly
inhibit our sleep quality. So rather
than trading in the very joys of life
that we seek to lengthen with the
practice of sleep, we can instead
make an effort to construct a
healthy balance that allows us to
better attune to our body’s needs.
In order to comprehensively
formulate
an
optimal
sleep
schedule,
the
fundamental
factors that induce sleep and
determine its quality need to be
understood. A lot of different
components go into developing
this toolkit. That’s why the
most realistic way to integrate
a healthy sleep routine into
our lives is to simply become
aware of those components and
make a concerted effort to fit
an attainable amount of these
practices into your daily life.
C
onversations
around
antisemitism
on
campus often flare up
in conjunction with reports
of increased violence in Israel
and Palestine. The discourse
that arises typically positions
Palestinians and their allies
against
the
Zionist
Jewish
community. As a Jewish student
who doesn’t identify as a Zionist
and
routinely
criticizes
the
Israeli
government,
I
often
feel that conversations about
antisemitism on campus have
more to do with silencing
Palestinians
than
protecting
Jews.
On parents weekend, when my
dad picked up a Ziploc bag filled
with flyers that blamed Jews
for COVID and accused them of
child grooming and controlling
the media, I was incredibly
surprised and disturbed. This
was
the
most
blatant
and
upsetting act of antisemitism I
have personally witnessed, and
the distribution of these flyers
on Erev Rosh Hashanah was
particularly hurtful.
While I have been struggling
with
the
incident
because
it was jarring to see such
hateful messaging, my anger
and sadness extends beyond
the flyers. I’m upset that the
majority of conversations about
antisemitism are obscured by
fights over whether or not it is
acceptable to criticize the Israeli
government — taking attention
away from the severity of these
harmful and violent acts. I have
witnessed
Zionist
students
heckle
and
boo
Palestinian
students at the Apartheid Wall
on the Diag and deface the
Palestinian flag on the Michigan
Rock. I believe these actions
undermine the fight against true
antisemitism.
I think the most important
consideration when assessing
whether or not something is
antisemitic is the impact it has
on Jewish safety. Organizations
like AIPAC have blurred the
lines between Jewish safety
and the existence of a Jewish
state by positioning unequivocal
support for Israel as the sole
qualifier for the safety of the
Jewish people. Their methods
of “preserving” the U.S.-Israel
relationship
have
imperiled
American democracy through
their endorsement of dozens
of insurrectionist Republicans
who refused to certify the
results of the 2020 election.
In Democratic primaries this
election cycle, they poured more
than $21 million to elect “pro-
Israel” candidates, most notably
intervening
in
Michigan’s
11th-district
race
between
incumbents Andy Levin and
Haley Stevens.
AIPAC began targeting Levin
and his re-election campaign
after his sponsorship of H.R.
5344, a bill that would prevent
American military aid to Israel
from being used in human rights
violations. In an email endorsing
Stevens, former AIPAC president
David Victor called Levin (who
is Jewish) the “most corrosive
member of Congress to the
US-Israel
relationship”
and
“more damaging than Rashida
Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.” This
statement, in addition to being
deeply Islamophobic, highlights
right-wing pro-Israel advocates’
fundamental misunderstanding
of how the relationship between
the U.S. and Israel connects to
antisemitism. Jews in America
are not safer simply because the
American government writes
Israel a blank check. Jews in
America are safer when the
fight against antisemitism is
intersectional and encompasses
other
forms
of
oppression,
including
Islamophobia
and
violence towards Palestinians.
Jewish
safety
extends
beyond establishing a singular
geographical
space
for
our
community to call home. It
requires a broader understanding
of safety for all marginalized
groups and a commitment to
making places other than Israel
safe for Jews as well. My hope
is that conversations around
antisemitism are focused on
insidious acts like the flyers
my parents and I received last
weekend, and that — when
conversations
critiquing
the
Israeli
government
arise
—
Jewish students on campus are
able to listen empathetically to
Palestinian students. As I’ve
reflected during the 10 days
of repentance between Rosh
Hashanah and Yom Kippur, I am
reminded both of the scary and
imminent danger presented by
antisemitism and the importance
of confronting all forms of
bigotry and oppression to build a
safer world for everyone.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
10 — Wednesday, October 12, 2022
Reflections on antisemitism
and intersectionality during the
High Holy Days
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
O
n Sept. 18, President Joe
Biden declared on “60
Minutes” that the COVID-
19 pandemic is over, saying, “We
still have a problem with COVID.
We’re still doing a lot of work on it
… but the pandemic is over. If you
notice, no one’s wearing masks.
Everybody seems to be in pretty
good shape.
Biden’s
comments
caught
many people in the public health
community off guard, including
the president’s own health officials.
Based on the formal epidemiological
definition, a pandemic is “an
epidemic
occurring
worldwide,
or over a very wide area, crossing
international
boundaries
and
usually affecting a large number of
people.”
The United States and world
have largely returned to normal,
with people going to school and
work
maskless
and
attending
crowded sports games and concerts.
However, based on the data, the
COVID-19 pandemic is not over. Dr.
Anthony Fauci, the Chief Medical
Advisor to the president, said
Tuesday that the world is not done
with the COVID-19 pandemic. Not
only was Biden’s statement blatantly
false, but it was exceptionally
poorly timed considering that
COVID-19 situation is worsening in
the United State. As we transition
from summer into winter, when
COVID-19 has historically been
most destructive, the president
should have been more tactful.
In addition to the fact that the
COVID-19 virus is still a pandemic,
there are several political reasons
why Biden should not have stated
that the pandemic is over. One
reason that Biden’s announcement
was politically unwise is that the
Biden administration is currently
working on securing $22.4 billion
in COVID-19 funding to stockpile
tests and vaccines, support research
into the virus, and study the global
vaccine response.
Republicans
already
pushed
back against the request in March,
asking how the previous trillions
of dollars in COVID-19 funding
were spent, which forced the
White House to pause a program
that would distribute tests to
many American homes. The U.S.
also had to reduce the importation
and
production
of
COVID-19
vaccines and treatments, which
could seriously harm the country’s
ability to distribute those goods.
The lack of funding also delays
further research into new COVID-
19 vaccines, which could lead to a
weakened ability to respond to a
new variant.
Biden’s announcement led even
more Republicans to question the
necessity of further funding, with
one outright saying that such a
statement makes it “eminently
harder for sure” to secure the
funding and “If it’s over, then I
wouldn’t suspect they need any
more money.”
Vaccination rates are another
reason why Biden should not have
announced that the COVID-19
pandemic is over. Public health
officials around the country are
encouraging Americans to get
a second booster shot, and their
ability to be persuasive may
be hindered by the president’s
comments. In September, public
health officials rolled out a new
vaccine aimed at combating the
threat of sub variants, the Omicron
variant in particular, that have
made up the majority of cases in the
U.S. over the past few months. The
CDC recommends that everyone 12
and older get a second booster shot
in order to restore the protection
that has waned since the first
booster, which can help to prevent
serious illness from COVID-19.
The COVID-19 pandemic and its
subsequent vaccination campaign
have been politicized since 2020,
and Biden’s comments could lead
to even fewer Americans getting
vaccinated. Only 68% of Americans
received the original COVID-19
vaccines, and less than half of
them got a booster shot. It seems
likely that even fewer people will
receive a second shot. With this
data in mind, along with the reality
of the COVID-19 threat, one has to
wonder why Biden announced that
the pandemic is over. It goes against
any public health guidance, and
will likely lead to lower vaccination
rates and more cases of the virus. If
the pandemic is over, why does the
virus still pose a threat worthy of
vaccination?
The day after Biden’s interview,
a spokesperson for the Department
of Health and Human Services
tweeted that the COVID-19 Public
Health
Emergency
remains
in
effect.
This
announcement
triggered
backlash
from
Republicans, who used Biden’s
declaration of the end of the
pandemic to call into question many
existing COVID-19 restrictions.
Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., wanted
to know when Biden would end the
vaccine requirements for federal
employees, while Sen. Marsha
Blackburn, R-Tenn., questioned the
necessity of the pause on student
loan repayments.
In
the
days
after
Biden’s
interview, his public health officials
scrambled to clarify what he meant.
Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while
the country is in a better place, “we
are not where we need to be if we are
going to ‘live with the virus.’” The
lack of clear guidance from federal
authorities will lead to confusion
about what the actual public health
recommendations are.
While Biden was likely trying to
convey that we are in a better place
in our response to the pandemic,
defining a pandemic is not a matter
of semantics. What the president,
his staff and his public health
officials say about the state of the
pandemic will determine how
people act and what measures are
taken by the federal government to
prevent further spread.
The funding that Congress
provides for research of the virus
and investment in testing and
vaccination infrastructure will help
the country’s COVID-19 response
into the winter season, preventing
illness and allowing scientists to
have a better understanding of the
virus. The president’s comments
will likely lead to a reduction in
the amount of money allocated for
these essential goods and services,
which could make the COVID-19
situation worse this winter and
even cost lives.
Biden’s comments are grossly
irresponsible. He should walk
them back in the strongest possible
terms in order to be in line with
recommendations from his own
officials and to ensure that public
health funding remains available in
the future.
Preserve federal health funds,
now more than ever
LYDIA STORELLA
Opinion Columnist
CORA GALPERN
Opinion Contributor
T
he University of Michigan
is an incredibly selective
university and prestigious
enough to land on many high
school students’ “reach lists.” Our
endowment is massive, standing
at $17 billion as of 2021, the
highest of any public university
in the country. We are constantly
rated in the top five public
universities in the country, by the
U.S. News & World Report and
beyond. There are many reasons
the University is so successful
as an institution, but the amount
of wealth that researchers and
administrators have access to
cannot be understated.
I come from a very privileged
background.
I
grew
up
in
Birmingham, Mich., one of the
wealthiest suburbs in Metro
Detroit. The fact that my father
could send two kids to college
is a testament to the inherent
advantages I received by proxy
of merit that isn’t mine. In
contrast, one of my roommates
is currently receiving financial
aid from the University. He’s one
of the few Hawaiians on campus,
and he has been involved in
multiple organizations working
towards
increased
visibility
for
Asian-American/Pacific
Islander (emphasis on the PI)
people on campus. He’s from
Jackson, Mich., a less affluent
area than where I come from. He
sometimes mentions that he feels
out of place among his affluent
peers at Michigan.
The
statistics
back
my
roommate’s anecdotal account.
In 2017, The New York Times
compiled data that analyzed
the demographics of America’s
higher education institutions. The
data revealed that the country’s
top schools admitted way more
students
from
elite
families
than they realized. The median
family income of a student from
the University is $154,000, and
66% of students come from the
top 20% of income. The average
income of U-M students is in the
80th percentile, with only 3.6% of
kids coming from the lowest 20%
of family incomes.
Income inequality is an issue
closely related to race in this
country, and this extends to
the
University’s
disparity
in
family wealth among students.
According to the University of
Michigan’s Center for Diversity,
Equity and Inclusion, the student
population is made up of 65%
White/Caucasian
people,
15%
Asian-American
people,
10%
Other/Unknown,
5%
Black/
African American people, 6%
Hispanic/Latino
American
people and 1% Native American
people.
Asian Americans are the most
represented minority group on
campus, with the group even
being overrepresented compared
to the state of Michigan’s racial
demographic.
White
people
are slightly underrepresented,
and
Native-Americans
are
close to accurately represented,
alongside Latinx people. Black
people, however, are grievously
underrepresented on campus.
The percentage is less than
a third of where it should be:
14% according to the 2020
U.S. Census. With places like
Jackson, Ypsilanti and Metro
Detroit so close by, it should
be relatively easy to encourage
more outreach programs like the
U-M Detroit program to reach
these communities underserved
and underrepresented by the
University.
Admittedly, I cannot find
a good figure for the budget
of the University’s Center for
Educational
Outreach,
so
I
cannot confidently say anything
surrounding its level of funding. It
looks like the people there do good
work and are skilled at this kind
of outreach, advertising things
like campus visits and college
advising
programs.
However,
looking at the University’s own
published demographics from
the 2008-2009 academic year, the
year the CEO was founded, the
number of enrolled students from
underrepresented groups has not
significantly improved.
As
colleges
become
more
and
more
competitive,
it’s
imperative that the University
works to make sure students
who come from underprivileged
backgrounds aren’t left behind
by their wealthier counterparts.
According to the NYT study on
higher education, poorer students
do about as well as their wealthier
counterparts
post-graduation,
making
the
“poor
students
wouldn’t be as successful even if
admitted” excuse invalid. Even if
that were true, it should still be the
responsibility of the University to
prepare disadvantaged students
without access to things like
SAT tutors or AP classes for the
college environment.
The University of Michigan,
alongside
the
University
of
California system, was forced
to stop affirmative action in
2007. Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
was a U.S. Supreme Court case
that ruled the University of
Michigan’s
affirmative
action
policies
unconstitutional
in
violating the 14th Amendment.
The University’s system added
points to the applications of
minority students to make up for
the presumed gap in educational
opportunities between minority
groups and white people.
In order to make things
equitable, a system like the
“Adversity
Index,”
which
considers potential applicants’
backgrounds
to
account
for
socioeconomic
background,
among other things. Affirmative
action
can
be
used
in
an
entirely
race-neutral
manner
and still benefit many of the
underrepresented
groups
on
campus due to the correlation
of race and poverty. In addition,
minority
groups
are
not
homogenous and often have
wealth gaps of their own.
Though many Asian American
ethnicities have high average
incomes, Asian Americans have
the highest intra-group wealth
gaps out of any group in America.
It wouldn’t be fair to the less
fortunate
members
of
that
community to deny applicants
because
the
community
as
a
whole
is
overrepresented
on campus. Of course, race-
neutral affirmative action isn’t
as effective at increasing racial
diversity than explicitly race-
based programs, but it’s better
than nothing.
The University of Michigan
needs to make more of an effort
to admit and accommodate less
privileged students and minority
students.
Broadly,
affirmative
action
programs
should
be
reinstated, even if they judge
solely by economic factors. The
Michigan
constitution
would
have to be amended, which
makes this implausible in the
short term, but that doesn’t mean
there shouldn’t be any efforts to
address this problem. Perhaps
the University could reinvest
a tiny fraction of its assets
into outreach programs. Less
fortunate applicants deserve a
fair and equal chance to attend
the University of Michigan.
The University of Michigan’s faltering
promises of minority representation
SAM FOGEL
Opinion Columnist
How we can best optimize our sleep
schedules as college students
SREELAKSHMI PANICKER
Opinion Columnist
Design by Sara Fang