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

