T

he 
’90s 
were 
filled 
with 
bizarre 
weight 
loss 
trends. 
From 
Fletcherism 
to 
eating 
a 
grapefruit 
at 
every 
meal, 
people pursued a variety of 
strategies to shed some extra 
pounds. With only a few known 
medical 
advancements 
in 
obesity management — many 
of which quickly fell out of 
favor with the Food and Drug 
Administration — the diverse 
array of weight loss tactics was 
inevitable. Going to work with 
ankle weights, a cup of coffee 
and a frozen WeightWatchers 
meal for lunch (with Kelly 
Ripa and her “Dancin’ on Air” 
workouts) 
took 
effort 
that 
isn’t present in today’s weight-
management trends. But why 
has progress been so slow?
The 
figurative 
pendulum 
of 
science 
swung 
toward 
shortcuts — things like pills, 
surgeries and even engineered 
food. Truly taking off in the 
early 2000s, physicians and 
scientists have collaborated on 
groundbreaking 
technologies 
to combat the growing obesity 
epidemic in a cost-effective and 
accessible way. For example, a 
sleeve gastrectomy, a popular 
bariatric surgery for people 
with a body mass index over 35, 
is covered by the vast majority 
of health insurance providers.
However, 
nearly 
half 
of 
Americans are now classified 
as obese, and that figure is only 
on the rise. It was only a matter 
of time until the conditions of a 
larger-than-normal population 
invited a new weight loss trend 
that 
is 
markedly 
different 
and dangerous from the rest: 
semaglutide injections.
Semaglutide, 
commonly 
known by the brand name 
Ozempic, is a type 2 diabetes 
medication 
that 
works 
by 
increasing insulin secretion, 
which 
in 
turn 
decreases 
blood sugar levels. Originally 
created and manufactured by 
the pharmaceutical company 
Novo Nordisk in 2012, Ozempic 
demonstrated 
incredible 
results for the treatment of 
type 2 diabetes. The significant 
side effect of weight loss, 
however, did not go unnoticed. 
Participants 
in 
Ozempic 
clinical trials showed a 15% 
decrease in their overall weight 
coupled with an improvement 
in physical functioning. 
Unsurprisingly, 
the 
FDA 
recently approved semaglutide, 
under the brand name Wegovy, 

for weight loss management 
in obese people. Since its 
stamp of approval during the 
summer of 2021, semaglutide 
has skyrocketed in popularity. 
A chunk of that popularity, 
however, 
comes 
from 
the 
wrong crowd.
Without health insurance 
coverage, one monthly dose 
of semaglutide (sold as a pen 
injector) 
can 
cost 
almost 
$1,000 out of pocket. This 
price tag is not out of reach 
for the Hollywood A-listers 
using semaglutide to take off 
the last few stubborn pounds. 
While few celebrities publicly 
reveal their recreational use of 
semaglutide, Elon Musk took to 
Twitter to display a markedly 
slimmer body due (in part) to 
Wegovy. The injections have 
even made their way onto the 
largely Gen-Z platform TikTok 
as a weight loss trend.
Recreational 
semaglutide 
use is not inherently selfish. 
But when there’s a massive 
shortage 
of 
Ozempic 
and 
Wegovy, that strikes a bad 
chord with me. Diabetic and 
obese people who were relying 
on semaglutide prior to its 
claim to fame are now left in 
the midst of a shortage they did 
not cause. 
Insurance also has a role to 
play in this crisis. Insurance 
companies are transitioning 
to a stingy scheme that only 
covers small doses, forcing 
non-recreational 
users 
to 
ration 
doses. 
Furthermore, 
unprecedented 
indicators 
of 
advanced 
diabetes 
are 
required to sustain coverage. 
To make matters worse, people 
are 
turning 
to 
telehealth 
companies 
for 
non-FDA 
approved Ozempic substitutes.
The Ozempic and Wegovy 
crisis is quite the slap in the face 
for everyday people who need 
semaglutide for their health. 
University of Michigan college 
students 
with 
semaglutide-
indicated health concerns are 
no exception either.
Both 
the 
State 
Street 
Walgreens 
and 
CVS, 
two 
popular pharmacies for U-M 
students, 
have 
experienced 
periodic 
inability 
to 
fill 
semaglutide 
prescriptions. 
In an interview with The 
Michigan 
Daily, 
pharmacist 
technician Derek Plew shared 
the impacts of the popularity 
of the drug on those who are 
reliant on prescriptions.
“There isn’t much we can 
do at this point,” Plew said. 
“We have to honor semaglutide 
prescriptions as they are sent 
by physicians, regardless of 
whether the person number 42 

on the list ‘needs it’ more than 
person number 3.” 
The 
Ozempic 
shortage 
eerily resembles the Adderall 
shortage of 2019, when college 
students 
who 
needed 
the 
medication could not receive 
it. It is clear that University 
Health Service should step 
in to ensure that students, 
especially out-of-state students 
who are obese and diabetic, are 
able to source semaglutide in 
Ann Arbor during the shortage. 
Without 
it, 
uncontrolled 
diabetes has been shown to 
cause glaucoma, heart disease 
and 
painful 
neuropathy; 
it is simply inequitable for 
the 
University 
to 
provide 
pharmacy services on paper 
and not safeguard medications 
necessary to help parts of our 
student 
body 
lead 
healthy, 
successful lives. 
At the national level, the 
confidence 
that 
Americans 
can have in timely resources 
for 
marginalized 
health 
conditions 
is 
undoubtedly 
declining. In an age where 
false misconceptions surround 
the 
“self-inflictedness” 
of 
obesity and diabetes, it is 
critical that these medications 
are available for their original, 
protected use. The time is 
now for the government to 
step in with regulations that 
have previously ensured the 
supply of other medications. 
Prior policy resolutions such 
as regional drug distribution 
by the Department of Health 
and 
Human 
Services 
and 
termination of preauthorization 
requirements 
for 
minors 
provide a promising start to 
preserving the circulation of 
weight loss medications for 
those it is intended for. It is a 
travesty that the urgency and 
commitment to protect obese 
and diabetic people is lacking 
from those who have the 
authority to help.
Human psychology is not 
going to change. We cannot rely 
on people’s moral compasses to 
self-assess their true need for 
semaglutide. Actionable steps 
at the government and U-M 
level must be taken to prevent 
a future shortage of the next 
in-demand drug. Ozempic led 
to public health crises colliding 
in a time of limiting resources: 
uncooperative 
insurance 
companies, 
prescription 
shopping from the wealthy 
and the lack of government 
intervention. 
A 
healthier 
America is at a standstill so long 
as the responsible distribution 
of all drugs is on the periphery 
of the government and Big 
Pharma’s agenda. 

Wednesday, February 15, 2023 — 9
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

Say yes to injectable drugs 
(the kind you need)

L

ast 
year, 
I 
was 
in 
conversation 
with 
a 
male peer of mine about 
our professional careers after 
college. About halfway through 
the conversation, he stopped me 
abruptly and said, “You know, 
you really are lucky.” I shot him a 
confused look and he continued, 
“You have the safety net of 
marriage after college. If things 
don’t work out with my degree, 
I really don’t have any other 
options.” 
I stared at him, frozen with 
astonishment, 
before 
deciding 
that this was a conversation 
that I’d rather avoid. So, I bit my 
tongue, brushed over the comment 
with a forced laugh and changed 
the subject. For the past year, 
I’ve contemplated my decision 
at that moment — my decision to 
avoid that difficult, but necessary 
conversation 
about 
female 
perception and representation in 
higher education. Consider this 
article to be my recompense: It’s 
time to open up the dialogue. 
The year 1970 represented a 
shift in the American education 
system. 
It 
was 
during 
this 
year that, for the first time in 
history, the number of women 
outnumbered the number of men 
on American college campuses. 
Since that moment, this trend has 
only continued to increase, with 
the gender ratio on campuses 
nationwide 
approaching 
60 
women for every 40 men.
The University of Michigan is 
not immune to this phenomenon, 
with undergraduate enrollment 

statistics also reflecting a female 
majority. The gender ratio in 
the workforce displays a more 
even split, currently exhibiting a 
nearly equal 50-50 distribution. 
The problem? Despite the fact 
that 
women 
constitute 
the 
majority of the college-educated 
population and just under half 
of the workforce, they only hold 
25% of senior executive positions. 
When considering the leadership 
positions in S&P 500 companies, 
this 
number 
decreases 
even 
further, dropping down to 5%. 
Women are more educated and 
more professionally inclined than 
ever before, but, paradoxically, the 
male dominance of the workplace 
has remained unchanged.
Numerous studies have shown 
that gender gaps in the workforce 
are fueled by a variety of factors. 
Socioeconomic barriers, sexual 
harassment and deeply ingrained 
gender roles are just a few of the 
forces that contribute to this 
phenomenon. 
However, 
these 
inequalities are not isolated to 
the workforce — they are deeply 
entrenched within the American 
education system as well. 
As stated above, the female 
demographic in higher education 
has now become the majority. 
Yet, cases of gender inequality 
and discrimination still remain 
rampant. A study by the Public 
Library 
of 
Science 
academic 
journal found that the composition 
of leadership in higher education 
often mirrors, and potentially 
contributes to, these workplace 
inequities. Although the male 
population has now become a 
minority in higher education, most 
of the leadership positions are 
still held by men. An analysis of 

leadership on editorial boards for 
academic journals at top-ranked 
universities found that only 17.5% 
of the 4,112 board members were 
women. 
Because the climate of higher 
education acts as a social and 
professional primer for students 
entering the labor force, any 
inequalities that exist in the 
education system are, in turn, 
often 
replicated 
within 
the 
workplace. As a result, these 
barriers to female leadership in 
academic clubs, editorial boards 
and 
pre-professional 
societies 
aren’t only obstructing women 
from gaining valuable experience 
to prepare them for their careers — 
they are also serving to amplify the 
deeply rooted gender inequalities 
that women are subconsciously 
socialized into adopting. 
A lack of female leadership 
opportunities in the education 
system reinforces the presence of 
social role theory, which identifies 
widely shared gender stereotypes 
as stemming from the gendered 
division of labor within a society. 
In this way, a scarcity of female 
representation in the workforce 
and in academic leadership is 
counterproductive 
to 
equality. 
Often lacking role models in 
the presence of male-dominant 
leadership, female advancement 
is hindered as young girls are 
continually socialized into these 
secondary, 
background 
roles. 
Across the education system, 
these latent systems of gendered 
socialization all preach the same 
harmful message: men are natural 
leaders and women are natural 
followers. 

MOSES NELAPUDI
Opinion Columnist

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.

SHANNON STOCKING 
AND KATE WEILAND
Co-Editors in Chief

QUIN ZAPOLI AND 
JULIAN BARNARD
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Ammar Ahmad

Julian Barnard

Brandon Cowit

Jess D’Agostino

Ben Davis

Shubhum Giroti

Devon Hesano

Jack Kapcar

Sophia Lehrbaum

Olivia Mouradian

Siddharth Parmar

Rushabh Shah

Zhane Yamin

Nikhil Sharma

Lindsey Spencer

Evan Stern

Anna Trupiano

Jack Tumpowsky

Alex Yee

Quin Zapoli

JULIA VERKLAN 
MALONEY AND ZOE 
STORER 
Managing Editors

How higher education reinforces the 
gender gap

TATE MOYER
Opinion Columnist

Opinion

T

he 
Ross 
School 
of 
Business 
is 
among 
the 
most 
prestigious 
business schools in the United 
States. Only those who have 
proven themselves to be smart 
and well-rounded individuals 
get the opportunity to pursue 
business at the University of 
Michigan. Some of the most 
brilliant students at my high 
school ended up at the Business 
School, which is undoubtedly 
a substantial achievement. But 
why?
Well, 
it’s 
obvious! 
These 
students 
have 
essentially 
secured a financial safety net. 
Parents can send them off to 
business school knowing that 
after these four years, their 
kids will always be one job 
application from a high-paying 
job. It’s kind of nice to know 
that your kid won’t starve! 
But what does that tell us 
about universities? It tells us 
that they aren’t just a haven 
for academia. However, they 
are also no longer a means of 
“survival” in America, per se. 
You still find those who pursue 
topics out of genuine interest 
and passion at this university, 
but there’s a “concern” for 
students that want to obtain 
a Ph.D. This is a valid concern 
to have, given that there are 
examples of highly educated 
students 
who 
become 

underemployed; however, for 
a significant majority, higher 
education is viewed as little 
more than a stepping stone on 
the way to a job — a disturbingly 
myopic perspective on life and 
ambition.
This is readily apparent at 
business schools in particular, 
which can serve as a direct 
pipeline to some of the vilest 
institutions in the world. Sure, 
some business students are 
interested 
in 
starting 
their 
own businesses. Others view 
business school as an avenue for 
social mobility in a competitive, 
vicious 
economy. 
But 
then 
there’s a vulnerable group of 
business students that are pulled 
into big firms. Why? Because 
big companies capitalize on 
the general angst that students 
have about their careers at 
recruiting events. It makes it so 
that working at a big company 
can lead to a comfortable life — 
a means to an end, rather than 
an end in itself. This cultivates 
a 
Darwinian 
mindset 
that 
thrives off greediness and the 
exploitation of others. In that 
light, consulting, investment 
banking, venture capital and 
most other corporate or finance 
jobs all sound the same to me: 
making a buck in the most 
bureaucratic 
cesspools 
of 
society imaginable.
So, I’ve just laid out some 
combative accusations against 
the business majors. I obviously 
don’t mean all of them! Just the 
majority. 

What even is consulting? 
Google says: “the business of 
giving expert advice to other 
professionals, 
typically 
in 
financial and business matters.” 
That’s nice. But what does 
that entail? Who are these 
professionals? And what are the 
financial and business matters?
Take 
McKinsey 
and 
Company, one of the biggest 
consulting firms in the world. 
Business students hoping to 
consult for a living dream of 
working at McKinsey. And, 
look at Purdue Pharma, the 
pharmaceutical company that 
manufactured 
oxycodone 
(branded 
as 
OxyContin), 
a 
semisynthetic opioid used to 
treat severe pain that’s highly 
addictive. Sometime in 2007, 
Purdue Pharma worked closely 
with McKinsey to address the 
declining sales of oxycodone, 
their 
most 
profitable 
drug. 
McKinsey 
advised 
Purdue 
to 
deceptively 
advertise 
the pharmaceutical as non-
addictive and encourage doctors 
to promote the drug. Following 
McKinsey’s 
advice, 
Purdue 
Pharma’s sales did increase, by 
like, a lot! So, the consulting 
firm was quite successful at 
what it did.
How did McKinsey do this? 
Well, 
mainly 
by 
exploiting 
language to obfuscate clearly 
unethical 
premises. 
In 
the 
presentation 
they 
pitched, 
they suggested the following: 
“Abuse and Addiction is an 
attractive market that could be 

a natural next step for Purdue.” 
Sounds like something the U-M 
Business 
School 
would 
tell 
students, right? Well, it’s the 
business language, a depraved 
but 
effective 
and 
mutually 
agreed-upon way to get your 
point across. But if you have 
a sliver of humanity, you’d 
realize this is morally bankrupt 
because 
it 
perpetuated 
the 
opioid epidemic and resulted in 
millions of deaths. 
Another 
unfortunate 
and 
blatant example is Bachstein 
Consulting. 
This 
“firearm 
technologies” 
consulting 
company has worked with the 
likes of the U.S. Army and NATO 
to manufacture the deadliest 
weapons known to humanity. 
Although this is a minor player 
in the technology consulting 
world, I think it’s interesting 
because of how ridiculous of 
an example it is. So, what is 
consulting in this context? 
Bachstein claims that “the 
majority of our experience is 
based on designing and testing 
products 
for 
professional 
use that exceed the highest 
performance 
standards.” 
I 
can think of a more cohesive 
mission statement that employs 
concrete language: “We focus 
on designing weapons and we 
profit 
when 
war 
happens.” 
Jobs in the weapons consulting 
industry are especially evil 
because 
when 
you 
design 
“innovative” 
and 
“reliable” 
firearm 
systems, 
who 
are 
you 
serving? 
Certainly 
not 

humanity. 
Observe 
the 
jargon 
they 
use. 
Calculated 
subtleties 
in 
corporate 
language 
can 
mask the atrocious realities 
of capitalism. It’s a form of 
symbolic 
communication 
that presupposes that people 
are 
naïve 
consumer 
units 
(“markets”) and we can obtain 
something from them (“profit”) 
by providing them a commodity 
(“product”). With such a rigid 
and dehumanizing framework 
that’s 
misconstrued 
to 
be 
“professional,” firms can pitch 
some of the most outlandish 
ideas in a seemingly ordinary 
way. We accept it because 
we’ve repressed in our minds 
the underlying notion of what 
capitalism really entails: profit 
over 
everything. 
The 
very 
grounds of American society 
are rooted in this exploitative 
reality, one in which morality 
cannot be legislated. The onus is 
on us to make the right choices.
I started this column by 
talking 
about 
the 
Business 
School because a lot of my 
Business 
School 
peers 
are 
pursuing 
careers 
at 
these 
companies, and an ideological 
rupture is undermining my 
friendship 
with 
them. 
It’s 
upsetting to see bright minds 
sell their souls for such a cheap 
price. Some of my friends are 
critically aware of the moral 
dilemma at play, and they’ll say 
things like: “Well, it’s just for 
the money. I don’t morally agree 
with the company.” But is this 

moral neutrality productive? I 
can’t help but think, “well, just 
how much individualism can 
our society handle?”
LSA sophomore Sara Lin 
weighed in on this: “Financial 
freedom is a critical factor to 
consider when choosing a career. 
But students should examine 
what they’re working for and 
avoid clear moral paradoxes. 
Awareness 
of 
a 
company’s 
unprincipled business (conduct) 
while choosing to work there is 
a feeble and self-centered cop-
out.”
It’s especially ironic that after 
pursuing a liberal arts education 
and learning to think with an 
open mind, students will go into 
these big businesses. What’s the 
point of an education? Although 
there’s a comfort in having a 
job, students should strongly 
consider 
whether 
that 
job 
aligns with their values. A mild 
examination reveals that a lot 
of these companies are not just 
meaningless, but often utterly 
evil. 
It’s upsetting to think that 
we, 
the 
young 
generation, 
are feeding into this vicious 
capitalist loop. I’ve seen some of 
my most liberal friends betray 
their ideology when a little bit 
of money was on the table. A 
close high school friend who 
has voted for Bernie Sanders 
in the past is now working 
at McKinsey. Look, you can 
maintain a progressive façade, 
but in the end, your actions 
speak louder than your words.

Reconsider your McKinsey offer

AMMAR AHMAD
Opinion Columnist

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

