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