100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

April 04, 2016 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Opinion

SHOHAM GEVA
EDITOR IN CHIEF

CLAIRE BRYAN

AND REGAN DETWILER
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

LAURA SCHINAGLE
MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at

the University of Michigan since 1890.

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.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, April 4, 2016

S

potify revolutionized how
we listen to and discover
music. Prior to its release,

the
~Youth
of

the
Internet

Age~
had
to

trawl
through

YouTube
to

listen to songs
or
resort
to

piracy.
There

had never been
a
streaming

service
so

intuitive;
the
fact
that

Spotify
was

free launched its popularity to
another level. The fact that I can
search up nearly any commercially
published song is nothing short of
a digital miracle. While it’s easy
to simply marvel at how great
Spotify is, I think it’s valuable to
take a closer look at the effects of
Spotify both in terms of the app
itself and the broader effects of
consumers having so much choice.
None of Spotify’s choices are
innocuous. From a purely logical
perspective, how Spotify presents
music shouldn’t affect what we end
up listening to; people should just
gravitate toward the songs they
like the most. But this isn’t the case
— how Spotify presents songs has
deep implications for how we listen
to music.

***
Jay
Z
recently
took
down

much of his music from the free
streaming
service,
Spotify,
to

bolster his own streaming service,
Tidal. For the Patrices and Jeffs
(Moms and Dads). Jay Z has two
certified classics: The Blueprint
and Reasonable Doubt, both of
which were taken down; his other
work includes from great (The
Black Album) to unmentionable. As

an avid hip-hop fan, I was initially
dismayed that I couldn’t listen
to some of my favorite albums.
However,
eventually
I
found

myself exploring much more of his
discography, such as his criminally
underrated
American
Gangster

once those other two albums were
removed from Spotify.

In a 2005 study, Markus Prior

discovered that increasing media
choice
increases
the
political

knowledge of all members of
society, regardless of their interest
in politics. However, those with a
greater predilection toward politics
learned more than others, thus
increasing societal gaps in political
knowledge. This effect carried
over to other television programs.
People interested in sports watched
more sports; people interested in
gossip watched more trash.

I
think
there’s
a
similar

phenomenon at work here if we
were to replace the different genres
of television with different genres
of music. Streaming services have
increased everyone’s access to
music, and people tend to gravitate
toward what they already liked.
However, crossover artists have
their popularity reinforced.

For example, every millennial

has a favorite Kanye song. But we
can use this analytic framework
to go deeper. We can substitute
music genre with music artists. I
gravitated toward albums I already
liked and picked up a smattering
of tracks from other albums.
However, once Jay Z took his most
acclaimed albums off Spotify and
my choices were lessened, I began
listening to other parts of Jay Z’s
body of work. Reducing my choice
in music counterintuitively allowed
me to discover more music. It’s
easy to view more choices as being
intrinsically good and not delineate

the effects of choice. This isn’t to
say having more options is bad, but
to put a finer point on the effect of
having much choice.

***
I previously mentioned that

every millennial has a favorite
Kanye song (Shock is the only
emotionally appropriate response
to a Kanye neophyte; as the refrain
goes: “You ain’t got no Yeezy?”).
Many
of
us
would
probably

list the same songs within our
pantheon (“Paris,” “Bound 2,”
“Touch the Sky”). Part of this
is because these songs are a cut
above the rest. However, the way
Spotify constructs its interface
has contributed to these songs’
popularity.

When one looks up on artist

on Spotify, one of the first things
presented is the artist’s most
popular collection of songs. We
naturally gravitate toward options
that require the least effort, and the
app’s elevation of these songs means
that we will be pulled toward them.
Some might respond by claiming
that the effort required to choose
a different song is marginal and
shouldn’t have any effect.

This
underestimates
our

susceptibility
to
influence.

Putting healthy food at eye level
at a supermarket has been shown
to increase its consumption by
18
percent.
Clearly,
exogenous

factors beyond our preferences
have a profound effect on how
we consume — both media and
foodstuffs. Spotify is not a neutral
force that allows us to access music
at will, and to view it as such is
naive. It fundamentally changes
how we discover and interact with
music.

Roland Davidson can be reached

at mhenryda@umich.edu.

The choices we get when we stream

E-mail anniE at asturpin@umich.Edu
ANNIE TURPIN

ROLAND
DAVIDSON

O

h how I hold my high school
days near and dear to
my heart. How thrilling

it was to have rules to break and
lines to cross for the first time.
I will always remember, with
nostalgia, my first sips of alcohol
and sneaking boys over while my
parents were at work.

But no way in hell would I go

back.

In high school, everything was

exciting and new, but nothing
beats liberation: the great release
of living on my own, choosing
my
own
future
and
being

independent in most aspects of
my life. Is there anything more
satisfying to brand-new adults
than exercising their freedom in
any and every way they know how
to? The answer is a resounding
“no” from every freshman who
just escaped helicopter parents,
and anyone who loved watching
“Project X.” And, inevitably,
with this hedonistic entrance
into adulthood sometimes comes
sex. Lots and lots of sex.

If there is one thing that

all students garner from their
college experience, no matter
what their major is, it is the
fact that sex is often a part of
life. Not everyone in college
is having sex — in fact, a large
portion
of
students
on
our

campus aren’t — but the topic of
sex is a near-inescapable aspect
of college culture. There is no
one definition of sex, but rather
an infinite number of ways to
demonstrate
intimacy.
Some

people define sex as kissing,
while others may define it as

intimate touching.

There is seldom a weekend

that passes when I do not hear
and partake in drama involving
someone who hooked up with
someone else, “hooking up” also
being a vague term that everyone
seems to define differently, leaving
the specific intimate act open to
inference. Of course none of it
is my business, but nonetheless
I am invested. And really, aren’t
many of us? Still raging with the
hormones of adolescence but free
from its restrictions, how could
we not talk about sex? We are at
an age where sex is not merely an
activity; it is an obsession.

Our obsession with sex is not

so depraved as is the way we talk
about it. We oftentimes recount
our
sexual
escapades
with

embellishment, for sure, but also
without refrain and respect. I
have heard far too many bedroom
stories beginning with the words
“this bitch.” We may gloat about
our adventures with an arrogance
that makes it seem like sex is not
a two-person endeavor, but rather
an independent crusade for the
most awesome story to tell the next
day. But sex isn’t independent. On
the other end of every lie story is
a real person — a person whose
feelings and humanity are often
left out of these epics.

It’s all in good fun, as they

say. The problem is that lines are
being blurred: the line between
politically correct and incorrect,
between respect and disrespect,
between consent and assault.

It’s easy to talk about sex in

the classroom, aside from the

obvious
discomfort.
It’s
easy

to regurgitate the definition of
consent, “a clear and unambiguous
agreement, expressed in mutually
understandable words or actions,
to engage in a particular activity.”
It’s easy to keep the words “sober
and enthusiastic” in the back of
your mind. What is not so easy is to
apply them — both to yourself and
to your friends, whose definitions
may be blurred or forgotten.

Consent is a crucial part of

human relationships that has too
often become more educational
than practical. Yes, it is sometimes
hard to be the voice of social
justice, as asking for consent can
feel awkward or embarrassing.
But there is an easy fix: Grow up.
You are not an adult until you
learn to respect other people. You
cannot count your college years as
free passes to be assholes, at least,
not when it comes at the cost of the
safety of others.

If many of us are just trying

to find ourselves in college and
become “real adults,” why do
we insist on being as childish as
possible? The real symptoms of
growing up are respect, empathy,
tolerance and a firm resolution
to be kind to others. So by all
means, go nuts; these are the
freest years of your life. But
respect should take precedent
over everything. No survivor of
sexual assault cares whether it’s
“not cool” to talk about consent.
If you do, maybe you shouldn’t
be having sex at all.

Nora Akcasu is a networking

publicity activism SAPAC volunteer.

Grow up a little, talk about consent

NORA AKCASU | OP-ED

Why we left Detroit

TO THE DAILY:

Overall, I enjoyed Anay Kaytal’s article

on the J. L. Hudson department store from
Detroit’s past. However, when he states,
“People who once called Detroit home
ended up fleeing at the slightest indica-
tions of trouble,” he shows not only an utter
ignorance of the changes that happened
in Detroit after the 1967 riots, but also his
naiveté about people leaving homes they
had lived in for decades.

My parents, like many other Detroiters,

never wanted to leave Detroit. Detroit had a
huge middle class, and the large majority of
Detroiters owned their homes. Apartment
dwellers were rare. The bus system was fan-
tastic then — so good that my father never
drove nor owned a car. He took a couple
buses to work six days a week.

However, things changed quickly in my

parents’ Detroit neighborhood after the
riots. The crime rate increased dramatically.
New people moving into the neighborhood
owned guns, most of them for protection.
But not my family. Once in the late ’70s, my
father was walking the block and a half from

the bus stop to our little ranch house after
work when two people accosted him right
in front of our house to rob him. They had a
sawed-off shotgun pointed at him to ensure
their success. Then, one of them stuck the
shotgun up his nose and said, “Let’s waste
this …” Right in front of my father they pro-
ceeded to argue with each other on whether
or not to blow his brains out.

Luckily, they didn’t kill him. However, my

father never recovered fully from the emo-
tional trauma. My parents ended up leaving
the home they loved. Many other lifelong
Detroiters left Detroit because either they
didn’t want to go through an experience like
this or they did have such a traumatic expe-
rience. Being so overwhelmed by so much
crime, the Detroit Police Department never
caught these sorry excuses for people. And
this is fleeing Detroit at the slightest indica-
tion of trouble the author is referring to?

It was not just a slight indication of

trouble that caused people to leave Detroit.
Rather, it was the serious crime that erupt-
ed there that pushed people from the places
they once called home.

Robert Frank

2010, the Michi-
gan
Student

Assembly passed
a
resolution

changing the lan-

guage of the Statement of Student Rights
and Responsibilities to be gender-neutral.
However, this doesn’t do enough to ensure
equality on our campus. Transgender rights
deserve continued efforts. One start would
be to listen to the voices of signatories to
a petition launched by the student group
Wolverines for Preferred Pronouns, which
advocated for students’ preferred pronouns
to appear on class rosters. Though Title IX
ensures that students have the right to use
the restroom aligning to their gender iden-
tity, the Office of Student Life and the State-
ment of Student Rights and Responsibilities
should explicitly state that transgender stu-
dents can use any bathroom on campus they
feel most comfortable using. The adminis-
tration must set this precedent to ensure
gender-inclusive policies are consistently
upheld in our University community.

If the student petition is approved,

Wolverine Access would have a space for
students to choose which pronoun they
prefer teachers to use on classroom ros-
ters. This would enforce respectful treat-
ment from teachers and classmates for
all transgender students and reduce the
stress of transgender students having to
notify their teachers on their own of their
pronoun preference. Other universities,
including Harvard University and the
University of California, Berkeley, have
already taken steps to provide students
with options like these. Specifically,
Berkeley provides six different options
for students to choose on their applica-
tion forms: male, female, trans male,
trans female, gender queer/gender non-
conforming or a different identity.

The University currently offers option-

al gender-inclusive housing, and East
Quad Residence Hall hosts the Gender
Inclusive Living Experience. Gender-
inclusive bathrooms are located around
campus and are featured in some dorms,
but not all. In addition, access to these
facilities are often restricted — especially
in living spaces. As well, inside all dorms
(including ones with gender-inclusive
bathrooms), students must use a housing
key card to access any restroom.

Will Sherry, Director of the Spectrum

Center, said the University allows stu-
dents to self-designate their gender, but
each student is assigned bathroom access
in residence halls based on their current
legal sex. Therefore, you are assigned
bathroom access based on this legal sex
and granted access to one of two gender-
specific restrooms. When neither male
nor female restrooms fulfill a student’s
needs, the current practice is that the
student must contact their hall director
to gain access to gender-inclusive rest-
rooms. Amir Baghdadchi, the director of
communications for University Housing,
said the department works closely with

the Spectrum Center to make arrange-
ments like these for students efficient.

Though it’s good University Housing

and the Spectrum Center work closely
together on matters pertaining to trans-
gender students’ individual dorm experi-
ences, the two must also work together
to change the overall issue — granting
access to bathrooms based on legal sex —
to instead grant bathroom access aligning
to self-designated gender.

While
gender-inclusive
bathrooms

should be applauded, they are question-
able on the basis that they continue to
separate transgender people from the
status quo. The current process is prob-
lematic because it adds additional stress
as students must contact their hall direc-
tor to gain this access. Additionally,
students can misuse gender-inclusive
restrooms (using them for sex, smoking,
etc.), distracting from their purpose and
potentially prompting restrictions on
gender-inclusive hall card access.

Requiring a key card to gain bathroom

access was meant as a safety precaution
against break-ins when first implemented
at the University in the 2000s, but the
logic that gendered bathroom access is
a necessary safety precaution suggests
the University assumes students must be
protected from one another in private
spaces. This logic places disrespect as the
expectation and respect as the rule, when
instead the University should expect stu-
dents to be respectful toward one another
and punish them when they aren’t.

Many university campuses, including

Berkeley, Brown University and Illinois
State University, have all-gender bath-
rooms, where females and males all use
the same facilities. This is a solution to
problems that arise when students misuse
gender-inclusive bathrooms, the problem of
assuming students of different gender ori-
entations will disrespect one another when
given the chance to comingle in private
spaces and the problem of othering trans-
gender students that all arises from the
bathroom distinctions the University cur-
rently provides. While we do not expect the
University to transition to all-gender bath-
rooms overnight, it is a goal to aim toward
in the future.

The University should ensure the protec-

tion of the rights of all students by including
more widespread use of all gender-encom-
passing policies. These policies should
not be limited to allowing students to use
whichever bathroom they wish to use, but
also include the opportunity to share cor-
rect pronouns with professors. Adminis-
trators should also look to include further
policies in the future to ensure gender
equality on campus. The approval of the
Wolverines for Preferred Pronouns peti-
tion, and progress on inclusive bathrooms,
will aid in making campus culture more
accepting of transgender equality and show
that our campus stands in solidarity with
transgender people in the wake of the North
Carolina law.

OPINION
From Page 1A

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan,

Jeremy Kaplan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala,

Kit Maher, Madeline Nowicki, Anna Polumbo-Levy,
Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke,

Kevin Sweitzer, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung,

Stephanie Trierweiler, Hunter Zhao

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Back to Top

© 2025 Regents of the University of Michigan