“O 
 

h 
my 
gosh! 

That 
looks 
so 

complicated! You 

are so smart; I could never 
do that.” These are 
often the responses I 
get when my friends 
look at my computer 
while 
I’m 
doing 

my 
homework. 

But, the truth is, 
my 
homework 

really 
isn’t 
that 

complicated. 
Sure, 

the lines of code may 
look 
intimidating, 

but if you were to 
see a male student 
coding on his computer in the 
library, would you think he 
were exceptional? Or would 
you think he were a genius? 
No, you wouldn’t.

There is an extreme double 

standard 
between 
men 

and women in the field of 
technology. When I was three, 
I wanted to be a pop star, not 
a computer scientist. Society 
conditioned me to believe jobs 
related to engineering and 
science were only for men. I 
would have never guessed that 
I, a woman, would ever walk 
into lecture halls to study 
coding languages surrounded 
by 
male 
students, 
male 

professors and male Graduate 
Student Instructors.

I was never the smartest kid 

in class. I constantly struggle 
with 
different 
concepts 
I 

learn, and it takes a lot of 
brainpower for me to master 
them. Last year, when I came 
to the University of Michigan, 
a senior recommended that I 
take a computer science class 
(“You will learn so much! You 
won’t regret it!”) and to this 
day, I don’t. I learned more 
in my first computer science 
course than I did in any other 
class I have taken thus far in 
my academic career.

I worked really hard and 

ended up being a successful 
student. 
Though 
I 
didn’t 

receive an A, the knowledge 
I gained in that course far 
exceeds what you will see 
reflected 
by 
my 
grade. 
I 

learned that doing something 
you actually enjoy allows you 
to learn from your failures 
and accept them as part of the 
process. Studying a subject you 
are passionate about enables 
you to accept setbacks because 
of your determination to do 

better and benefit because 
of 
it. 
I 
experienced 
this 

firsthand while learning how 
to code. Pushing myself to do 

something I never 
thought 
I 
would 

has 
allowed 
me 

to learn more and 
work harder than 
I ever imagined I 
would when I came 
to college.

When 
I 
first 

enrolled 
in 
this 

computer 
science 

class, I thought I 
was 
contributing 

to 
changing 
the 

stereotype 
of 
this 
male-

dominated 
industry; 
that 

I 
would 
help 
change 
the 

reputation that only men can be 
successful in STEM fields. 

However, 
I 
was 
wrong. 

Disproving people’s prejudices 
was and still is harder than 
I thought it would be. I have 
faced the harsh reality that 
you can’t change the minds 
of thousands of individuals 
by simply enrolling in a class. 
They assume things about 
you, they think you won’t be 
as successful as your male 
counterparts and they give 
you attitude for asking too 
many questions.

The stigma that surrounds 

women in STEM fields goes 
far 
beyond 
what 
female 

students will experience on 
the University’s campus. A 
study from Girls Who Code 
states that about 74 percent of 
young girls express interest 
in STEM fields and computer 
science. Yet, research shows 
that women earn only 18 

percent of computer science 
degrees 
and 
hold 
only 
11 

percent of executive positions 
in Silicon Valley. I wonder what 
deterred the rest from pursuing 
their childhood dreams?

Needless to say, there have 

been countless instances in 
which 
women 
have 
faced 

sexism in the tech industry. 
Earlier 
this 
year, 
Justin 

Caldbeck resigned from his 
venture capital firm, Binary 
Capital, 
after 
six 
female 

employees accused him of 
sexually 
harassing 
them. 

Also in 2017, Susan Fowler 
made news when she spoke 
out about the sexism she 
faced as a female working as 
a software engineer for Uber. 
The harsh reality surrounding 
women 
in 
top 
positions 

at 
corporate 
technology 

companies discourages young 
girls from pursuing degrees in 
those fields and taking jobs at 
specific companies.

I know I am just as capable 

as the next person, and I know 
being a girl does not mean I 
will accomplish less. In fact, it 
makes me work harder, so that 
I can show everyone that just 
because I was born a specific 
sex does not mean I will 
amount to less.

The truth to all of this is 

that everything is hard until 
it gets easy. A good friend of 
mine always tells me this, 
which I have found to be 
true: No matter which path 
you choose, no matter which 
class you take, you have to 
put the effort in to actually 
learn. Once you practice it, 
it becomes easier. So no, my 
homework really is not that 
complicated, and no, I am not 
a genius.

We 
should 
all 
actively 

encourage girls to pursue 
STEM. 
There 
are 
many 

organizations 
around 
and 

outside 
of 
campus 
that 

women in technology can 
join to learn from others and 
gain opportunities to grow. 
The more we raise awareness 
about these issues, the more 
the gender gap will close 
and the more women will 
be able to prosper in male-
dominated workplaces such 
as the tech industry.

T

his past week, chants 
of “Hey hey, ho ho, 
Richard 
Spencer 
has 

got to go” rang on our campus. 
Simultaneously, in Honduras, 
the rallying cry of “Fuera 
JOH” (out with Juan Orlando 
Hernández) resonated in the 
streets, the media and the 
collective consciousness of a 
burgeoning movement of mass 
political resistance. 

Hondurans 
went 
to 
the 

polls on Nov. 26 to decide who 
would be the next president, 
and still, a winner has yet to be 
officially announced. The main 
contenders were Juan Orlando 
Hernández, 
the 
National 

Party incumbent running for 
a 
constitutionally-disputed 

second 
term, 
and 
Salvador 

Nasralla, 
a 
sportscaster 

turned 
politician 
who 
has 

created an alliance between 
anti-corruption 
and 
leftist 

opposition parties.

On the night of the election, 

both candidates declared their 
respective victories despite the 
unprecedented silence of the 
Supreme 
Electoral 
Tribunal 

(TSE), which did not release a 
preliminary vote count until 
almost 10 hours after the polls 
had closed. When the TSE 
finally broke its silence, Nasralla 
was leading by a margin of 5 
percent with 57 percent of the 
votes counted.

Then, suddenly, there was 

an electronic malfunction in 
the vote counting technology. 
After an eight hour pause, the 
count resumed, and Hernández, 
the candidate considered most 
favorable 
to 
U.S. 
interests, 

began to bridge the gap and 
eventually surpassed Nasralla 
in the count. The TSE finally 
finished the count Monday, and 
the results show that Hernández 
is leading with 42.98 percent of 
the vote compared to Nasralla’s 
41.39, a difference of only 52,347 
votes. 
However, 
the 
many 

irregularities documented in 
the voting centers, which have 
prevented the announcement 
of a winner, raise suspicion of 
widespread electoral fraud.

With the exception of a few 

U.S. Congress members who 
denounced the way the election 
was handled, our government 
has not firmly addressed the 
situation beyond calling on 
everyone to respect the TSE’s 
results. 
The 
day 
after 
the 

election, I struggled to find 
American 
news 
reports 
on 

the situation, and I drew only 
blank stares on campus when I 
brought it up. While the market 
for international news reporting 
and consumption is competitive, 
the lack of attention to Latin 
America is indicative of a larger 
political project that encourages 
ignorance of U.S. influence over 
these countries.

The silence on U.S.-Latin 

American relations supports 
the implicit conclusion that the 
irregularities in the Honduran 
election are the fault of weak 
democratic 
institutions 

resulting from a culture of 
corruption. However, this view 
obscures a long history of U.S. 
intervention that undermined 
Latin American democracies 
at the price of protecting our 
economic interests (Guatemala, 
Chile, 
Argentina, 
Brazil, 

Nicaragua, 
El 
Salvador, 
to 

name a few). Under the guise 
of preventing the spread of 
communism, 
the 
U.S. 
has 

propped 
up 
several 
Latin 

American dictators, providing 
economic support and training 
of military forces to weed 

out 
any 
leftist 
tendencies 

that would block access to 
multinational corporations.

While many shy away from the 

term colonialism, throwing in the 
“neo-” prefix accurately describes 
the 
economic 
and 
political 

influence we have covertly, and at 
times openly, maintained in Latin 
America. Almost every Latin 
American country bears the scars 
of U.S. intervention.

Yet, the covert nature of our 

actions 
means 
any 
political 

instability is always blamed on 
Latin American culture, a form 
of victim shaming that alleviates 
any U.S. guilt. As a result, the day 
following the Honduran election, 
I was not surprised to find few 
knew what was going on, and 
even fewer felt the U.S. had any 
responsibility to respond.

The 
most 
recent 
coup 

in Honduras was in 2009. 
President Manuel Zelaya, who 
implemented many progressive 
reforms, was overthrown by 
the military after proposing a 
referendum to allow presidents 
to serve two terms instead of one. 
While the mere suggestion of 
adding another term was enough 
to get Zelaya overthrown, a year 
into Hernández’s presidency, 
the Honduran Supreme Court 
ruled to allow him to attempt 
reelection. Hernández, elected 
in 
2013, 
aligns 
with 
U.S. 

economic interests. We have not 
questioned the legality of his bid 
for reelection.

After the 2009 coup, we 

recognized the government of 
Porfirio Lobo Sosa, even though 
other Latin American countries 
refused, 
and 
we 
continued 

to support him despite the 
increase in state repression. The 
support for autocratic leaders in 
Latin America has always cut 
across U.S. party lines. Former 
President 
Barack 
Obama 

supported Lobo Sosa and what 
he called the “restoration of 
democratic practices.” Former 
Secretary 
of 
State 
Hillary 

Clinton, at that time, denied 
what had happened was a coup.

While the U.S. media reflects a 

slight unease with Hernández’s 
bid for reelection, we have been 
slow to condemn the fraud. I 
suspect this has much to do with 
Nasralla representing a coalition 
of leftist parties — some labeled 
as socialist.

Given the allegations of fraud 

and the mysterious electronic 
complications in the vote count 
that preceded the reversal of 
the electoral trend, Nasralla 
has refused to recognize the 
results of the election should 
Hernández 
be 
declared 
the 

winner. While the remaining 5 
percent of ballots that showed 
“inconsistencies” were counted 
by hand, Nasralla’s Alliance 
Against 
the 
Dictatorship 

coalition is demanding a more 
comprehensive recount of the 
votes or a redo of the election. 
Since the results are bound to 
be close, the call for a recount 
is neither unprecedented nor 
unwarranted.

In light of the TSE’s failure to 

consider a recount, which seems 

to confirm corruption, many 
Hondurans have taken to the 
streets to protest. In response, 
the government, still controlled 
by Hernández, installed a curfew 
from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. and ordered 
the military to shut down public 
demonstrations. So far, at least 11 
people have died and more than 
1,000 have been arrested.

Despite the dangers presented 

by this autocratic crackdown, 
every 
day 
throughout 
the 

country 
Hondurans 
have 

participated 
in 
marches, 

blockades and cacerolazos, a 
form of popular protest in which 
people bang pots and pans in 
the street. Many have united 
behind the figure of Nasralla 
to 
combat 
the 
corruption 

threatening their democracy. On 
Monday, some factions within 
the police refused to enforce 
the curfew. The magnitude of 
popular resistance proves that 
one cannot fault the nation for 
lacking “democratic culture.” 
In response, Hernández has 
assumed dictatorial-like authority 
and is desperately trying to hang 
onto power, drawing on any 
internal or international support 
he can muster.

This puts the U.S. public 

in a familiar position. We can 
choose to continue the practice 
of turning a blind eye to the 
questionable actions of our own 
government in Latin America. 
We can continue to tacitly 
support 
a 
dictator 
because 

the 
democratically 
elected 

alternative is leftist. We can 
continue to pretend this election 
does not concern us. But we 
must recognize that this means 
erasing our history just as much 
as theirs. It empties out the 
ideal of our national integrity by 
putting all the blame elsewhere. 
After all, it’s always easier to 
continue with the status quo.

Or, we can choose to stand 

in solidarity.

Drawing 
from 
our 

University’s 
conflict 
over 

whether or not to allow white 
nationalist 
Richard 
Spencer 

speak on campus based on 
arguments of free speech, or 
the recent revelations about 
Michael Flynn and Russia, we 
can 
recognize 
that 
putting 

democracy into practice isn’t 
always easy. Our democracy has 
a lot of problems too, including 
the mandate we always give 
our leaders to take neocolonial 
actions that subvert democracy 
in Latin America.

We can take a few seconds to 

Google “Honduras elections,” 
“Honduras 
history” 
and 

maybe even “History of U.S. 
intervention 
in 
Honduras.” 

We can bring it up with our 
friends and in our classes. We 
can contact our representatives 
and tell them we’re done being 
bystanders and we’re ready 
to recognize our share of the 
guilt. We can tell them we don’t 
want to recognize the results 
of the election unless there is 
a complete recount of all the 
votes cast because we know 
democracy is fragile enough 
without 
outside 
influences 

actively trying to subvert it.

We 
can 
learn 
from 
the 

mass political mobilization in 
Honduras, apply their tactics in 
our own fights for democracy, 
use their awakening of political 
consciousness to spur our own. 
And when we raise our voices 
to chant “Richard Spencer has 
got to go,” we can add our own 
“Fuera JOH.”

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, December 6, 2017

REBECCA LERNER

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

EMMA KINERY

Editor in Chief

ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY 

and REBECCA TARNOPOL 

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

Have you heard what’s happening 

in Honduras?

ALLISON LANG | OP-ED

Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns

Samantha Goldstein

Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Max Lubell

Lucas Maiman

Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Ali Safawi

Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Stephanie Trierweiler

Ashley Zhang

Allison Lang is an

LSA senior.

Support women in STEM

Michelle Phillips can be reached at 

mphi@umich.edu.

MICHELLE PHILLIPS | COLUMN

MICHELLE 
PHILLIPS 

I have faced the 

harsh reality 
that you can’t 

change the minds 

of thousands of 
individuals by 
simply enrolling 

in a class.

JOIN THE DAILY

The Michigan Daily Opinion Section is currently accepting applications 

to join our team. We are currently hiring columnists, cartoonists, 
and editors for the winter semester. Applications can be found at 

https://tinyurl.com/W18opinion

— U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich. in a retirement statement 

following sexual harrassment allegations

“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

They’re not accurate, they’re not 
true and they’re something I can’t 

explain where they came from.

”

Almost every 

Latin American 
country bears 
the scars of U.S. 

intervention.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds. 
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550 
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to 

tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

