T
he other day, I logged into
my
Facebook
account
and noticed a notification
on my timeline. It was a message
from Facebook itself, urging me to
update my profile picture. The exact
message — or rather, command
— was written in bold font across
my screen: “It’s been a while since
you updated your profile picture.
Choose a recent photo of yourself
so people can find you easily.” I was
taken aback. What was wrong with
my current profile picture? And
furthermore, I had last updated it
in March. That’s only about eight
months; I really don’t look any
different now.
Despite Facebook’s ever-enticing
recommendation, I did not change
my profile picture. I am perfectly
content with my profile picture
the way it is. However, I am still
troubled by the entire situation. The
fact that Facebook can now directly
encourage users to make changes to
their appearance and claim that it
is for the satisfaction of other users
is deeply alarming. It reflects the
dangerous vanity that has become
a core value in not only the social
media sphere, but in our society in
general. It encourages the validation
of oneself through the approval of
others in the form of receiving virtual
“likes.” Moreover, because we are
able to edit the photos that we share,
we are able to get rid of whatever we
don’t want our audiences to see. In
this way, we are creating a culture
of deception of others and ourselves.
Every day, over 350 million
Facebook
photos
are
shared.
That’s a lot of posting, and a lot of
opportunities for users to get a
peek into the lives of others. This
is where the damage can occur.
Research suggests that appearance
comparisons — common in social
media — is doing an exceptional
job of making us feel bad about
ourselves. This makes perfect sense.
It’s because social media presents
the perfect paradox: It allows you
to display to others how great and
exciting your life is. However, it
allows for you to see how great and
exciting everyone else’s life is, so
you can’t help but compare yourself
to them.
This leads to the internalization
of cultural ideals about beauty, body
image and lifestyle, which can make
us feel eternally dissatisfied. For
example, approximately 68 percent
of women report being dissatisfied
with their bodies. In my case, after I
received orders to change my profile
picture, I wondered: If Facebook
isn’t even satisfied with my profile
picture, then should I be? At that
moment, even my own satisfaction
was subject to the judgment of
social media.
This leads us to the issue of self-
validation through the approval of
others, which is a field that I believe
Facebook particularly excels in.
Let’s re-examine the line: “Choose
a recent photo of yourself so people
can find you more easily.” To me, this
is pretty remarkable. If a person does
not know what I look like enough to
find me based on my current profile
picture, then we probably aren’t close
friends in real life. Furthermore, it
reinforces a constant pressure to
maintain an image, whatever it may
be. Frequently, how we construct
this image is based on validation that
we get from our followers in the form
of “likes” and comments. In fact,
researchers say that millennials, who
comprise the largest age group on
Facebook, are now more than ever
craving external validation because
they have become so accustomed
to receiving praise online. This is
a phenomenon referred to as the
“generation validation” effect, which
is rooted in social media.
As social media has evolved, so
has a key component in receiving
validation:
editing.
Through
editing applications such as VSCO
or FaceTune, users can retouch
essentially any component of a
photo. Whether you want to edit out
a photobomb or whiten your teeth,
you have the ability to alter reality.
Editing has become a big part of
social media; for example, the photo
editing app Camera 360 has over 800
million users around the world.
FaceTune allows you to make
drastic changes to yourself, such
as widening smiles, concealing
wrinkles and even changing eye
color. This is a perfect example of
the danger of photo editing: It allows
users to choose which aspects of
themselves they want to enhance,
reduce or alter. We no longer accept
ourselves, but instead put out an
enhanced image of what we think
we should look like. And apparently,
the secret lies in the face: Research
shows that Instagram photos that
feature faces get 38 percent more
likes than those without. Suddenly,
FaceTune’s teeth-whitening feature
sounds appealing, doesn’t it?
If we follow Facebook’s advice
and post to attract attention from
followers, then, of course, we are
going to be encouraged to use
photo-editing apps to ensure that we
look the very best. However, what
happens when our virtual selves
don’t match reality?
In 2014, the term “catfish”
officially made it into the Merriam-
Webster online dictionary. It is
defined as “A person who sets up
a false personal profile on a social
networking site for fraudulent or
deceptive purposes.” The catfishing
phenomenon
started
with
the
documentary Catfish, which then
inspired MTV’s Nev Schulman
and Max Joseph, whose TV series
documents actual cases of fraudulent
online relationships. In almost
every episode, the relationship
starts on Facebook, and almost
always the perpetrator uses a fake
profile picture to deceive the other
person. While photo editing isn’t as
extreme as “catfishing,” one thing
is clear: It is very easy to deceive
people online. Facebook can’t check
the authenticity of a profile, and
sometimes the only proof we have is
in the pictures. With the accessibility
of
photo-editing
applications,
we have the ability to seem like a
completely different person online,
which can present a problem when
things don’t quite match up in reality.
Furthermore,
there
are
the
consequences that photo editing has
on the perpetuation of unrealistic
beauty and body image expectations
placed particularly on women in
our society. Now we really have no
excuse to not look perfect in every
picture. By using editing software
to change the way we naturally
look, aren’t we just giving into the
unrealistic expectations placed upon
us by society that we constantly fight
against? We must be wary of how
much of ourselves we seek to change.
To me, self-satisfaction comes
from internal self-acceptance, not
from the critical reception of my
profile picture. After all, the instant
gratification
that
social
media
rewards us with is not tangible or
enduring; instead, it is short-lived
and superficial. It is dangerous
when social networking sites such
as Facebook attempt to interfere
with how we view ourselves. I like
my profile picture, and I will change
it when I am ready to, not when
Facebook tells me to. We should
strive to be content with who we are
as individuals, rather than worry
about the pressures of our virtual
image. At the end of the day, I think
that face-to-face interactions are
more valuable and I believe there are
too many other things in the world
to worry about than my “outdated”
Facebook profile picture.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, February 6, 2018
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
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
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Tara Jayaram
Ashley Zhang
Ellery Rosenzweig
Elena Hubbell
A
new
kind
of
grading
system is gaining traction
at
the
University
of
Michigan. About 8,000 students
at the University’s Ann Arbor
campus
have
earned
grades
through GradeCraft, in which
they progressively gain points
throughout
the
semester
by
choosing
between
a
variety
of
assignments
to
complete.
GradeCraft aims to give students
greater
academic
autonomy,
encourages them to take risks
and works to boost their self-
confidence. Results have been
promising — the January 2018
issue of the journal Games and
Culture reported that gameful
course
design
is
positively
correlated with students “working
harder and feeling more in control
of their class performance.”
Though almost 100 professors
from 28 departments across the
University have tried GradeCraft
so far, in my experience most
courses here don’t take such a self-
designed approach to learning.
Grading systems continue to vary
widely and, for courses in LSA,
they’re often up to the complete
discretion of individual professors.
And while LSA classes differ in
their grading structures, The
Ross School of Business takes a
completely
non-self-determined
approach to students’ grades: It
assesses each and every class on a
bell curve, irrespective of learning
material, types of assignments or
student performance.
A look into The Michigan
Daily’s guide of grade distributions
in LSA reveals bell curves in some
large introductory courses like
Mathematics 115 and Economics
101. These kinds of classes tend to
serve as a prerequisite for majors,
“weed out” many freshmen from
pursuing those majors and set
intentionally
difficult
exams
to create a wide distribution of
grades. Advanced courses in LSA
typically use an absolute grading
system to assess students — in my
own experience taking a number of
upper-level courses in 12 different
departments, I have only been
graded on a curve in the Economics
Department.
Students in business courses,
however, are perpetually sorted on
a bell curve that doesn’t necessarily
raise their raw scores. This places
them in a state similar to students
in “weeder” LSA classes in the
sense that one student’s gain is
inherently another’s loss. The
curve is as follows: Grades for all
core classes in the Business School
are distributed with less than 40
percent of students receiving an
A- or above, less than 90 percent
receive a B or above, and over 10
percent receiving a B- or below.
The problem with this grading
system isn’t in numerical outcomes
— the Business School’s curve
doesn’t impact students’ overall
GPAs significantly. The average
sophomore transfer to the program
comes in with a 3.7 GPA and the
Business School’s classes roughly
generate a B+ average. Grade
inflation is mixed; in quantitative
core classes with low average
test scores, grades inflate, while
in other classes with generally
high raw scores, they deflate. Few
students struggle to pass classes
since many professors avoid giving
grades less than a B-.
The
real
problem
lies
in
the implications of the curve
on
students’
learning
styles,
relationships with classmates and
self-perceptions.
Consistently
grading on a bell curve creates a
toxic environment where students
are judged only relative to each
other. They come to view their
grades — and consequent success
at the University — as a zero-sum
game between themselves and
their peers. If they’re consistently
graded lower than classmates,
they may make negative social
comparisons and lose general
motivation to do well.
Bell curves foster a competitive,
rather
than
collaborative
atmosphere, and disincentivize
students from helping and learning
from their peers. Especially in
qualitative classes where students’
collectively high raw scores are
curved down, and they’re assessed
more heavily on performance
in
class
participation,
group
presentations and essays than
exams, the curve truly doesn’t
match the material and desired
classroom environment.
Emily Yerington, a University
alum who transferred out of
the Business School, said in an
interview with The Daily while
critiquing the Business school’s
pedagogy: “Even though they
curve it high, it’s just a bad
mentality when you’re not worried
about how much you’re learning,
you’re worried about how you’re
doing compared to everyone else.”
The Business School’s one-size-
fits-all approach also ultimately
runs counter to its purported
values. The school frequently
references collaboration, inclusion,
community and positive business
as integral facets of the Ross
experience. For example, its Center
for Positive Organizations has led
extensive research on positive
leadership
and
advocates
for
organizations and companies to
develop cultures of collaboration
and empowerment.
A New York Times piece
further
argues
against
the
mentality ingrained in bell curves
because it doesn’t reflect the real
advantages of students taking on
a collaborative approach in their
later careers. A meta-analysis
of studies of employees across
industries finds that in the long run,
“leaders reward people who make
the team and the organization
more successful.”
I encourage the school to look
inward, implement the findings of
its research in its own curriculum
and experiment with a grading
system
like
GradeCraft.
This
would not only fall in line with its
research on positive organizations,
but also generally foster a desire
among its students to learn the
material and achieve — rather than
simply come out above their peers.
Bell curves breed competition
STEPHANIE TRIERWEILER | COLUMN
R
ichard
Spencer
is
the
country’s leading white
supremacist.
Students
Allied for Freedom and Equality is a
Michigan student group that “seeks
to advance the causes of freedom,
justice, human rights and equality
for all peoples.” The group has
made the prevention of Spencer
from ever setting foot on campus
a high priority; its Facebook
profile picture proudly declares
#StopSpencer “Because you don’t
negotiate with Nazis.”
So you can understand our shock
when we discovered that SAFE
was hosting a teach-in touting the
views of … Richard Spencer. That’s
right. The very organization that has
vociferously opposed Spencer and
his odious views believes he is worth
listening to on a single subject: Israel
The teach-in, titled “Richard
Spencer, Anti-Semite and Zionist:
Israel & The Far Right,” promises to
“explore the Far Right’s affinity for
the State of Israel, investigating how
Israel has become a paradigmatic
ethnostate for white supremacists
like Richard Spencer.” Is there
anything to this claim? Do alt-right
racists like Spencer indeed have a
special affinity for the Jewish state?
To hear Spencer tell it, yes.
“You could say that I am a
white Zionist,” he said to an Israeli
interviewer
this
past
August,
“in the sense that I care about
my people. I want us to have a
secure homeland that’s for us
and ourselves just like you want a
secure homeland in Israel.”
In other words: Just as the
Jewish people care about protecting
themselves in Israel, so too does
Spencer and his band of white
nationalists care about protecting
the interests of his “people.”
White people.
Do you get what he’s doing
here? He is twisting the meaning
and history of the Zionist idea — a
homeland for a people oppressed,
dispossessed and decimated — in
order to further his own vision for a
white ethnostate. Not a people with
a shared religion and culture, but
humans who happen to have the
same skin color. And who certainly
haven’t been oppressed or murdered
for their religion.
Don’t listen to us, listen to the
Southern Poverty Law Center: “Such
historical comparisons show how
desperate Spencer is to legitimize
his agenda. After all, if white people
are dispossessed, why shouldn’t they
get a homeland, too? The problem,
of course, is that white Americans
have not been dispossessed, no
matter how often that claim is made
by ideologues of the racist right.”
In the same interview with Israel’s
Channel 2 in which he calls himself
a white Zionist, Spencer said: “Jews
have been vastly overrepresented
in the left right now, vastly
overrepresented in what you
could call the establishment that
is Ivy League-educated people
who determine policy. White
people are being dispossessed
from this country.”
Spencer’s words drip with the
venom familiar in classic anti-
Semitic works like the “Protocols of
The Elders of Zion.” His ideas should
be condemned for the prejudiced
nonsense that they are, not more
closely examined for nuggets that
happen to lend themselves to an anti-
Zionist narrative.
And that narrative is built on
lies that ignore fundamental truths
about Israel and the people who call it
home. Some facts SAFE might want
to consider: Israel is home to Black
and brown Jews from countries
including Ethiopia, Eritrea, Libya,
Yemen and Syria. About 20 percent
of the Israeli population is Arab.
Judaism has never had a race
requirement: Moses, our religion’s
most important prophet, married a
Black woman. The idea that we even
have to point out such obvious truths
is painful.
It is especially so during a
moment in which Jews in this
country are being attacked by
the likes of Spencer.
Our
American
Jewish
community has been under attack
by the alt-right movement. At the
deadly
rally
in
Charlottesville,
Spencer and his fellow marchers
chanted “Jews will not replace us”
and “Blood and soil,” a traditional
Nazi cry. So when we heard that
Spencer would not be speaking
on campus this semester, we were
relieved. Now, this event brings
Spencer’s vile rhetoric and ideas to
the forefront of the conversation.
By clothing anti-Semitism in
the trendy garb of open dialogue,
discussion or a teach-in, SAFE is
falling for Spencer’s scheme and
elevating an unapologetic anti-
Semite. His prerogative is to infect
as many people as possible with
his racist conception of the world.
By giving his words weight, SAFE
is accomplishing just that. When
you are resorting to parroting the
words of a neo-Nazi to promote your
political agenda, you’ve lost.
SAFE’s upcoming event serves as
an example of how anti-Semitism
has seeped into the language of
progressive circles. On Tuesday
night, we will be hosting an event
called “Equating Zionism with
Nazism: A Modern Form of Anti-
Semitism,” at which we will
hear Heidi Budaj, the Michigan
regional director of the Anti-
Defamation
League,
discuss
ways in which anti-Semitism
is expressed today. We invite
all those who are interested in
learning about this tough issue
to join us at 9:00 p.m. in 1230
Weill Hall, in the Ford School of
Public Policy.
SAFE, don’t fall for Spencer’s trap
SUZY WEISS, GABY ROTH AND SARAH PARKES | OP-ED
Facebook’s “pushy” notifications
CARLI COSENZA| COLUMN
Carli Cosenza can be reached at
carlic@umich.edu.
CARLY BEHRENDT | CONTACT AT CARBEHR@UMICH.EDU
Stephanie Trierweiler can be
reached at strier@umich.edu.
Suzy Weiss, Gaby Roth and Sarah
Parkes are LSA seniors .