Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, April 3, 2018

E

verybody 
who 
went 

to 
a 
stereotypical 

American high school 

or has even just seen “Gossip 
Girl” knows that high schools 
have cliques. If you walk into 
the cafeteria, a quick scan of 
seating arrangements reveals 
these exclusive groups: The 
jocks sit in the corner booth, 
the theater kids sit with each 
other, as do the nerds and 
the band kids take their food 
to go eat in the band room. 
Nevertheless, 
every 
year 

there is one kid who shocks 
the world and moves from 
the nerd table to the jock 
table by either hitting the 
gym all summer or somehow 
getting a girl who sits at 
that table (Hey Dan). The 
state of world politics is not 
entirely different — there are 
small exclusive tables where 
decisions 
are 
made 
that 

impact the whole world, such 
as the U.N. Security Council, 
the Group of Seven and Group 
of 20 summits. However, how 
do countries get spots in these 
exclusive groups? How can 
the nerd (North Korea) get 
at the same table as the jocks 
(the U.S. and China)?

In the past, nations have 

developed their geopolitical 
prestige in one of two ways: 
the economy or the military. 
Some nations, such as China, 
became international powers 
by rapidly developing their 
economy 
and 
becoming 

trade partners with other 
superpowers, 
such 
as 
the 

United States. In fact, it 
was not until recently that 
China started to really build 
up 
its 
military. 
Similarly, 

Germany 
became 
one 
of 

the most important, if not 
the most important, players 
in Europe by becoming an 
economic powerhouse. At the 
same time, Germany became 
extremely 
demilitarized 

after World War II, and its 
new constitution held that 
Germany’s 
military 
would 

only be a defense mechanism. 
On the other hand, Kim Jong-
un and North Korea have made 

another bet altogether. They 
believe that the path to the 
cool kids’ table goes through a 
nuclear weapons program.

On numerous occasions in 

the past, Kim has made public 
statements 
that 
basically 

make the argument that if 
North Korea does not have 
nuclear 
weapons, 
it 
will 

never be taken seriously as 
a geopolitical actor. In fact, 
a member of then-President 
Barack 
Obama’s 
National 

Security 
Council 
said 
as 

much: “If you were the head of 
a small, isolated, poor country 
surrounded 
by 
potentially 

hostile military powers, you’d 
be looking for some way to 
ensure your own destiny, too.” 
Basically, if you were a nerd 
that didn’t want to be picked 
on any longer, you would hit 
the gym too.

This past week Kim began 

his foray into the jock’s ground 
by 
meeting 
with 
Chinese 

President Xi Jinping. Kim has 
already used the meeting as 
propaganda for the usefulness 
of 
his 
nuclear 
weapons 

program. North Korean state 
media showed images of its 
leader 
looking 
charismatic 

with a large motorcade. In 
another image, it appeared 
that Xi was making a toast to 
Kim. Whether the narrative is 
true or not, Kim can now claim 
that he was on even footing 
with the leader of one of the 
world’s most powerful nations.

Now, 
to 
the 
question 

at 
hand: 
Why 
shouldn’t 

President 
Donald 
Trump 

meet with Kim? At face value, 
this meeting seems to be an 
unmitigated success — Trump 
has managed to do what his 
predecessors couldn’t. He got 
Kim to come to the negotiating 
table. However, by doing so, 
Trump would effectively be 
validating everything Kim has 
done up until this point. Let’s 
start from the beginning. Kim 
started 
developing 
nuclear 

weapons under the premise 
that he would not be taken 
seriously by the superpowers 
if he did not have these 
weapons of mass destruction. 
Time and time again, these 
superpowers tried to stop 
him from getting the nuclear 
weapons without giving him 
a seat at the table. Eventually, 
he was able to advance his 
nuclear capabilities to the 
point where, in his eyes, 
he is now a credible threat. 
Consequently, Kim was able 
to visit Beijing and meet with 
one of the most powerful men 
in the world.

Now, he has a chance 

to meet with the leader of 
the free world. If you were 
Kim or the leader of another 
smaller nation, what would 
you conclude from this series 
of events? If you do not have 
the 
capability 
to 
become 

an 
economic 
powerhouse, 

the only way to become a 
player at the big boys’ table 
is to become a military power 
through 
the 
acquisition 

of 
nuclear 
weapons. 
So, 

President Trump, I’d urge you 
to carry on with caution and 
pay attention to the kinds of 
signals you are sending. It’s 
easy to get distracted by porn 
stars and special counsels. 
Especially with what seems 
like an endless stream of news 
that comes out of this White 
House, there’s only so much 
we can keep track of, but this 
one decision, no matter how 
dry, could have implications 
for the security of the world.

Trump to meet Kim, why not?

RISHABH KEWALRAMANI | COLUMN

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Samantha Goldstein

Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Lucas Maiman

Magdalena Mihaylova

Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Ali Safawi

 Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

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

The revival of Facebook group culture

IAN LEACH | COLUMN

SARAH NEFF | CONTACT SARAH AT SANE@UMICH.EDU

ANDREW WHITE | LETTER TO THE EDITOR
I 
 

am a dual French and 
Cellular and Molecular 
Biology 
major 
at 
the 

University of Michigan, and 
I am responding to The Daily 
article titled, “An Open Letter 
to the French Department.” 
My perspective is different 
insofar as I had not spoken 
a word of French until my 
arrival at the University of 
Michigan. I still remember 
the first day of French 100 
during winter semester of 
my freshman year, when my 
instructor 
conducted 
two 

hours of class in French and 
I understood only two words: 
“oui” and “non.”

Critiques 
of 
the 

program with regard to a 
heavy workload and tough 
grading are unfair. As a 
science major, I have taken 
many courses in which all-
nighters’worth of studying 
is 
merely 
an 
expectation 

of the class. The grading is 

tough, the workload is heavy 
and students are expected 
to 
take 
responsibility 
for 

their own learning, both in 
the Romance Languages and 
Literatures Department and 
in the Program in Biology. I 
am proud to have completed 

the introductory sequence in 
the French program because I 
know the work that I put into 
this rigorous program was 
accurately reflected in my 
grade and in my performance 

in the language.

Resources 
are 
available 

to ensure that success is 
within reach to all students. 
To learn a language as a young 
adult is a challenge that is 
unique for both those teaching 
and those learning. In my 
experience in the RLL, all the 
lecturers and professors are 
rooting for your success in the 
language, in their courses and 
in life. Assigned homework, 
the workshop-style “flipped 
classroom,”office 
hours 

and the Language Resource 
Center are all examples of 
resources 
implemented 
by 

the French program for its 
students’success. The resources 
are here for success in the 
introductory French sequence, 
and it is up to students to take 
advantage of them.

Critiques of the 
program with 

regard to a heavy 

workload and 

tough grading are 

unfair.

Andrew White is an LSA Senior.

Basically, if you 
were a nerd that 
didn’t want to 

be picked on any 
longer, you would 
hit the gym too. 

O

ver 
the 
past 
year, 

I’ve decided to join a 
variety of Facebook 

groups. In a way, it’s the 
return of the Facebook likes of 
the past. When I was a kid, I’d 
like some interesting or funny 
one-liner that was, as the kids 
say, “#relatable” and then I 
would 
immediately 
forget 

about it for something more 
important, like the number of 
likes my last Facebook photo 
received. These liked pages 
would show up on my feed for a 
few days, my friends would like 
these pages and then they’d 
be gone forever. Now, though, 
these Facebook pages have 
taken a different form: groups 
that have specific interests or 
topics in which individuals can 
post in and talk about related 
issues. This is fun, but it might 
not sound as great when you 
realize that this is just another 
way to silo oneself into an 
information system.

At first glance, Facebook 

groups might appear to be a 
good thing. It goes without 
saying that there are serious 
benefits from marginalized 
or 
niche 
groups 
coming 

together 
to 
talk 
about 

common interests. And as 
I’m sure your tour guide let 
you 
know, 
the 
University 

of 
Michigan 
has 
tons 
of 

those on campus: Whether 
you’re interested in political 
activism or squirrels, finding 
individuals here on campus 
that you share interests with 
provides social benefits for 
the person, including those 
aforementioned 
Facebook 

likes. 
These 
organizations 

can help people acclimate to 
campus and discuss common 
issues 
and 
interests. 
One 

could say Facebook groups are 
doing the same thing: People 
interested in public transit or 
advocacy surrounding public 
transit use can find many 
groups on Facebook, but I 
don’t believe these groups 
have the same impact as 
organizations on campus.

One of the largest benefits 

is also one of the biggest 
downsides to Facebook groups. 
Because of the huge reach of 
Facebook, you can get a variety 

of individuals to be a part of 
a group. This means people 
from all over the country 
and globe can join a meme 
page. This connectedness is 
wonderful, and provides a 
meaningful 
community 
for 

some, but it also has a key 
problem: information silos. 
Like Reddit, we can see how 
these 
communities 
draw 

people further into their own 
issues 
and 
beliefs. 
Reddit 

allows individuals to pick 
their communities and only 
see information inside them. 
I worry Facebook is doing the 
same thing. My participation 
in Facebook group culture, 
which incorporates a variety 
of my political beliefs as 
well as my passionate love 
of memes, has likely made it 
where I see fewer opinions 
different than my own on 
my feed. I consider myself 
someone who tries to engage 
in politics from all sides — 
I am “that guy” who will 
comment on a post I disagree 
with — and I can say that the 
changes and rise of Facebook 
group culture give none of 
the benefits of a student 
organization on campus while 
giving all of the features of 
groupthink. A Facebook group 
discussing public transit gives 
all of the benefits without, say, 
the arguments one might want 
to hear regarding American 
hesitancy of raising taxes and 
how we might have to give up 
or cut back on social programs 
that might be hurting the 
exact group of people we’re 
interested in helping.

In the meantime, Facebook 

CEO 
Mark 
Zuckerberg 

announced 
that 
he 
is 

doubling-down on Facebook 
group culture and has stated 
his interest in continuing and 
growing 
Facebook 
groups. 

Facebook launched its first 
“Communities 
Summit,” 

noting that the goal of the 
event 
is 
to 
“strengthen 

people’s online and offline 
connections.” Zuckerberg is 
right that group participation 
offline has been declining, 
and, 
for 
over 
40 
years, 

the social science body of 
literature has suggested that 

we are losing some of those 
ties that help bond us together 
and make us feel rooted in a 
community.

And there’s good reason 

for 
Zuckerberg 
to 
create 

this 
event. 
The 
divisive 

nature of politics right now 
is near an all-time high. In 
constructing a website that 
has an algorithm to determine 
what you see, you can imagine 
that it is in a company’s best 
interest to keep you on the 
website for as long as possible. 
Since Facebook is free, it 
has to sell you, the user, to 
advertisers. Reasonably, this 
can lead a company to show 
you things you agree with 
and have you avoid things 
you don’t. But, unfortunately, 
that won’t help people avoid 
confirming 
existing 
beliefs 

and won’t allow for their 
ideas to be challenged. An 
article 
from 
The 
Atlantic 

talks about how, from an 
evolutionary 
perspective, 

having 
social 
support 
far 

outweighs knowing the truth. 
Having people on board with 
an idea had far larger benefits 
in a society where social 
support meant life or death. 
Now? I’d like to imagine my 
Facebook likes are, perhaps, 
not as important as having 
well-founded opinions and an 
interest in political advocacy. 
But what do I know?

Information 
silos 
from 

Facebook are not new, but 
groups are a new iteration 
of this same problem. When 
Facebook 
announced 
they 

were going to put groups and 
your personal contacts as a 
priority on your feed instead 
of news articles, Facebook 
chose confirmation bias over 
a diversity of information. 
I hope to see a world where 
Facebook 
is 
a 
democratic 

platform 
where 
one 
can 

engage in substantive debate. 
Groups 
might 
be 
able 
to 

increase our Facebook likes, 
but they’re certainly not going 
to mend the divisive rhetoric 
in this country.

Ian Leach can be reached at 

ileach@umich.edu.

Rishabh Kewalramani can be 

reached at lbdean@umich.edu.

— The City of Ann Arbor’s Police Department Facebook post 

preparing students before the National Championship.

“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

Ours is the worst bed and breakfast 
ever. We don’t serve breakfast and 

we don’t even have beds. Please 
have fun tonight, but celebrate 

responsibly. Spend the night at your 

place. Not ours. #GoBlue ”

