Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, April 9, 2018
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
Better safe than sorry
MATTHEW FRIEND | COLUMN
HANK MINOR | COLUMN
A
pril
is
Testicular
Cancer
Awareness
Month.
I
assume
this is new information for
most individuals reading this
column. In fact, I only became
aware
of
this
information
because, a little over a month
ago, I was diagnosed with Stage
I testicular cancer. Now, not
that there’s ever a “good” type
of cancer, but as far as these
situations go, this was pretty
positive news. It meant the
cancer had not spread and I
would be able to have surgery
the next day to completely
remove the tumor. The surgery
was successful and, according
to the doctors, my brief fight
with cancer was likely over.
I was incredibly lucky to
have caught the tumor so early
on; I was in the hospital for
an unrelated injury (falling on
hard ice during a broomball
tournament) when they found
the cancerous mass during
an ultrasound. I was lucky
I
lived
only
five
minutes
away from the University of
Michigan hospital, an excellent
medical facility filled with
even more excellent medical
professionals. I was lucky the
doctors and nurses asked the
right
questions,
performed
the right tests and decided
to
perform
more
in-depth
examinations than they needed.
I was lucky they found the
tumor before it had spread, and
that I didn’t need to go through
chemotherapy or radiation.
I am writing this article
because I am fully aware of
how incredibly lucky I was;
most people don’t just stumble
upon a tumor, especially before
their condition becomes more
serious. In the weeks following
this ordeal, I’ve learned a
ton about testicular cancer,
including
information
that
would provide other young men
the ability to identify if they
are at risk for the disease and
should go see a doctor without
needing to rely on luck (or an
accidental trip to the hospital).
Of the many interesting
facts I learned about testicular
cancer, the most striking to me
was that it is the most common
form of cancer among young
men, with most individuals
diagnosed between the ages
of 15-35. I can only speak
for myself, but cancer was
certainly not on my radar a
month ago, or really any other
life-threatening diseases for
that matter. I was a healthy,
21-year-old student, and there
wasn’t much in my life that a
few ibuprofen and some duct
tape couldn’t fix.
In talking with my male
friends after this experience,
I’ve found nearly all of them
share
a
similar
mindset.
Testicular
cancer
is
not
something they actively think
about or are routinely checking
for.
Though
the
self-check
process that leads to early
identification of a tumor is
relatively quick and simple,
almost none had ever examined
themselves. In fact, many did
not even know how to perform
the procedure in the first place
(full disclosure, neither did I
until recently).
So what can we do about this?
How can we make sure men are
able to identify this disease early
on and seek proper treatment,
rather than leaving it up to
chance like I had?
Well first off, if you’re a young
man, do yourself a favor and learn
how to perform a self-check. This
can lead to early detections and
an increased likelihood that if you
do happen to discover a tumor,
immediate action can be taken
before more intensive care is
needed and risks become higher.
Have
the
conversation
with
your
peers
and
help
destigmatize what is admittedly
an uncomfortable topic. Yes, I
still chuckle at the word “testicle”
(because it’s funny, even at 21
years old), but there is nothing
unnatural
or
unmasculine
about discussing your health
and helping to create awareness
regarding a topic that affects
more of your peers than you
might think. Talking with friends
and family over the past few
weeks, I have found out several
men in my life have successfully
fought testicular cancer, and yet
there is still something taboo
whenever the topic is brought up.
Perhaps the most important
lesson I’ve learned is to listen to
your body and err on the side of
caution when deciding whether
to see a medical professional.
I believe this lesson applies to
many issues beyond testicular
cancer, whether it be that
nagging cough that won’t go
away or a weird bump that
wasn’t there previously. While
our days may often feel so
busy and hectic that we can
barely find time to eat lunch,
let alone go to the doctor, it
is important to make time for
your health. Even if you do go to
the emergency room, wait two
hours to get admitted and spend
another hour getting checked
out only to receive a healthy
verdict, please don’t feel as if
you wasted your time. You just
received confirmation that you
are in fact healthy, and can sleep
well at night knowing this. On
the off-chance there is in fact
something wrong, you can go
ahead and get treatment before
your situation escalates. While
ignorance may be bliss in some
instances, not being aware of a
health issue doesn’t guarantee
its nonexistence.
I
never
thought
I’d
be
having this conversation, let
alone writing a column about
my experience with testicular
cancer. A month ago, I was
lying in a bed in the hallway
of the U-M hospital, listening
to a doctor say a stream of
words I can barely recall,
feeling a combination of scared,
confused and, perhaps most of
all, powerless. Fortunately, I get
to tell the story of an extremely
blessed case of early detection
and treatment. While I hope
no one reading my column
experiences this illness, I hope
that if you do, you are able to
find out early and on your own
terms. That you can have the
conversation with friends and
share your story, knowing you
are not alone in dealing with
this. By talking about testicular
cancer, or any health issues for
that matter, we can better share
information about detection,
providing more individuals the
opportunity to feel in control of
their futures.
For more information and
resources about the disease, I
highly recommend checking
out the Movember Foundation,
a men’s health non-profit that
is doing amazing work to raise
funds
and
share
resources
about this disease, as well as
other men’s health issues.
Matthew Friend can be reached
at mjfri@umich.edu.
Empathy without action
T
he unpaid — or barely
paid
—
internship
remains instrumental
in
accelerating
the
career
trajectories of a lot of U.S.
college students, especially
for careers in government,
journalism and law. In a piece
for the New York Times,
Darren Walker writes, “Talent
is equally distributed, but
opportunity is not.” I think
this gets at the root of our
problem: There are thousands
of
talented
students
who
can’t compete on the same
level as their peers for purely
financial reasons.
Sure,
there
have
been
attempts to remedy this —
using social media to shame
companies into paying their
interns, grants from well-
funded universities, programs
that
mitigate
impossible
costs — but many times, these
endeavors only paint a sense
of fairness over a system that
remains
thoroughly
unfair.
This is reinforced by guilty,
empathetic op-eds in campus
newspapers — I won’t link
anyone,
in
particular,
to
be polite — that stress how
much it hurts for advantaged
students
to
enjoy
their
internships knowing that the
pool of competitors has been
reduced by financial factors.
It’s not enough just to feel
bad, as anyone who’s been
involved with minority group
activism likely knows; people
with structural power need
to use their positions to level
the field behind them. A
pre-law student expressing
his or her regret about the
typical road to a law career
will soon enough be a lawyer,
and — given the University
of
Michigan’s
placement
rates — maybe even one with
extraordinary resources. Will
this
undergraduate’s
guilt
translate into postgraduate
action?
The goal isn’t, of course, to
tear down current advantages
so that everyone faces the same
difficult route forward; it’s to
correct
former
inequalities
such that talent as a factor
increases as much as possible.
I don’t want to condemn people
for taking fair opportunities
that are distributed unfairly,
but I do want to make sure
that we don’t reinforce the
status quo because it’s easier
to resolve one’s guilt than to
resolve the problem.
There are certain careers
worked unequally by various
groups in American society.
The factors that cause these
variations are complex. The
proportion
of
women
in
finance, for example, probably
isn’t
because
of
disparate
household
resources,
but
likely economic accessibility
to the career path.
It’s
(apparently)
easy
enough to find talent that
can afford to advertise itself
and has the resources for
an unpaid internship in an
expensive
city
or
enough
money for a summer spent
on volunteer work instead of
wage labor. What this means,
though, is that we effectively
limit access to certain career
ladders, so to speak, by a
child’s or young adult’s access
to financial resources.
Our goal in minimizing this
effect should be increasing
competition,
regardless
of
someone’s
financial
ability.
When we define elite industries,
it should be by the rigor of
competition required to obtain
those positions and the talent
required to keep them, not the
social and economic class of a
typical worker.
Maybe
some
hesitancy
around this comes from our
complicated
relationship
with
the
concept
of
“deserving.”
What
comes
with this, though, should be a
recognition that all students
deserve
an
otherwise
provided
opportunity
to
compete on the same level.
If the end result of this is
that
some
candidates
—
who would have previously
gotten through on structural
advantages — are eliminated
from
contention
for
prestigious jobs, so be it.
The impressive fact about
U-M graduates is that many
will
rise
to
positions
of
financial, legal, journalistic
and political power. If you’re
among them, remember to pay
your interns, when you have
them. Consider housing costs
when you recruit students
who are compensated with
only with the prestige of your
organization. Remind yourself
how important luck is in
everyone’s success, and of the
breaks that you’ve personally
received.
Remember
how
much you empathized, when
you actually get the chance to
turn your emotion into action.
It
goes
without
saying
that Cambridge Analytica’s
collection of private data from
tens of millions of Facebook
users
for
“psychographic
modeling” in recent American
elections was an egregious
violation
of
privacy.
Only
about
270,000
Facebook
users
participated
in
an
original personality survey
and consented to having data
collected. Their information
was then turned over, along
with the profiles of another 87
million users unaware of the
academic study, to Cambridge
Analytica.
However,
for
today’s
children,
adolescents
and
college students — all of
whom were raised in or born
into a post-9/11 surveillance
state — personal privacy has
always been accompanied by
an asterisk, and control over
personal
information
has
always been understood as a
compromise. This has resulted
in a sort of normalized apathy,
an immunizing agent to the
magnitude of such privacy
violations as Facebook’s. As
technology continues to play
a larger role in our everyday
life, we, The Michigan Daily
Editorial
Board,
call
on
college students in particular
to better realize how personal
data
collection
impacts
large-scale
inequalities
and
democratic
processes
throughout society.
The
current
case
constitutes an example of
such. As a firm largely owned
by conservative mega-donor
Robert Mercer and partially
run by board member Steve
Bannon, the Breitbart mogul
and
a
former
adviser
to
President
Donald
Trump,
Cambridge Analytica used its
data and election-influencing
experience in its work for
Trump’s
2016
presidential
campaign.
Remaining
apathetic about the use of
collected
data
for
purely
commercial purposes is one
thing, but the construction
of
politically
influential
data
collection
systems
is
another entirely. In failing
to adequately protect user
privacy, which comes on the
heels of its acknowledged
role
in
spreading
Russian
propaganda leading up to the
2016
presidential
election,
Facebook
is
complicit
in
Cambridge
Analytica’s
extralegal attempt to influence
democratic
processes.
This
scandal
now
joins
other
numerous
instances
of
malfeasance
by
big
data
systems, which have been
shown to adopt and reinforce
societal biases and perpetuate
existing inequalities.
As much as the Facebook
case
demonstrates
the
widespread
and
significant
consequences
of
privacy
violations, it also reveals the
extent
to
which
activities
like
this
are
largely
left
unaddressed. Limitations on
data collection for the sake
of online privacy have, as of
now, failed to materialize in
Congress. However, we must
keep in mind that alternative
paths are simply not viable.
Despite possible drawbacks
to targeted advertising, its
centrality
to
the
modern
technology industry ensures
it
will
remain
monetarily
incentivized
as
long
as
profits
outnumber
any
user
discomfort
it
causes.
Additionally, the recent calls to
#DeleteFacebook demonstrate
a severe underestimation of
the platform’s utter ubiquity.
For instance, many business
owners depend on Facebook
to communicate effectively,
damaging the credibility of
any mass deletion campaign.
Indeed, direct government
regulation
and
constraint
of companies that harness
and
sell
users’
personal
information
is
the
only
sensible path. For a company
that just revealed additional,
severe vulnerabilities in most
users’ profiles, Facebook (and
tech mega-firms like it) have
so far enjoyed relatively little
oversight. We no longer have
to ponder the hypothetical
consequences
of
such
an
arrangement:
Cambridge
Analytica’s
unscrupulous
handling of Facebook user
data dismantles the notion
that any company built on
selling consumer data can —
or rather, will — prioritize
user
privacy
and
enforce
such provisions, so long as their
service remains monetarily free.
Moreover, the foundation
is
already
in
place
for
government to take action:
A
majority
of
Internet
users
find
targeted
ads
distasteful,
pointing
to
a
need for legislation similar
to
the
European
Union’s
soon-to-be enacted General
Data Protection Regulation.
As current alternatives for
maintaining privacy remain
laborious and esoteric, we
must
keep
in
mind
that
progressive governance has
routinely shifted the onus of
protection from the consumer
to the producer (think: the
FDA, EPA, etc.). Therefore,
we at the Editorial Board call
on Americans to push their
elected representatives to pass
meaningful legislation limiting
technology companies.
Treating
online
advertisements
like
TV
advertisements,
where
sponsors
must
be
openly
disclosed, is a good start to
increased transparency, as are
requirements that consumer
information not be collected
beyond what is necessary for
the service provided. Angry
Facebook users would be wise
to channel their dissatisfaction
toward their local and state
representatives
and,
in
so
doing, make online privacy
rights a fundamental platform
issue. Through this kind of
democratic activism, we as
Internet users and citizens can
take back ground in the fight
for online privacy and put a
halt to mass manipulation of
our personal data.
For today’s college
students privacy
has always been
accompanied by
an asterisk.
FROM THE DAILY
We cannot be apathetic about Facebook
M
ore than two weeks after Facebook’s massive data leak of user
information to voting analytics firm Cambridge Analytica was
first exposed, new revelations on the extent of the tech titan’s
privacy violations continue to surface. Facebook’s most recent confession,
which inflates the number of Facebook users whose profiles were wrongly
harvested to a staggering 87 million, serves as a chilling reminder of the
malicious implications of modern technology. The sheer scale of Facebook’s
data breach has inspired a renewed and thorough reflection of our society’s
perception of privacy. But while this activism is indicative of a well-meaning
and timely shift in public attitude toward the practice of data collection,
it fails to address the problems beyond Facebook. A greater awareness of
efforts to exploit our private information must also include calls for greater
oversight of technology companies themselves.
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our Editorial Board meets Mondays and Wednesdays 7:15-
8:45 PM at our newsroom at 420 Maynard Street. All are
welcome to discuss national, state and campus affairs
It’s easier to
resolve one’s guilt
than to resolve the
problem.
Hank Minor can be reached at
hminor@umich.edu.