“

Reed, I am having an 
emergency. We need to go 
upstairs to your room right 
now.”
 “Ok, let’s go,” I said to my 
friend Michael as I gestured 
toward the stairs. Upon escaping 
from the party and arriving in 
my room, I asked Michael the 
obvious question: “What’s going 
on?” His answer was far more 
complicated than I could have 
predicted.
Michael, 
who 
isn’t 
old 
enough to buy alcohol, has been 
in 
a 
dedicated 
relationship 
for the better half of the last 
decade. “Okay dude, please just 
let me tell you what happened 
before you start judging me. You 
promise?”
“Yeah, I promise.”
“Ok, so a few weeks ago 
I downloaded Tinder on my 
phone.” I quickly shot Michael 
an inquisitive look. “Yeah, I 
know, but look — all I have 
been doing is swiping right 
on everyone. I downloaded it 
because I just wanted to see who 
would swipe right on me, I don’t 
actually want to do anything.” 
I shot Michael another more 
confused look about where this 
was all going. “Well, I swiped 
right on this cute girl and she 
messaged me! So I responded 
and she kept messaging me. She 
is here, downstairs, at the party. 
I really care about Sarah (his 
long-term girlfriend) and I don’t 
want to ruin things with her and 
if I stayed down there I think I 
would have made a decision that 
I would regret.”
The 
most 
immediate 
response I had to this situation 
was to think Michael was acting 
like just another scuzzy guy 
who was trying to cheat on his 
girlfriend — and maybe that was 
the truth. But, another part of 
me saw Michael tangled up in 
a much more complicated web 
composed of desire, cyberspace 
and reality. Michael and I 
always joke that the internet 
raised us. From a young age, 
both of us had nearly unlimited 
access to the computer and we 
quickly crafted virtual versions 
of ourselves.
The first virtual version of 
myself was my “Club Penguin” 
account; for Michael, it was 
“RuneScape.” 
In 
online 
gaming lobbies, people don’t 
have an identity they can be 
held 
accountable 
for. 
The 
other 
people 
are 
complete 

strangers who only know you 
by your username, creating a 
breeding ground for absurdity 
and unbounded speech. For 
many gamers, usually middle 
schoolers, this anonymity is 
an opportunity to say the most 
vulgar, disgusting and offensive 
things imaginable.
For someone like Michael, 
who still games on a near daily 
basis, this sophomoric behavior 
is 
no 
longer 
shocking 
or 
provocative in the cyberspace; 
Michael is completely numb 
to it. In a game lobby, people’s 
characters 
aren’t 
real 
and 
neither are the words that people 
speak into their microphones — 
dying in “Call of Duty” means 
nothing and no one is actually 
coming to your house to have 
relations with your mother, no 
matter how much they insist 
they already have.

Creating a character in an 
online game is an odd hybrid 
between reality and simulated 
non-reality. The people are 
real, as is everything they 
say, but the space in which 
these 
interactions 
occur 
is 
immaterial.
In 
cyberspace, 
someone 
can try new games, create new 
characters and say outrageous 
things as much as they want. 
The actions I take in one game 
have absolutely no bearings on 
the actions I take in another 
game; 
cyber 
identities 
are 
anonymous and separable.
For Michael, creating an 
account on Tinder was like 
downloading a new multiplayer 
game. He was just creating 
another virtual manifestation 
of his identity that wasn’t 
attached to his personhood. Or 
so he thought. Michael didn’t 
see 
his 
Tinder 
account 
as 
something that was real — he 
didn’t see it as something that 
could manifest itself in real life 
any more than “Fortnite” could. 
Under 
this 
view, 
Michael’s 

Tinder account was the same 
as looking longingly at someone 
in class or lurking on someone’s 
Instagram account — acting in 
the ambiguous space of desire, 
but not cheating. When Michael 
saw his Tinder match in person, 
the material reality of his 
situation set in. This was not the 
same type of cyber identity as 
“Fortnite” or “Runescape.”
A logical response to this 
might be to say that creating a 
Tinder account is much more 
similar to making a social media 
account than it is to creating 
a character in a video game. 
After all, social media accounts 
are 
virtual 
manifestations 
of real people, not simulated 
characters, 
and 
on 
Tinder, 
someone 
depicts 
their 
real 
self. 
Tinder, 
however, 
does 
not operate in the same space 
of visibility that Instagram 
and Facebook do. A Tinder 
account is not a public landing 
space where anyone can view 
your profile, you cannot use 
Google to see if someone has 
a Tinder; after swiping, an 
account can vanish into the 
cyberspace forever. Instagram 
and 
Facebook 
accounts 
are 
designed with the purpose of 
sharing the happenings of an 
internal life, while a Tinder 
account is designed with the 
purpose of creating a private 
life with someone else. In short, 
a Facebook account is always 
attached to a public image, 
while a Tinder account pursues 
a semi-anonymous and private 
interest.
In Michael’s state of shock 
and panic, he reached for the 
buoy that was my room so 
that his virtual identity didn’t 
drown his real identity. It is 
unclear if Michael’s story is 
just a contemporary recasting 
of an old narrative about a 
gluttonous man seeking to cheat 
on his girlfriend or if Michael 
really didn’t understand the 
material consequences of his 
Tinder account. Either way, it 
is becoming increasingly clear 
that our virtual selves are 
producing material realities on 
their own terms.

*Names have been changed 
to 
help 
protect 
people’s 
identities.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman

Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
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

ADDISON BASSOCK | OP-ED

The dorm who cried wolf
A

s many may know, the 
fire alarm has been 
going off incessantly at 
the Mary Markley Residence 
Hall. While it can be considered 
simply an annoyance, many 
students believe it has become 
a danger. Even though we 
understand this dorm has not 
been renovated and the alarms 
can be set off purely by humidity 
rather than an actual fire, this is 
now a major hazard.
When the fire alarm goes 
off, sometimes even five times in 
the early hours of the morning, 
it causes students to initially 
be alarmed that it is a fire, then 
gradually understand it is a 
mistake. The third, fourth and 
fifth time the alarm sounds in 
one day are the times when the 
students begin to stop believing 
they need to leave the building. 
How is this dangerous? It is 
dangerous because of what 
could occur when there is 
actually a fire.
Last week, the alarms went 
off six times. I’ve spoken to 
numerous residents of Markley, 

who all admitted they stayed 
inside their rooms. And they 
were right to stay there — as 
soon as the alarm was turned off 
after thirty minutes of ringing, 
it went back on two minutes 
later, proving to these students 
it was only a mistake, due to the 
weather or some other accident. 
While these students were right 
this time, what happens when 
they are wrong? What happens 
when the alarm goes off for the 
11th time in three weeks and the 
students don’t leave, assuming 
it is another mistake from the 
humidity? What happens when 
hundreds of students stay in 
their rooms, only to eventually 
smell the smoke, hear the 
screams and realize this time it 
isn’t a mistake?
You can’t ask students to 
leave every time the alarm 
goes off. When the alarm goes 
off multiple times in a day, in 
a week, it causes students to 
stop believing. And this is a 
major concern for our safety. 
At the University of Michigan, 
our tuition money should be 

going 
toward 
researching 
ways to prevent the alarm 
going 
off 
from 
humidity. 
Maybe even some renovations 
are 
overdue 
because 
these 
issues of fire alarms being set 
off multiple times in a night 
are not happening in South 
Quad Residence Hall, West 
Quad Residence Hall, East 
Quad Residence or any other 
renovated building on campus. 
Furthermore, 
we 
are 
only 
students. With midterms this 
week, it is detrimental to our 
health if we don’t get the sleep 
we need. When studying until 
1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m., most 
students want to sleep a full 
seven to eight hours.
With alarms going off from 
5:30 a.m. to 6 a.m., then 7:00 
a.m. to 7:30 a.m., and so on, it 
greatly disrupts the sleep cycle 
we so desperately need.
For the health and safety of 
your students, we are begging 
for this issue to be fixed.

You, me and my Tinder account

End the Rohinyga genocide

REED ROSENBACHER | COLUMN

Addison Bassock is a LSA freshman.

T

he Rohingya might be the 
world’s most persecuted 
minority 
group. 
The 
Rohingya are a predominantly 
Muslim 
ethnic 
group 
in 
Myanmar 
who, 
for 
decades, 
have lacked citizenship or any 
legal protections. In additon, 
their ability to access education 
and health care, to travel freely, 
practice their religion and marry 
has been deeply restricted. 
In August 2017, the Burmese 
army ramped up its persecution 
of Rohingyas to unprecedented 
levels. The Burmese military has 
systematically destroyed villages, 
raped 
women 
and 
executed 
thousands. The violence has 
pushed 
more 
than 
700,000 
Rohingyas to leave Myanmar, 
primarily for refugee camps 
in Bangladesh. A report by the 
United Nations Human Rights 
Council has determined that 
the violent acts of the Myanma 
military amount to genocide. 
With no apparent signs of the 
violence against the Rohingya 
lessening, 
and 
with 
some 
countries 
sending 
Rohingya 
refugees 
back 
to 
Myanmar, 
something needs be done.
America should use economic 
sanctions 
to 
compel 
the 
Myanma government to stop its 
persecution of the Rohingya. 
The sanctions could first target 
specific Burmese generals or 
government officials, like has 
been 
done 
against 
Russian 
officials. 
For 
more 
leverage, 
the sanctions could be broader, 
targeting sectors of industry, as 
was done by America against 
Iran. 
America could use the threat 
of precision military strikes 
against the Myanmar Army to 
deter violence. Actual precision 
military 
strikes 
against 
the 
Myanma 
military 
would 
be 
low risk for American air and 
naval personnel given the low 
capabilities 
of 
the 
Myanma 
military. If none of this works, a 
no-fly zone could be established 
in Rakhine state, where the 
vast 
majority 
of 
Rohingya 
live, as was successfully done 
in northern Iraq to protect 
Kurds from Saddam Hussein’s 
murderous Al-Anfal campaign. 
Following the Kurdish model, 
an autonomous zone could be 
established in Rakhine state to 
further protect the Rohingya. In 
a matter of weeks, the Rohingya’s 
situation could be more secure. 
It’s clear America is more than 
capable of helping the Rohingya. 
But 
why 
should 
America 
intervene to save the Rohingya in 
the first place?
Firstly, America should help 
the Rohingya for moral reasons. 
In a world as interconnected 
and informed as ours, there is 
no excuse to let mass murder 

go 
unhindered, 
especially 
considering the wealth of options 
America has for helping the 
Rohingya. But some will say 
that foreign policy needs to be 
rooted in realism and strategic 
interests, rather than solving 
humanitarian 
crises, 
which 
brings me to the second reason 
America should intervene in the 
Rohingya genocide: doing so 
would have strategic benefits.
Embracing humanitarianism 
would 
strengthen 
America’s 
global 
leadership. 
American 
leadership has shaped the rules-
based, liberal world order since 
World War II. The features 
of 
this 
liberal 
world 
order 
include free trade, deterrence 
of interstate war and adherence 
to international law and norms, 
all of which benefit Americans 
by making the world a wealthier 
and safer a place. But the liberal 
world order is under threat.

China is quickly growing in 
economic and military power. 
Eventually China will achieve 
parity, if not supremacy, over 
American 
economic 
and 
military power. China is already 
converting 
its 
increasing 
strength into global influence, in 
competition with the American-
led liberal world order. The Belt 
and Road Initiative seeks to 
invest in developing countries to 
solidify Chinese influence. China 
is increasing foreign investment 
in Europe with the same goal in 
mind, with surprising success. 
Military structures are being 
built on islands in the South 
China Sea, and Chinese naval 
vessels have been intimidating 
American ships trying to uphold 
freedom of navigation, which is 
crucial for free trade.
If Chinese power is greater 
than American power, America 
cannot rely on its might alone to 
influence international conduct 
over Chinese attempts to do the 
same. China’s global leadership, 
under its current government, 
would undermine and ultimately 
replace the liberal world order, 
bidding farewell to free trade 
and 
promoting 
dictatorships 
all over the world. This would 
make Americans and the rest 
of the world less wealthy and 
less safe. To save the liberal 
world order, America should 

reconfigure it to genuinely value 
humanitarianism.
In Henry Kissinger’s book 
“World Order,” he outlines how 
strong world orders are based 
on legitimacy and power. The 
American-led world order has 
been anchored in American 
power. 
America’s 
unmatched 
power allowed it to write the 
rules of the world order through 
the creation of organizations like 
the World Trade Organization 
and NATO. When countries 
gravely violate the rules of the 
world order, it is America that 
leads the charge against them, 
like in the First Gulf War when 
America led a coalition to eject 
Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
Kissinger writes that force 
alone is not a stable recipe for 
world order. The world order 
set by the Congress of Vienna in 
1814 fell apart because it relied 
only on force. Legitimacy is also 
needed for a stable international 
system. 
America’s 
legitimacy 
as leader of the liberal world 
order stems from its professed 
fidelity 
to 
universal 
values 
such as democracy and human 
rights. But America has not been 
consistent in living up to those 
values. America has supported 
dictators who violate human 
rights and has on occasion 
violated the very rules it was 
instrumental in establishing, like 
when it invaded Iraq. America’s 
hypocrisy naturally undermines 
its 
legitimacy. 
America’s 
inconsistency gives critics of the 
liberal international legitimate 
reason to criticize and thus 
undermine it. Even America’s 
allies in Europe and Asia have 
at times become disillusioned by 
America’s failure to abide by the 
values it preaches.
There is nothing America 
can do to overcome China’s 
eventually superior economic 
and 
military 
strength. 
But 
by 
seriously 
adopting 
humanitarianism, 
America 
could bring greater legitimacy 
to the liberal world order. Desire 
for the preservation of human 
rights are universal. Agreeing to 
stop genocides from happening 
could be the beginning of a 
humanitarianism which would 
give the peoples and countries 
of the world reason to choose 
an American-led world order 
even as it is no longer the world’s 
superpower. 
A 
humanitarian 
and 
morally-motivated 
American world order could be 
a more attractive option than 
the autocratic realpolitik, which 
doesn’t even profess to consider 
human rights, that the Chinese 
government would offer.

Aaron Baker can be reached at 

aaronbak@umich.edu. 

AARON BAKER | COLUMN

Reed Rosenbacher can be reached 

at rrosenb@umich.edu.

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.

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 come discuss 
national, state and campus affairs.

But the liberal 
world order is 
under threat

A Tinder account is 
designed with the 
purpose of creating 
a private life with 
someone else

Over the past few years, both students and administrators at the University of Michigan 
have addressed on-campus sexual assault through new policies and ongoing activism. 
More recently, the news cycle and broader times, however, the personal stories of 
individuals who have survived an assault can be lost in the bigger discussion.

With that in mind, the Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan Daily for 
first-person accounts of sexual assault and its corresponding personal, academic and 
legal implications. Submissions will be published as a series of personal accounts that 
show essential perspectives: those of the survivor.

Submissions will be due by Oct. 26 at 11:59 p.m. Please submit pieces to Editorial 
Page Editors Ashley Zhang (ashleyzh@umich.edu) and Anu Roy-Chaudhury (anuroy@
umich.edu) to be considered for publication. If it is past the deadline, you are welcome 
to still submit your piece to be considered as an op-ed.

SURVIVORS SPEAK: SUBMIT TO OUR SERIES

