Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, January 31, 2019

M

ore than four years
since the start of the
Flint
water
crisis,

thousands of residents still have
lead pipes. Flint is in the process of
finding and replacing those pipes,
but it is challenging. City records
are spotty, making locating at-risk
homes somewhat of a shot in the
dark. However, simply digging up
all the lines in the city would be
costly and time-consuming.

This is where the computer

scientists come in — specifically
Eric Schwartz of the University
of Michigan and Jacob Abernathy
of Georgia Tech (formerly of the
University). The two assistant
professors designed a machine
learning model to predict where
lead pipes are most likely to be in
Flint using digitized city records
as well as property data such as
age and location. The Flint pipe
replacement team was able to
achieve
above
an
80-percent

success rate for finding lead pipes in
2017 with this model.

The problem is Flint stopped

using it. Due to misconceptions
about
predictive
models,
the

strategy of prioritizing at-risk
homes was abandoned. Residents
questioned why their neighbor’s
pipes were being excavated while
theirs received no attention. City
council members asked the same
thing about their wards. Facing
mounting political pressure, Flint
adopted the approach of excavating
the pipes of every active water
account (without prioritization).

The
misconceptions
don’t

seem to be limited to those without
a
technical
background.
The

international
engineering
firm

hired to execute the pipe-removal
project,
AECOM,
explained

they aren’t using the model to
prioritize homes because it is “94
percent accurate” — an especially
puzzling statement considering the
alternative is to dig and hope.

This
change
to
a
non-

prioritized approach has resulted
in an accuracy rate of 15 percent
for finding lead pipes. That is a
pretty damning statistic when
you consider that, while using the

predictive model, the replacement
team was achieving an accuracy
rate above 80 percent. I agree that
every Flint resident deserves the
peace of mind of knowing that their
home doesn’t contain lead pipes.
The situation in Flint has been far
too dire for anything else. However,
the city failing to prioritize those
most at-risk is not acceptable —
especially when they have a proven
option which can help them do just
that.

Poor decisions like the one

described
above
will
become

commonplace
if
tech-illiteracy

among decision makers remains
the
status
quo.
Members
of

Congress
have
demonstrated

their incompetence on tech issues
repeatedly this year, with hearings
intended to hold tech companies
accountable devolving into basic
explanations of how Facebook and
Google make money and other
questions that could be answered
by using your favorite search
engine (Google perhaps?).

In order to best serve their

constituents, policymakers should
be prioritizing getting informed
about the basics of technology
and the tech industry at large.
Facebook, Google, Amazon and the
like are no longer scrappy upstarts
carving a place for themselves
in the economy. They have their
hands in a wide range of sectors
such as entertainment, health
care and defense and are the most
valuable companies in the world.
Until they are treated as the giants
of industry that they are, we risk
allowing unchecked externalities
to run their course.

Furthermore, aside from the

industry giants’ reach, technology
is everywhere. Our digital age
ensures that whatever issue a
policymaker cares about most,
whether it’s the financial industry
or the justice system, has pressing
questions involving the use of
technology.
Understanding
the

basics will help all legislators better
tackle the problems they care about
most.

I don’t expect politicians to

become subject matter experts on
technology. That’s not productive
or feasible. However, a baseline
understanding
of
the
most

prevalent use cases is a worthwhile
goal.
Such
an
understanding

would help policymakers more
effectively
address
constituent

concerns
and
confusion,
like

what city officials faced in Flint.
Technology that truly improves the
lives of citizens could be identified
and prioritized. Decision makers
could ask the right questions about
companies and their technology.
Our representatives are expected
to understand the basics of health
care because it affects every citizen.
Shouldn’t they understand the
basics of technology for the very
same reason?

The
narrative
that
tech

companies
are
motivated
by

altruistic
sensibilities
has

been proven to be clearly and
demonstrably false by now. They
are driven by profit just like any
other company. The tech industry’s
promise of self-governance and a
wave of public benefits has proven
to be unrealistic, and it is now the
responsibility of our legislators
to represent the best interests
of citizens when it comes to
technology.

Unfortunately
for
Flint

residents, their leaders’ lack of tech
knowledge has led to yet another
misstep in the city’s long running
saga. We can only hope other
policymakers take note before they
make similar mistakes.

Another lesson to be learned from Flint

CHAND RAJENDRA-NICOLUCCI | COLUMN

Chand Rajendra-Nicolucci can be

reached at chandrn@umich.edu.

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

FINNTAN STORER

Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building

420 Maynard St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

tothedaily@michigandaily.com

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

MAYA GOLDMAN

Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA

AND JOEL DANILEWITZ

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

What is good and bad masculinity?

S

ince I was eight years old, my

teachers and parents warned

me to avoid the types of clothing

that revealed my feminine features

because men on the streets, uncles

who visit my house and even young

boys in my class might be provoked

to take advantage of me. I grew up in

a society where a man’s testosterone-

driven malignancy was rarely decried

when rape crimes flashed on the

news. Instead, the news vilified the

women who were victims for wearing

outfits that unveiled more legs than

necessary and blamed them for

“asking for it.”

I perceived the link between

sexual assault, abusive power and

a man’s gender identity as a South

Asian, sociocultural phenomenon

— until I attended a multicultural

boarding school in Italy where the

male teachers sexually harassed

their female students, and the only

physical violence that happened

in two years was between men, or

a man towards a woman. When

I came to the United States for

college, my friends and I were

groped on dark dance floors at

frat parties. During my vacations

to France and Los Angeles, men

from all over sent me catcalls. My

girlfriends and I were verbally

abused when we rejected men who

pursued us at bars. I witnessed

the toxic elements of a universal

framework of masculinity built on

the historical social dominance that

gives men a license to abuse, violate

and sexually mistreat members of

the opposite sex.

But I cannot theorize the

boorish behavior as the essential

nature of manhood because I have

seen the more righteous sides of it

as well. I was raised by my father

—
a
non-violent,
affectionate,

masculine paternal figure — who

continues to sacrifice his own

comfort to provide for me. He

always respected my mother and

reprimanded family members who

treated females as subordinates.

Many men — not just my father— in

my life have been compassionate,

caring and respectful.

This new year, the topic of

masculinity
has
wrecked
the

internet
with
raging
debates.

In early January, the American

Psychological
Association

published its first-ever guidelines

for therapists working with men

and boys, in order to address the

concerning fact that men are

more often the perpetrators and

the victims of violence, and also

comprise the larger demographic in

suicide rates.

Though the study draws from

four decades of research (long

before the #MeToo era) and is

intended to better men’s physical

and mental health, it has still

been opposed as “anti-men” for

concluding that perceptions of

“traditional
masculinity”
(such

as suppressing emotions and not

seeking help) can have potential

harmful effects on men and people

around them.

A week later, Gillette released

a
commercial
critiquing,
“the

particular brand of masculinity”

by which some men feel they are

allowed to commit various acts

of harassment such as bullying,

groping and catcalling. This ad was

met with furious backlash from

men’s rights activists and many

others, including women, who

have been seriously offended that

the phrase “toxic masculinity” has

branched out from the confines

of gender studies classrooms and

entered our personal lives where

we can actually address it.

In response to the Gillette ad

that garnered 1.3 million dislikes

to date, Egard Watches released a

commercial that has been received

without the same fury because it

positively frames men’s bravery and

doesn’t display some of the more

problematic aspects of masculinity.

Similar to the APA guidelines,

the ad made note of the fact that

men make up the overwhelming

majority of homicide victims. The

two commercials and the APA

guidelines essentially agree that

men are inherently righteous and

the deplorable, abusive behavior

does not portray “real men.” The

fundamental difference is that

unlike Egard Watches, Gillette

and APA expose the detrimental

aspects of socialized masculinity in

order to prevent them. Both of these

messages are equally important.

If young boys are only shown

that courageous men have sacrificed

their lives to end wars, they won’t

learn that men engaging in “locker

room talk” is dishonorable. We

seem to not realize that condemning

certain damaging actions in order

to eradicate them is just as vital as

praising positive, virtuous conduct

so as to encourage its adaptations.

While we should highlight the

model of masculinity that entails

the selfless and commendable, we

also need to discuss and dismantle

the
problematic
archetype
of

masculinity that, time after time,

perpetuates a crude culture of

entitlement that far too often leads

to abuse and violence. While social

media struggles with what it means

to be a man, one constructive

message is clear: Bullying and

sexual
violence
are
not
key

characteristics of a man’s identity.

So, it’s time to start denouncing the

bad behavior as well as positively

reinforcing good behavior.

“Brooklyn Nine-Nine” actor

Terry Crews has emphasized the

necessity of this call to action and

said: “Until men stand up and say,

‘This abuse, this harassment, these

assaults are wrong,’ nothing will

change.” And this is crucial because

men do not always hold each other

accountable for bad behavior, even

when they see it or know about it. Of

course, there are men who do, but it

is not as commonplace as it should

be. For example, when a male friend

of mine warned one man to stop his

pernicious insistence on sex with a

drunk woman, he was criticized by

other men for being “unchilled.”

Similarly, when my female

friend was sexually assaulted by

her Tinder date who ignored all

the “Nos,” her male best friend

responded, “I’m sorry but you

cannot just walk into a strange

man’s house and expect everything

to be alright.” If a 21-year-old,

college man utters such words,

it demonstrates the fallacious

mentality that presumes an innate

bridge
connecting
masculinity,

sexual assault and fear. But that

dynamic should not exist because

a society where a woman has to

fear an unfamiliar man but a man

can violate an unknown woman is

simply unfair. When another man

in the same friend circle learned

of this comment, he claimed it

was thoroughly disrespectful. Yet,

he failed to warn his male friend

who blamed the victim because

they have a “guy code” where

rebuking each other’s wrongs

rhymes with “uncool” negativity.

But negativity is not calling each

other out on sexist comments or

bullying, it’s the destructive words

and actions itself. Hence, men need

to administer conversations about

sexual assault awareness with their

“bros” and deliver warnings when

required.

And yes, men are not the

only ones behind social problems

because women can also be guilty of

harassment, bullying and violence.

Women unquestionably share the

responsibility for ensuring the

community is safe for all. Yet, even

up until 2015, rape prevention tips

were mostly directed to women

and not men. Discourse on sexual

politics
is
progressing.
That’s

why this current dialogue on

masculinity is a good sign that

we can now start decomposing

any
association
between
a

man’s gender identity and abuse

of power and violence. So to

everyone reading this — especially

men — I urge you to hold yourselves

and
your
friends
accountable

for harmful behavior. If this is

something you uphold, continue to

do so. But if you don’t, it’s time to

start now.

Ramisa Rob can be reached at

rfrob@umich.edu

ABBIE BERRINGER | COLUMN

W

hen
it
comes
to

media bias, many of
my peers scoff at the

idea that the political media is
somehow coloring their opinions
of the most contentious political
issues today. Most of us want to
believe we are coming to the most
logical conclusions when it comes
to the formation of our opinions.
However, those of us deeply
concerned about media bias feel the
problem is so obvious and impactful
that we aren’t sure how anyone can
deny its reality anymore.

While the problem exists in the

headlines on a daily basis, it was
no more apparent than this past
week as two of the nation’s most
contentious protests — The 46th
Annual March for Life and the
third annual Women’s March —
took to the streets of Washington,
D.C. Many mainstream media
outlets on the right and left are
guilty of portraying the version
of events that fit a predictable
ideological narrative, but since
several mainstream media outlets
are decidedly left-leaning, liberal
political sentiments often pop
up much more often on social
media timelines as well as in TV
and print news. CNN, MSNBC,
the Huffington Post, the Atlantic
and The New York Times often
all face criticism by conservatives
for coming across as left-leaning
news outlets. They proved these
criticisms accurate with their
coverage of these marches.

While
I
initially
thought

analyzing headlines from all of
these sources would be a beneficial
undertaking, I quickly realized
delving into the full breadth of
media bias would take a much
more in-depth analysis than I am
capable of providing in this space.
So instead, I chose to analyze just
one of these sources, The New York
Times, to see how their coverage of
the two political protests from this
past week varied in both quality

and quantity. I chose The New

York Times over the others due to
the prevalence with which I feel
my peers tend cite its credibility
and due to the amount I consume
articles from The New York Times
over other sources as well. I find
that compared to very openly
biased sources on the right and left
— like Fox News and the Huffington
Post, respectively — The New

York Times is substantially more
balanced in general, though I was
disappointed with their coverage
of these two marches this past
week.

The New York Times coverage

of the March for Life featured
three news stories on the day
of the march itself but had no
articles in the days preceding.
The first search result on their
website was titled, “Thousands
March in Washington at Annual
Anti-Abortion
Rally.”
I
was

immediately incredulous that an
article reporting on a march that
has existed for 46 years and this
year collected nearly 100,000
participants neglected to even call
the march by its name. Rather,
it referred to it by the politically
charged characterization of being
“Anti-Abortion.” By doing so,
the headline already painted a
negative picture in the minds of
the reader. Not inconsequentially,
the organizers of the March for
Life portray their own message
as positive. They don’t claim to
be marching against abortion
but rather marching for life.
While this may seem like mere
semantics, anyone well-versed
in persuasive writing tactics
understands
positive
versus

negative
persuasive
language

has a very strong effect on a
reader
both
consciously
and

subconsciously.

Additionally, by the second

paragraph, the article had shifted
into a long tangent surrounding
the government shutdown and
President
Donald
Trump.
It

continued with a macabre tone
as it delved into the difference
in the climate of Washington
this year versus the last due to
the shutdown. It finally circled
back to the march itself by the
last paragraph, still without any
substantive coverage of the details
of what people were marching for
or the history of the event itself,
ending on a note about failed
Republican attempts at anti-
abortion legislation under Trump.

The other two articles also

both featured headlines about
Trump instead of talking about
the march more substantively.
While this may not appear on
its face to be the boldest form
of media bias, the reporters at
The New York Times neglected

to report on any of the pro-life
perspectives provided at the
march or even to detail the sheer
mass
of
pro-life
supporters

from all walks of life who were
in
attendance.
Instead,
they

continually turned the discussion
back to Trump’s presidency with
only occasional blips of reporting
about the march itself.

The New York Times coverage

of the third annual Women’s
March varied substantially from
its coverage of the March For
Life. There were five total articles
posted on the day of the march
itself and another six articles
were posted about the march in
the preceding days. While the
title of the first search result from
the day, “Smaller Crowd Turns
Out For Third Annual Women’s
March Events,” did not initially
inspire optimism, the article
did boast the accomplishment
of actually calling the march by
its name. It also discussed the
march with substance. Instead
of depicting Washington as “a
capital full of shuttered federal
agencies” as the article about
the March for Life did before
delving into veiled criticism of
President Trump, it began to
discuss the positive aspects of
this year’s march despite the low
turnout, noting how “throngs
of marchers” arrived with their
“spirits visibly lifted.” The article
went on to tout the march as a
“celebration” of all that had been
accomplished in women’s rights
in the previous year — utilizing
the type of positive language that
was notably absent throughout
the piece written about the March
for Life. It did then go onto to
discuss the controversy around
alleged anti-Semitic comments
made by two of the organizers of
the march, however, noting how
this fractured the movement as
a whole and contributed to the
decreased turnout. While this
was most definitely an example of
balanced reporting, it by no means
excuses The New York Times of the
disproportionate level of coverage
given to the Women’s March versus
the March for Life.

How big of a problem is biased political journalism?

Abbie Berringer can be reached at

abbierbe@umich.edu.

RAMISA ROB | COLUMN

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.

We need to
dismantle the
problematic
archetype of
masculinity

Policymakers

should prioritize
getting informed
about the basics
of technology

Read more at MichiganDaily.com