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