Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, February 11, 2019
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
Erin White
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
ELLERY ROSENZWEIG | COLUMN
Welcome to the sex recession
L
ying on my freshman dorm
room floor, my hallmates
and I share our latest
matches on Tinder. We compare our
similar options, read out loud our
ridiculous conversations and laugh
about our feelings of loneliness. None
of us had any intention of meeting
up with our matches because that
would be too risky and scary. This
was our new game. We swiped for
a few hours, received a small ego
boost and would go on with our day.
We were putting ourselves out there
without actually having to deal with
rejection or in-person consequences.
So if we weren’t meeting up with
people from Tinder, where were we
meeting people? It seemed like my
few friends who entered college in
long-term relationships kept finding
new relationships (possible serial
monogamy) and the rest of us had
a small amount of random drunk
hookups at parties each semester.
We weren’t meeting anyone great
and the hookups alone were always
described as bad or unrememberable
from either our blurry state of mind
or lack of intimacy.
Ever since the beginning of
college, there has been this clear
message: We are in the age of hookup
culture. Whether it is good or bad it
is happening and typical in college
students’ lives. I, and those around
me, still seem to be active on apps
like Tinder and Grindr. We speak
casually about sex and about the
fact that we have been with multiple
sexual partners. But with the varied
amounts of casual sex, we are still
actively trying to find someone to be
intimate with, passionate about and
to have some kind of commitment
with.
This week, in my psychology
seminar on emerging adulthood,
we were discussing the varied
experiences
young
adults
have
with love and dating. We read this
past December’s cover story of The
Atlantic, where Kate Julian dives
deep into what she calls the “sex
recession,”
the
current
climate
where people are having less sex
despite increased access to birth
control,
education,
technology,
porn, masturbation and a variety
of other resources. I felt so relieved
to find that there was language and
terminology for something myself
and so many other young people are
experiencing.
This hookup culture dominative
narrative is not real for everyone who
is supposedly participating in it. We
may be having casual sex but not as
often as portrayed in the media or the
way we want it to seem to those in our
lives. Hookup culture has positively
destigmatized the use of online dating
apps and sex outside of committed
relationships and marriage. But who
is to say this kind of sex is enjoyable?
Participating in casual one-
night hookups is not always what it
is cracked up to be. There are some
factors that can create an unenjoyable
sex experience. For instance,
when both parties are drunk,
they are trying to recreate what
they viewed in porn or they lack
the information about what the
other person likes. In addition,
women already have a difficult
time enjoying the pleasures of
sex when they are focusing on
the way their body looks. In
the current age of social media,
where people are posting only the
best possibly photoshopped images
of themselves, individuals have
to fight images of unattainable
perfection in the bedroom. Also,
this image of perfection is seen
in porn, for the ways bodies
are supposed to look and react.
The sexual activities may look
enjoyable for the porn stars in the
film but in real life they are not
always that way.
The definition of hooking up is
vastly different for every person.
It can range from little sexual
activities, such as foreplay, to going
all the way. I’m curious where this
hookup culture is perpetuated. I
think probably from a combination
of social media, movies, TV, music
and porn. Also, dating apps have
power
in
reinforcing
hookup
culture. They make money from ads
that people swipe through while
using their application. So, people
are swiping on these dating apps
for hours and not actually meeting
anyone. But they continue to use
the apps because it seems like this
is the only way they can find the
possibility of a sexual or romantic
connection in our culture. By
viewing these advertisements while
swiping, they are participating in
mindless consumerism that keeps
these applications in business.
Recently, some new dating
applications like Hinge and Bumble
have been created for users to get
into relationships by encouraging
people to meet face-to-face and get
off the app. But in my experience,
there are fewer people on these apps
and they are still looking for casual
sex without really getting to know
you.
So, seeing that we are in a sex
recession and having less good
sex, I think we should be trying to
challenge the narrative and norms
of hookup culture and actually try to
get to know the people we are giving
pleasure too. I’m not saying you have
to be monogamous, but being with
someone and learning who they are
and what they like will probably
lead to better experiences. Don’t let
the fear of rejection stop you from
putting yourself out there because,
whether it be online or in person,
anything you experience will help
you grow in real life.
FROM THE DAILY
Encourage clarity for the felony disclosure policy
O
n Feb. 4, the University of Michigan announced a new policy requiring
employees to disclose current felony charges and convictions within a
week of the charge or conviction occurring after Feb. 1. If an employee
fails to report the charge or conviction, they could face potential consequences,
including the loss of their job. The University’s Human Resources office will review
employees’ situations on a “case-by-case” basis to determine if any action needs to
be taken against the employee. While the process itself appears reasonable on its
face, there are unclear portions of the language and process that could lead to unfair
treatment of an employee who may or may not have committed a crime. To remedy
this, the University should implement an amended policy with clear language and
a transparent process that ensures a fair and comprehensive process for employees.
The University has a clear duty
to protect its students. However, the
language of the policy is vague and
prevents affected employees from
being fully informed about the policy.
For employees, this means that there
is no clear understanding about what
the consequences for reporting a
felony are. Additionally, there is
not a clear timeline establishing
when an employee will hear from
Human Resources. For example,
the policy includes the ill-defined
phrase “timely manner,” referring
to when employees will be notified
about the determination Human
Resources has made. No timeline is
put in place for employees, making it
nearly impossible for them to plan for
their future if the University chooses
to take some form of action against
them. If an employee is terminated,
they will have no plan to fall back
on. This could be detrimental to
the financial well-being of the
employee. The University could
easily put a timeline in place to create
a more comprehensive process for
employees.
The policy also states that
“temporary measures” could be
taken, such as moving the employee
to an alternate work location. This
portion of the policy can provide
immense difficulties for employees,
especially student employees who
may not have a vehicle to take them
to an off-campus location. It also calls
into question what will happen to
students if a professor, for example,
is charged or convicted of a felony.
Would that class still be taught
during Human Resources’ review of
the professor? While it makes sense
that the University would put some
sort of temporary measure in place
to protect students, these measures
need to be more clearly defined
for the sake of both employees and
students.
Lastly, the policy states that
the University will “conduct a
review of the disclosure and make
an
individualized
assessment,
consistent with business necessity.”
Here,
the
phrase
“business
necessity” is unclear. What is a
business necessity? How does the
University evaluate the connection
between “business necessity” and
the alleged crimes of the employee?
Amending the language of the policy
to clarify these questions will allow
employees to understand the basis on
which their cases will be evaluated.
In addition to the language,
the process itself is unclear. The
University should clarify how they
will assess charges, and furthermore
give the process of submitting
charges and convictions some kind
of interface so that employees have
a more detailed point of reference.
If an employee gets charged with or
convicted of a felony, they are asked
to fill out an online form. Once this
form is submitted, the situation will
be evaluated by Human Resources
on a “case-by-case” basis. It is
unclear if the employee is able to
explain their situation to Human
Resources in person. When students
violate the community standards
set by their housing contracts, they
go through disciplinary action that
usually involves several University
employees. This gives students
numerous opportunities to explain
the situation face-to-face. Shouldn’t
employees be afforded the same
ability to explain their circumstances,
especially in a situation when
employment can be terminated? The
process should include interactions
between Human Resource staff
and employees charged with or
convicted of a felony to allow for
open communication about the
process and provide an opportunity
for the employee to explain their
situation in person.
The vagueness of the process and
criteria is a point of concern. The way
the process is currently structured
allows
for
an
uncomfortable
level of leeway on the part of the
administration to apply the policy
in a way that doesn’t align with its
stated intention — to keep students
safe. One could imagine a situation in
which a University employee would
be terminated to avoid potential
backlash, even if the employee is
acquitted. According to Michigan
Incident
Crime
Reporting,
37
percent of felony crimes end up being
cleared. However, an employee
might find themselves without a
position at the University because
they were charged with a crime they
did not actually commit. While it is
important to keep students safe, a
standard of fairness must be used to
protect the rights of employees.
Protecting students clearly must
be a priority for the University
and this policy is a step in the
right direction. Unfortunately, the
guidelines for whether action should
be taken in a given case require that
the University act in good faith in
every instance. An amended policy
that is more specific about what
kinds of cases qualify as posing a
danger to students will minimize the
chance of abuse and give employees
much-needed peace of mind.
Ellery Rosenzweig can be reached at
erosenz@umich.edu
MILES STEPHENSON | COLUMN
New media, the solution to sensationalism
A
s a journalist, I often think
about the best way to get
stories and information to
people. I try to lead with curiosity
over sensationalism, and I try to
posit two opposing ideas equally
when I speak to someone who has
come to a different conclusion.
Recently,
however,
traditional
media has been criticized for
pushing agendas at the expense of
honest inquiry. Last month, major
broadcast companies took a 20
second snippet of a one hour video
from an incident at the Lincoln
Memorial and adjudicated a group
of teenage boys from Covington
Catholic High School as racists for
ostensibly mocking the drumming
and singing of Nathan Phillips, a
Native American military veteran.
Not long after, the full video
surfaced showing that indeed it was
Phillips who approached the group
of boys and acted as the aggressor,
banging a drum in their faces as
he ploughed through the crowd.
On “The View,” Whoopi Goldberg
said “many people admitted they
made snap judgments before these
other facts came in.” What America
witnessed in the Lincoln Memorial
incident was the sensationalist
reporting that old media lends itself
to. From this incident, and many
others we have seen recently, we
are witnessing an emergent media
revolution. This change comes at
a time when the podcast and other
long-form, more deliberate and
contemplative content alleviates
the pitfalls of politically-biased
mouthpieces that rush to judgment
and
disseminate
inaccurate
reporting to attract views or push
agendas.
Six corporations control 90
percent of the media in the United
States, so it’s no surprise that it
can sometimes appear to a viewer
that they are being fed a specific
viewpoint of the world. The
preponderant cable and network
news organizations all have an
undeniable bias, their claims of
objectivity
notwithstanding.
Consumers are guilty as well, as
our tendencies towards intellectual
safe zones leave us wading into the
same political pool that our parents,
or other life influences, first threw
us into until we begin to actively
seek out information that confirms
our own biases. One viewer sees the
Covington student Nick Sandmann
in his red “Make America Great
Again” hat and knows him to be the
face of bigotry, and another sees an
aggressive adult drumming in the
face of a boy who doesn’t know what
to do about the crowd and recording
iPhones encircling him.
The
major
shortcoming
of
sensationalist media is that these
dialogues are not unfolding in
a controlled setting with two
respectful
speakers.
They
are
spilling out in the comment sections
of videos uploaded for clicks and
views and in traditional media talk
shows. These talk shows or news
commentary shows have become so
predictable in their format that you
can essentially guess every word to
come out of the speakers’ mouths
before they open them.
First, they invite a guest on with
the weakest, most radical argument
from the opposing political side.
Then the host, often a hyper-
articulate or at least aggressively
assertive and persuasive talking
head, proceeds to lambast them
on national television with ad
hominems, and attempts to use
this vanquished nematode as the
standard for the entire political left
or right. At the end of the segment,
before a commercial break about
the Super Bowl, the host looks at the
camera with a smirk that says, “See?
This is what they are all like. So you
should see the folly in their ideas
and join us!”
What does this accomplish?
Nothing besides a couple moments
of polemic entertainment at the cost
of increased political polarization.
No important issue dissected, no
bridge built to a better dialogue
and
no
bipartisan
solution.
Unfortunately, this is the kind of
carnage that skyrockets ratings,
attracts advertisers and inflates
network staff salaries. It seems
this everlasting cycle has ensnared
American media producers and
consumers in two opposing echo
chambers and muddied the aisle,
preventing anyone from making
their way across.
Or perhaps not. Jordan Peterson,
a
clinical
psychologist
and
philosopher of the intellectual dark
web, discusses this phenomenon as
an issue of bandwidth. Talk shows
and panels supply their guests only
a few minutes before commercial
breaks to hash out complex and
controversial ideas. This shortage
of time dilutes the conversation
and incentivizes speakers and
guests to be quick-witted and
contentious — but not necessarily
intellectually honest. The solution
to this seems to be the long-form
discussion, now accessed through
podcasts. In these conversations,
thinkers can sit for hours, broker
criticism, concede points from their
opponents and discuss at length
issues like the dogmatic elements
of religion, the issue of free speech
on college campuses or what to do
about the dispossessed of developing
civilizations.
This
development
occured
because
of
a
new
technology that allows impromptu
conversations to unfold in front
of millions across the world, their
auditory format allowing consumers
to engage with the content during
found time (while they’re walking
their dog, driving to work or doing
the dishes). Here, complex issues are
given a wide pasture to roam. No
pyrotechnics, no chyron-driven
“gotchas,” just people addressing
issues in a thoughtful way.
An American media ecosystem
that once believed your message
had to be quick and flashy to get
views is now learning that podcast
luminaries like Joe Rogan, Hila
and Ethan Klein, Dave Rubin and
Sam Harris are orbited by crowds
in the millions, eager to hear
voices from nearly every industry.
Paleontologists,
heavyweight
boxing champions, neuroscientists,
philosophers, activists and Navy
SEALS — this diverse field of
professionals can offer the average
consumer an insight into some
of the most novel and fascinating
ideas anywhere on the planet.
As much as they are places to
philosophize, these podcasts also
handle everyday, headline issues
and can tease out the truth more
thoughtfully and sensitively than
a 90 second panel of loudmouth
pundits.
In the new media format, the
Lincoln Memorial incident could
have been analyzed at length and
evidenced with the full video
in proper context. Perhaps the
host would have watched the
entire video during the podcast
and
commented
moment-by-
moment about the evolution of the
conflict. Perhaps the high school
boys wouldn’t have received death
threats and viewers would have
noticed other radical groups at
the memorial who were actually
shouting hateful language. Any
approach other than the impulsive
and inaccurate commentary that
was spewed by our leading media
outlets would have been preferable.
These new media thinkers, their
more
considerate
format
and
the technology they use to reach
audiences might be just what
we need to receive and process
information more responsibly in the
modern world.
Miles Stephenson can be reached at
mvsteph@umich.edu
DANA PIERANGELI | COLUMN
T
he longest shutdown in
the history of the United
States has finally come to a
close, bringing a prosperous period of
compromise and camaraderie to the
government. Wait, that’s not right.
This is the Trump era we’re talking
about.
Let’s start again. The longest
shutdown in the history of the United
States has finally come to a close, and
now there might be another one. The
government has been temporarily
reopened,
but
President
Trump
has declared if an agreement is not
reached in three weeks, he will either
shut the government down again
or declare a national emergency to
bypass Congress with his wall scheme.
The Congressional Democrats
are not willing to fund an ineffective
and costly wall, but have agreed to
work on a deal to strengthen border
security, in contingency with Trump’s
wishes. Yet Trump is committed to his
pet project, unwilling to compromise
even when his own supporters are
suffering
from
the
government
shutdown. There wasn’t even enough
Republican support to pass Trump’s
wall plan. Democrats and Republicans
alike were in a frenzy trying to come
up with a plan to end the government
shutdown, despite no further ideas
about the wall.
Even Trump’s supporters are
fed up with all the disagreements.
The Washington Post found that
many of his followers, while still are
in support of border security, find the
government shutdown too high of a
cost and mostly blame Trump for that.
They sympathize with the thousands
of government workers who are going
without pay and are angry at Trump
for putting his fruitless agenda ahead
of the well-being of his citizens.
In this time of uncertainty,
Trump needs to focus on what is
important: serving the people. And
he can’t do that if the government is
shut down, not paying health workers,
environmental protection workers, air
traffic controllers — everyday people
who depend on their government
salary to provide food for the table and
services for the public. About 420,000
critical government employees were
working without pay. About 380,000
non-critical government employees
were sent home without pay during
the shutdown, and 50,000 were
called back to work without pay.
Many were forced to look for part-
time jobs in this time of crisis. In
solidarity with these workers, more
than 100 Congress members either
rejected pay or donated their salaries,
and are pushing for legislations
that would dock congressional pay
during shutdowns. While this is of
course admirable and does benefit
many people, it still does not alleviate
the situation of other government
workers. The only way to do that is
to reopen the government and come
to diplomatic solutions to the current
issues.
We
haven’t
had
a
divided
government since the end of the
Obama adminstration, which means
the government is no longer used
to working with much pushback. A
Republican-led House, Senate and
executive branch weren’t exactly
in dire need of major compromises.
Don’t get me wrong, Democrats taking
back the House and reinstating a split
Congress is definitely a good thing.
With equilibrium reestablished in
Congress, the checks and balances
system can be restored. But it’s only
effective if Trump understands that
he now needs to compromise. He can’t
shut down the government every time
there’s a disagreement.
After the shutdown, is compromise possible?
Read more at MichiganDaily.com