Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, February 27, 2019
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Elias Khoury
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
M
y sophomore year of
college, I decided
to major in history
instead of political science. To
me, the switch from political
science to history was a minor
one, because I had always
thought they were similar.
But
that
was
not
the
perception a lot of people I
knew had. Some of my friends
and family seemed concerned
that I was majoring in history.
The impression I got from
people
was
that
political
science
was
better
than
history because it was more
employable,
more
relevant
and more interesting. The
concerns I encountered reflect
broader trends in American
higher education. These trends
highlight two commonly held
attacks on the humanities.
One
is
that
declaring
a
humanities major is asking for
unemployment. And two, that
the humanities are inferior and
antiquated when compared to
the social sciences.
Since 2007, the number of
history majors in the U.S. has
fallen more than 40 percent.
There are even colleges that
are getting rid of certain
humanities
subjects.
Many
look to the recession in 2008 to
explain the dwindling interest
in the humanities. Memory
of the recession has made
college students today deeply
concerned about finding a
stable job. So once in college,
it makes sense that many
millennials and Gen Z college
students have opted out of
the humanities, because in an
economy often characterized
as being in the midst of an
information age, quantitative,
data-based and technological
skills seem more practical.
What use is reading hundreds
of pages about the French
Revolution, philosophy or the
modern canon when all the best
jobs require quantitative skills?
This
trend
of
favoring
quantitative
methods
and
skills is also evident within
the liberal arts curriculum
itself. Having spent almost
four years on campus, as I
alluded to earlier, it’s clear
the social sciences are widely
held in higher esteem than
the humanities. Again, my
experience
seems
to
align
with the overall trend on
college campuses, as the social
sciences have not experienced
anywhere near the drop in
enrollment
the
humanities
have. In the information age,
those who have chosen to major
in a liberal arts subject are also
swayed by an academic and
cultural ethos that emphasizes
data and quantitation.
First,
the
idea
that
humanities
majors
are
unemployable
relative
to
STEM or business majors is
not true. In 2015, 4.3 percent
of terminal bachelor’s degree
holders in the humanities —
meaning their highest level
of education was undergrad
—
were
unemployed,
compared
to
3.6
percent
of
all
terminal
bachelor’s
degree holders, which is a
minuscule
difference.
And
while humanities majors do
make less than business or
engineering
majors,
many
humanities majors report a
high level of satisfaction with
their salary and with their
job. So the widely held claim
that a humanities major is
asking to spend years after
college in a Starbucks or
their parents’ basement is
inaccurate and hyperbolic.
Second, the humanities can
offer immense value to your
college education and they are
not an inferior version of the
social sciences. I chose to study
history because I’ve found that
doing so has allowed me to
think in a critical and informed
way about the institutions,
politics, debates and social
realities that I interact with on
a regular basis. Taking classes
on the origins of Nazism and
the
Nazi’s
racial
ideology
changed the way I thought
about race and forced me to
reconsider
my
previously
colorblind mindset. It also
showed me how ideologies in
general work in conscious and
unconscious ways.
A
bevy
of
European
history
classes
gave
me
the tools to understand the
pillars of political liberalism,
communism
and
fascism.
They also taught me how
liberal democracies can justify
inequalities in the provision
of rights that are ostensibly
universal. A class on the history
of media representation of
Asian Americans allowed me
to contextualize my mom’s
family experience in America
as
immigrants
from
the
Philippines. And a class on
intellectual history exposed
me to the influential ideas of
19th century Europe’s most
important thinkers, which I
found relevant to political and
moral questions today. These
are just a few examples of the
history classes I have taken
that have enriched the way
I think. Overall, the lens of
historical analysis has forced
me to reconsider a lot of the
assumptions
I
had
before
starting college, leaving me
happier, more open-minded
and more informed. And while
learning
invaluable
lessons
and information, I’ve honed
my ability to write, make an
argument, analyze sources and
do qualitative research.
The
ability
to
think
critically
and
historically
about the pressing issues of
our day is no less important
today than it was a before the
advent of the information age.
STEM
is
obviously
highly
valuable
and
beneficial
to
society. We have STEM majors
to thank for the fact that
our
scientific
capabilities,
from
life-saving
medicine
to the latest technology, are
greater than they have ever
been. But the moral progress
of the humanities does not
match our scientific progress.
The nature of the social and
political problems we face are
not fundamentally different
from those of the past, despite
the vastly improved scientific
landscape we have today. It
is this discrepancy, between
moral
and
technological
progress, that the humanities
can offer unique succor and
in which the social sciences
fall short.
The social science classes
I have taken have not only
been interesting, but have
also
offered
great
insight
into contemporary problems.
However, in my experience,
they tend to rely heavily on
quantitation and ahistorical
theories. While you can make
observations about the natural
world through randomized,
controlled
scientific
experiments, making similar
scientific
observations
and
conclusions
about
humans
is much harder. Modeling
human behavior in political,
social or economic contexts
is hard because of human
complexity. Research tells us
that humans are not as rational
as we once thought and that
emotions and reason often
converge to make decisions
in our brains, challenging
the validity of rational choice
theory prevalent in social
science theories. While the
social sciences can provide
insight
based
on
studies,
quantitative
analysis
and
models, they should not be
seen
as
conclusive
given
the
complexity
of
human
behavior. This is where history
and the greater humanities
come in, to use critical and
analytical qualitative skills
to understand human society
and the moral and political
choices we have, in ways that
a
quantitative
analysis
or
predictive model cannot fully
explicate.
Aaron Baker can be reached
aaronbak@umich.edu.
ELLERY ROSENZWEIG | COLUMN
Exercise competition is toxic
L
aying my mat on the
ground, I look left and
right
observing
those
around me. I take a seat as I try
to adjust to the hot temperature
of the room. The instructor walks
in and motions for us to begin in
child’s pose. As I slide in, I can’t
help but look at the woman in
front of me. Is my butt supposed
to be as low to the ground as hers?
We begin to hold long balancing
poses, and I shake trying to hold
mine longer than those behind
me so they can see how talented
I am. We reach the end of class in
corpse pose, where you literally
do nothing but lie on your mat,
and my instructor reminds us that
“you are exactly where you are
supposed to be.” I repeat this in
my head as I struggle to stay still
for the next 5 minutes.
In yoga classes, on my own
at the gym or walking in heavy
foot traffic to my 10 a.m. class, I
struggle to fight the competition
and comparison I create between
myself, friends and complete
strangers.
Recently,
after
overcoming my fear of the gym,
I realized these settings have a
competitive atmosphere due to
the way your workout is measured
on the machines and the way
people present themselves in the
weight room. And overall, I have
found this competitive energy and
this mindset makes these physical
activities extremely unenjoyable.
Now, I wouldn’t say I am the
competitive type. My parents
always tell stories of me playing
middle school basketball where
instead of focusing on the ball
going down the court, I was
preoccupied with playing with
my hair. Looking back, all I
remember was the joy of playing
with my friends and physically
feeling good after a practice. So,
how come I really enjoyed myself
in a competitive setting then, but
when exercising today, I find this
competition so unbearable?
In the past, when I used to
go to work out, there was always
an underlying goal to get as fit as
possible or to lose weight. There
were periods of time when I took
my exercise very seriously, and
looking back, I would say it was
particularly harmful. I hated the
entire process of working out
and how I felt before going to do
these activities. During and even
after, I never felt the endorphins
rush the way others around me
experienced it. Usually, I would
do a particular physical activity
every day for a few months
and then fall out of it from
injury, lack of interest or lack of
results I wanted. There was no
sustainability in the expectations
I had for myself because they were
so unattainable with this mindset.
I think I developed this way
of thinking from how our society
glorifies fitness, health and being
athletic. We are socialized from
a young age in physical activities
and in school gym classes that
to be healthy and fit, we should
be active. But when particular
children
feel
discouraged,
targeted
and
uncomfortable
in these programs, it should
be a clear public concern. Last
semester, when researching for a
project on fatphobia, I found out
when physical education teachers
have a bias toward against fat
students, these individuals begin
avoiding physical activities, and
this can impact their relationship
with their bodies and ultimately
their mental and physical health.
So, we receive messages from
a young age that the only way to
be fit and healthy is to work out,
be active and do this as much as
possible until we get the expected
results of what healthy looks like.
But what if we never get the results
we dream of because healthy looks
different for each body? I think
the influence of this education
is where the comparison game
begins and where we develop
this
competition
between
ourselves and those around us.
And this happens especially in
environments like the gym or
workout classes, where some
become super fit and get the
results they expect while others
struggle to fit this norm because
their bodies may not be able to get
to the same point.
This competitive, comparison
mindset in physical exercise is
toxic and leads to people pushing
themselves too far, thus hurting
themselves physically, or avoiding
these activities in general, which
hinders them from gaining the
actual benefits from physical
activity. Last semester, with my
busy schedule, I rarely found time
to be physically active and did not
think much about it until I found
myself extremely stressed out.
Close to finals, one of my friends
encouraged me to go to the gym
with her to just sweat out all of
our stress. I recognized, probably
for the first time, how good it
felt to sweat and feel the rush of
endorphins.
From that point on, I decided
I will not allow this competitive,
comparison mindset to influence
the way I engage in physical
activity. It does not benefit
my lifestyle because it turns
out I actually like moving my
body and the way it makes me
feel. This means I am actively
deciding to not care about what
others are doing or think of me
in an exercise setting. It has
already been a challenge, but
I have noticed that everyone
is truly focused on themselves
and do not care about what I am
doing at all.
The people around me are
not my competition. I try to find
joy in physical activity because,
ultimately, isn’t its purpose to
make me feel better? Whether
moving my body will make
me fit or healthy, it makes me
feel happy and gives me space
to relieve myself from stress
and clear my mind. I think we
should all challenge ourselves
to be kind, goofy and silly with
one another and ourselves at
the gym, in workout classes or
on a quick walk running late to
class. Because most of us are
not training to become serious
athletes and would benefit from
the fun and joy of just moving our
bodies as we please.
Ellery Rosenzweig can be reached at
erosenz@umich.edu.
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our open Editorial Board meets Wednesdays 7:00-
8:30 PM at our newsroom at 420 Maynard St. All
are welcome to come discuss national, state and
campus affairs.
P
eople don’t care about
data privacy. This is
the explanation of some
analysts for why there hasn’t
been a boycott against the big
internet companies. If people
cared, surely scandals like
when Facebook leaked the
personal data of 50 million
Americans
to
Cambridge
Analytica,
or
reports
that
Google
secretly
purchased
financial data to track users’
purchases would’ve led to
some sort of departure from
these platforms by now.
The
problem:
It
seems
people do care. The Pew
Research Center found that
80 percent of users were
concerned about businesses
and advertisers accessing the
data they share on social media
platforms.
Furthermore,
61
percent of users said they
would like to do more to
protect their privacy.
So
why
haven’t
people
stopped
using
Google
or
Facebook?
Because there aren’t viable
alternatives. Sure, there are a
number of companies that aim
to provide privacy as part of
their product — Duck Duck Go
for your search engine, Signal
for messaging, FastMail for
email. However, the costs of
switching make it unrealistic
for most people.
For example, if you want
to use Signal for messaging,
you would have to convince
each
person
you
message
with on Facebook Messenger,
WhatsApp, etc., to switch over
to Signal in order to message
them. To use FastMail for
email, it costs $30 per year
minimum. Additionally, there
is the hassle of transferring
contacts, photos and prior data
to these new services.
Why
aren’t
there
real
alternatives? The nature of
many tech companies means
the value of their products
increase as more people use
them. This makes challenging
the big tech firms a herculean
task, as not only do you
need a competitive product,
you also need to be able to
overcome a massive user base
disadvantage (almost a third
of
the
world’s
population
uses
Facebook).
Further
exacerbating this situation is
one from the the wide array of
anti-competitive actions that
tech companies employ.
For
instance,
tech
companies
often
use
acquisitions
to
snuff
out
potential
competition
and
expand into new industries.
Many
of
Google’s
central
products such as YouTube,
Android
and
DoubleClick
(Google’s ad service) were
acquired as start-ups. Forays
into new technologies such
as the internet of things and
artificial
intelligence
were
jump-started by purchases as
well — Nest and DeepMind
respectively.
Furthermore,
companies
that
compete
with Google’s products face
challenges including Google
wielding its product arsenal to
place them at a disadvantage,
like when Google manipulated
search results to promote its own
services and demote competitors
offering similar services.
This
pattern
of
anti-
competitive
actions
can
be found across the tech
giants. Whether it’s Amazon
purposefully
hemorrhaging
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars to force an acquisition,
or
Facebook
purchasing
potential
competitors
like
WhatsApp
and
Instagram,
anti-competitiveness is a core
feature of the big internet
companies’ business models.
These practices make it difficult
for consumers to influence
the
marketplace,
reducing
their ability to hold companies
accountable by taking their
business elsewhere.
There
are
signs
that
tech companies’ bigness is
starting to be noticed. In the
European Union, Google faces
two fines due to anti-trust
violations — each with a price
tag over $2 billion. U.S. Sen.
Amy
Klobuchar,
D-Minn.,
a presidential candidate for
2020, has introduced antitrust
legislation that includes a ban
on acquisitions for companies
with a market capitalization
above $100 billion (Facebook,
Google and Amazon all have
market
capitalizations
well
above
$100
billion).
Lina
Khan, an academic fellow
at Columbia University and
a former legal fellow at the
Federal Trade Commission,
has proposed a new legal
theory, which contends that
even when monopolies appear
to
benefit
consumers
by
offering free services or low
prices, they can still be deeply
harmful. She argues that these
monopolies can distort not just
markets, but American life,
through things like enormous
tax cuts, commissioned studies
and
aggressive
lobbying
(Amazon’s
HQ2
debacle
illustrates this perfectly).
To put power back in
consumers’ hands, the tech
giants should be treated as
the behemoths that they are.
Unrestrained expansion has
made consumers powerless
to
influence
the
market
with their choices, and now
government must step in on
their behalf with oversight
and regulations that hold
companies
accountable.
The scale of the largest tech
companies has given us free
services
and
revolutionary
products, but that scale has
externalities that must be
dealt with.
It’s a mistake to interpret
consumers’ inaction in the
tech
industry
as
apathy.
People truly care about their
privacy
on
the
internet,
but
the
current
situation
makes
action
unrealistic
for many. Until the tech
industry becomes a properly
functioning market — or is
regulated like a public utility
— consumers will be stuck
between a rock and a hard
place.
Why no one quits Google or Facebook
CHAND RAJENDRA-NICOLUCCI | COLUMN
Chand Rajendra-Nicolucci can be
reached at chandrn@umich.edu.
AARON BAKER | COLUMN
Don’t let the humanities die
I’ve honed
my ability to
write, make
an argument,
analyze sources
and so qualitative
research