Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, March 21, 2019
Zack Blumberg
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
Erin White
Ashley Zhang
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
Our University was deeply
affected by the traumatizing
event of having a believed
shooter on campus. While
this was thankfully proven
to be a false alarm, the stress,
fear and harm inflicted on
students
remains
tangibly
real
and
potent.
One
of
the
fundamental
reasons
that this stress has been
so pervasive lies with the
University’s
inadequate
response to the alarm –
particularly in its unclear
and sporadic communication
with students before and
after
the
incident.
This
past weekend’s events were
an alarming wake up call.
We as an Editorial Board
urge
the
University
to
take
this
opportunity
to
implement concrete change
to
their
active
shooter
preparedness and procedure,
in collaboration with student
organizations to create the
most
effective
protocol
possible.
After
an
emergency,
students look toward the
University
for
leadership
and guidance on how to
effectively
move
forward.
We implore the University
to create a space for open
dialogue
for
students
to
directly
express
their
concerns about the current
active shooter protocol as well
as suggest amendments to the
way the University handles
emergency
situations.
This could be a town hall,
among other options. This
will give the University the
opportunity to hear from and
acknowledge how different
communities — specifically
underrepresented
communities like the Muslim
community and people with
disabilities — are affected,
and allow these different
experiences to inform the
resulting policy.
One of the most glaring
issues to come from the
incident was the University’s
alert system. The system
failed to notify all students
of the alarm, either at all or
in a timely manner, which
is unacceptable considering
that the immediate safety of
the entire community was
at risk. Students reported
receiving information from
their parents before getting
any notification from the
University or from social
media.
The
University’s
first
alert
regarding
the
unconfirmed reports of an
active shooter went out at
5:06 p.m., though many had
been
receiving
texts
and
calls from fellow students
and loved ones for about 30
minutes beforehand. When
the alert finally came, not all
students received it through
practical
and
immediate
channels
such
as
text
message or push notification.
The University should not
only work to deliver these
messages in a more timely
fashion, but also make it
mandatory for students to
opt into the emergency text
system, which is currently
optional
and
accessible
for students to sign up to
through Wolverine Access.
It is also important for
the University to reevaluate
the type of information they
are disseminating in these
alerts, and focus on providing
accurate, detailed and clear
information. One of the first
messages from the University
simply said “run, hide, fight”
— the University’s current
active
shooter
protocol
sponsored by the Department
of Homeland Security. While
this protocol may be useful,
in an emergency situation
it
does
not
adequately
provide students with useful
direction. Furthermore, it
fails to account for specifics
of the situation.
Additionally,
the
“run,
hide,
fight”
protocol
is
something
that
needs
to
be addressed and retaught
beyond the video shown at
orientation. Many students,
faculty and staff are unaware
of what exactly this protocol
entails, which is problematic
due
to
its
importance.
Potential solutions to this
problem could be creating
a simulation to be shown at
more regular intervals, either
during
syllabus
week
or
through mandatory seminars
in the mold of “Relationship
Remix” and “Change it Up.”
Expanded-upon instruction
about
“run,
hide,
fight”
could
include
situations
that
are
personalized
to
our
specific
institution,
perhaps including building-
by-building
protocols
—
especially
those
that
are
frequently
attended
by
students and therefore more
vulnerable
to
potential
emergency situations. This
information could also be
featured on course syllabi in
a similar way that the sexual
assault and CAPS policies are
described, giving students
specific information based
on the building and room.
It is crucial that the
University discuss which of
their channels of information
is
most
reliable
so
that
students and the community
at large are able to turn to a
credible source immediately.
If such a channel is not yet
established then it is the
University’s duty to create
a clear source for reliable
updates. We also encourage
the University to collaborate
with The Michigan Daily
as a trusted campus news
organization and resource,
as we can serve as a direct
pipeline
of
reliable
and
immediate information. We
acknowledge the mistakes
we made on Saturday, and
to
prevent
anymore
the
University
should
work
with us to provide accurate
updates in the event of an
emergency.
Due
to
the
lack
of
clear
communication
via
emergency
alerts,
vague
vocabulary and instructions
and no single, clear source
for updates, students turned
to police scanners and first-
hand accounts about what
was happening. This aided
in the spread of confusion
and panic. We are incredibly
fortunate that the alert on
Saturday was a false alarm,
but this event must be viewed
as a learning opportunity for
the University to improve
its emergency protocols. It
is imperative that students,
faculty and staff have a
clearer
understanding
of
what to do and where to
receive information in these
types of situations. Saturday
proved there is an urgent
need to improve University
policy and protocol, as these
procedures are essential to
our campus safety.
B
y 4 p.m., more than
200 of us arrived at the
University of Michigan
Diag for a vigil to mourn the lives
of those lost in New Zealand,
organized by the Islamophobia
Working Group.
At about 4:35 p.m., 20 terrified
people called 911 from Mason
Hall, reporting the sound of
gunshots.
At 4:43 p.m., I sent my loved
ones a text message that read,
“I’m okay I love you.”
The truth is I was not ok. I
was not safe. And I didn’t know if
this would be the last thing they
would ever hear from me.
My day started off better than
most. I attended the Women’s
March with my mom and friends
and then arrived at the vigil
shortly after to support the Ann
Arbor Muslim community. It
was supposed to be a day that
would uplift and unite us. At
the vigil, a student beautifully
chanted a verse from the Quran,
the names of the victims were
spoken aloud and another student
began reading a poem. Suddenly
I heard a man’s voice shouting in
the distance, I turned my head
back toward the noise but saw
nothing and turned back to face
the poet. I could not hear what
he said or see the crowd behind
me from where I was standing in
the front. Seconds later his voice
was echoed by screams and cries
and people all around me were
running for their lives. It was all a
blur. It happened so slowly and so
quickly at the same time.
Over the past year and a
half, in light of the news of mass
shootings in this country and
abroad, I have woken up with
night terrors where I am in a
lockdown more times than I can
count. But my nightmares did
not prepare me for this. I found
myself lying on the cement of the
Diag. It felt like I was drowning
in the sea of people and I didn’t
have the strength to get up or the
ability to see the surface.
I heard two voices, who I
would later find out were my
friends, telling me I needed to
stand up. It sounded like when
you’re sleeping and someone
is talking to you and you can’t
tell if it is in your dream or real
life. I somehow managed to pull
myself up; I probably wouldn’t
have been able to if it were not
for the encouraging voices. I
remembered that it was safest to
run as far away as possible from
the shooter, but I didn’t have
the strength to keep running.
It felt like I was running in slow
motion. In delirium, I reached for
the nearest door handle and ran
inside. I later found out that it was
the Hatcher Graduate Library.
I don’t even remember how I
found the staircase that led to “the
stacks,” bookshelves of archived
materials and locked office doors.
There was no room to hide in, no
door to lock. In the active shooter
situations I had been trained
for, there was a dark classroom
with entrances that could be
barricaded and people huddled in
a corner whimpering quietly. This
was far from my experience. Here
I was in an all-concrete area with
nothing to hide behind or block
doors with. Fluorescent lights
shined above us and daylight
streamed through the windows.
We were not “in hiding” because
there was nowhere to hide. I
saw the number four on a door
and assumed I was on the fourth
floor of the building. I did not feel
like I was in lockdown, nothing
felt secure or protected. Twenty
minutes later, messages came
through our phones that read
“Active shooter in Mason Hall.
Run, hide, fight.” Mason Hall was
the building next to us. We had
run long ago. We were not able
to hide here. And we had nothing
with which to fight. Helpless.
I was with about 10 others.
Two happened to be my friends,
even
though
we
had
been
separated in the crowd, and the
rest were strangers. A couple
of them organized and spoke at
the vigil. The oldest among us
proposed we all sit in a circle, hold
hands, and just breathe. My hands
were clasped so tightly with the
people next to me, my knuckles
must have been white.
Over the next hour and a half,
we all received text messages
and calls from worried friends
and family. Between Twitter,
text
messages
and
listening
to the police scanner on our
phones, countless rumors spread
rapidly. We heard mixed reports,
including “the shooter is in the
library right now,” “they have
caught two shooters and are
looking for a third,” “the suspect
is heading towards Brown Jug”
and others. It was impossible
to know what was true, as we
received no concrete information
from the University’s emergency
alerts.
After nearly an hour of pacing,
waiting and worrying, some other
students found our group. They
suggested we try to get to a higher
floor, as we were only on the first
floor – which was news to me.
After finally getting to the top
floor, we heard loud footsteps and
a man’s voice shouting something,
so we bolted back down the spiral
staircase in a parade of terror
(this was likely a police officer but
we, of course, assumed it was a
shooter).
We remained at the bottom
of the staircase for the last 15
minutes, all 40 of us at that point,
while a series of announcements
started coming on the intercom.
A
woman’s
voice
projected
throughout the building that the
library was safe and there were
police here because the fire alarm
had been triggered, though we
never heard it go off. The next
announcement reported that it
was safe outside and we could
choose whether to leave or not.
The final one said that the police
declared everyone must vacate
the building so they could clear
it. We did not know whether to
trust the voice overhead. These
announcements spread to social
media and I received texts from
worried
friends
saying
that
what the woman was saying
contradicted police orders.
When we finally got the “all
clear” message, we cautiously
got up to exit the staircase. The
emergency alarm went off as we
opened the exterior door. Some
hesitated, while others said to
keep going. Once outside in the
brisk, open air, there was a police
officer positioned between us and
the road. He wore a bulletproof
vest and dark sunglasses. The
officer sharply motioned for us to
stop walking toward him and to go
in a different direction. Bright red
and blue lights lining the Diag faded
behind us. We continued to walk
home, unsure if we were safe yet.
Local news declared that the active
shooter was a false alarm caused
by popping balloons, assumed to
be gunshots, prompting police to
tell the crowd at the vigil to run. I
received many texts from relieved
friends and family to the effect of
“at least it wasn’t real,” completely
invalidating my lived experience.
When I got home I peeled off
my muddy jeans to reveal two
badly bruised and scraped knees.
I feel grateful for the condition
of my knees. Grateful for these
knees that sting with each step
I take back into normalcy. I am
grateful for them because they
prove, to others and myself,
that I survived a very real active
shooter experience. That for an
hour and a half I did not know if
I would make it to see today.
Ashley Schnaar is a first-year
graduate student at the University of
Michigan’s School of Social Work. She
can be reached at schashle@umich.
SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK
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. Submission information can be found at
https://tinyurl.com/survivorsspeak2019.
False alarm
ASHLEY SCHNAAR | OP-ED
B
ig
Brother?
Or
a
breakthrough in crime
fighting?
Detroit
has
joined the growing list of cities
turning to surveillance cameras
as a tactic in their efforts to reduce
crime.
Project Green Light allows
businesses to pay a fee to have
surveillance
cameras
stream
directly into city police facilities.
Police monitor the footage, aiming
to catch crime in real-time as well
as using it to track down and arrest
suspects. The program has been
touted by Detroit Mayor Mike
Duggan as a major factor in the
city’s recent crime reduction. He
has used that momentum to push
for a major expansion of Project
Green
Light,
which
includes
integrating traffic cameras as well
as schools with the 500 businesses
currently providing surveillance
footage.
Duggan
has
also
entertained making the program
mandatory for businesses open at
10 p.m.
Does Project Green Light
actually
reduce
crime?
It’s
unclear. City officials say yes,
pointing to a number of statistics
including crime falling by 11
percent at Green Light locations
from 2016 to 2017 (the city as a
whole saw a 7 percent decrease in
crime over the same time period).
However, no robust study has
been done comparing crime at
Green Light and non-Green Light
locations, and critics, such as Eric
Williams of the ACLU, say the
data presented by city officials is
anecdotal. Furthermore, similar
projects in Baltimore, Chicago
and Washington D.C. have seen
benefits diminish as the programs
expanded. London, often cited
as the most surveilled city in the
world, has seen no significant
reduction in crime since the large-
scale rollout of its camera system.
The
trend
towards
surveillance as a crime-fighting
strategy
isn’t
confined
to
government. A number of startups
have arisen claiming to provide
protection for homeowners with
“smart” video doorbells. One
of the largest such companies,
Ring, was recently acquired by
Amazon for $1 billion. However,
just as with city-wide studies,
the effectiveness of home video
doorbells is unclear, with some
studies finding that areas with
Ring doorbells saw increased
crime compared to similar areas
without them.
If surveillance programs do
work, it’s only when they are
implemented in a small, targeted
way according to Eric Piza, an
associate professor at the John Jay
College of Criminal Justice. When
programs become too big, studies
have shown residents begin to
believe police are not consistently
monitoring the cameras. So, by
expanding Project Green Light,
Detroit may eliminate any positive
effects of the program.
Putting its effects on crime
aside,
what
does
increased
surveillance mean for people’s
privacy
and
civil
liberties?
Nothing good. Project Green
Light’s combination of traffic
cameras and business footage
potentially opens the door for
tracking
citizens
across
the
city. As people travel, inevitably
passing businesses and traffic
lights, police will amass data that
could allow them to connect the
dots on an individual’s movement
with relative ease. China is already
doing this, using a vast network
of cameras to track Xinjiang
residents.
Additionally,
the
use
of
facial recognition software to
identify persons of interest could
lead to misidentifications with
potentially serious consequences
— like when an FBI examiner
using
facial
recognition
technology incorrectly identified
a bank robber. The ACLU tested
Amazon’s
facial
recognition
software, Rekognition (currently
in use by a number of police
departments), on members of
Congress and found it matched
28 of them — disproportionately
people of color — to criminal
mugshots. This finding which
begs the question: Should a tool
which perpetuates biases already
plaguing the criminal justice
system be used by it?
Detroit’s push to expand
Project Green Light is in stark
contrast
to
the
ambiguity
surrounding its effects. Millions
of dollars in taxpayer money
have been allocated to the
program along with the typical
$4,000 fee each business pays
to install cameras. That’s money
that could be spent on strategies
that are proven to reduce crime
such as community policing
and better lighting, not to
mention employment, housing,
education
and
recreation
programs. Instead of treating
the root causes of crime, city
officials are pouring money
into an unproven quick-fix that
opens the door for privacy and
civil liberty abuses. Preventing
crime should be about lifting
people up, not targeting them
with a dubious surveillance
program
whose
effects
are
likely inconsequential.
CHAND RAJENDRA-NICOLUCCI | COLUMN
Chand Rajendra-Nicolucci can be
reached at chandrn@umich.edu.
Project Green Light’s end doesn’t justify the means
FROM THE DAILY
The University’s emergency response system needs improvement
T
his past Saturday, there was a false alarm during which University
of Michigan students were alerted about an active shooter situation
in Mason Hall, leaving them confused, fearful and traumatized.
This occurred at the same time as a vigil on the Diag for the victims of the
recent attacks on two New Zealand mosques, where more than 50 people
were killed. The Michigan Daily Editorial Board would like to specifically
express our support for the Muslim community during this time, many of
whom were disproportionately affected by this scare, and offer a statement
of solidarity with the community.
The system failed
to notify all
students of the
alarm, either at
all or in a timely
manner