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