Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
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
A
university
is
many
things to its students–
an
employer,
a
healthcare provider, a landlord,
a gym, a restaurant, a library,
an educator, an ISP, a creditor
and more. Each of these roles
has data associated with it
which,
when
unified,
can
provide an extremely detailed
picture
of
students’
lives.
In today’s world of big data
there is increasing pressure
to utilize this information to
improve students’ college lives.
Will this lead to surveillance,
inappropriate interventions and
the repackaging of biases? Or
could it set the example for how
to responsibly and ethically
utilize data in the future?
Just as Amazon, Google and
Facebook are creating models
to
predict
our
preferences
and
behavior,
universities
are increasingly looking to
predictive models for help with
student
performance,
well-
being and retainment. This is an
area called “learning analytics,”
and it’s filled with promises to
improve student outcomes by
analyzing mounds of data. But
just as big tech faces a number
of issues related to predictive
modeling, universities do as
well, with perhaps even higher
stakes. For example, one could
imagine a tool that recommends
majors reproducing historical
norms, steering women and
minorities away from STEM
fields.
Particularly when thinking
about recommendations and
interventions, schools will need
to avoid simply automating
historical
stereotypes
and
biases. Additionally, as schools
inevitably turn to third-party
vendors for help, they will need
to be rigorous about access
to student data. Companies’
security
and
authorization
practices should be thoroughly
vetted and monitored to avoid
letting student data fall into the
wrong hands. Already, hackers
are
increasingly
targeting
educational
institutions
for
their valuable information.
Universities
will
also
have to consider what they
collect.
To
date,
higher
education has largely avoided
the surveillance craze found
in K-12 education, but that
could easily change. A system
could be constructed using
data such as visits to the gym,
class attendance and browsing
history to surface potential
“threats” in the student body.
Surveillance in a more benign
form is already found in many
of the “learning management
systems”
used
by
schools.
These
systems
often
track
minutiae such as keystrokes,
time spent on assignments,
and distance scrolled in the
name of improving student
performance.
Additionally,
schools are embedding trackers
in
recruitment
emails
that
monitor things like whether
prospective students clicked
any links and how long they read
to help gauge “demonstrated
interest” in hopes of increasing
enrollment rates. These forms
of surveillance are the tools of
a system that Shoshana Zuboff,
an author and retired Harvard
Business
School
professor,
has
termed
“surveillance
capitalism.” In something like a
“learning management system,”
users are monitored for data to
fuel the creation of predictive
models that are used with subtle
cues and rewards to “tune, herd,
and condition” behavior. Zuboff
argues that this undermines
autonomy
by
encouraging
conformity and pushing users
toward the system designer’s
most desirable outcomes. If
universities implement a form
of
“surveillance
capitalism”
on their campuses, they could
threaten
students’
personal
and intellectual development
by stunting the exploration and
growth that is crucial to higher
education.
For
big
data
to
be
sustainable, Mark Zuckerberg’s
mantra of “move fast and
break things” will need to be
discarded in favor of discussion,
user-centered design and input
from a diverse array of voices.
Universities are well positioned
to take this approach because
of the knowledge, inquiry and
discussion that is at the core of
higher education. By tapping
into
the
multidisciplinary
expertise
found
on
their
campuses and including experts
from
non-technical
fields
such as history, sociology and
anthropology, universities can
ensure an array of perspectives
are considered when designing
technical systems. Additionally,
universities are more likely to
take a user-centric approach
because the student, ideally, is
whom they aim to serve. Though
there may be external pressure
from
parents,
donors
and
politicians, profit is (typically)
not at the center of a university,
making user (student) voices
more likely to be heard.
Universities are in a unique
position. With their wealth of
interdisciplinary
expertise,
tradition of discussion and
responsibility
to
students,
not
shareholders,
they
are
as
well-positioned
as
any
organization to get big data
right. If schools commit to
transparency,
discussion
and student input, they can
create an environment where
students are educated about,
and involved in, the utilization
of their data. A healthy cycle
of proposal, discussion and
continuous consideration could
emerge. Students, exposed to
a
transparent
development
process that respects autonomy
and
privacy
while
also
considering
sociocultural
realities, could be empowered
to demand the same type of
treatment in the rest of their
digital lives. Organizations such
as non-profits, governments
and even businesses would have
a model for how to harness big
data responsibly and ethically.
By empowering students and
creating a proven alternative
to the big data practices of the
tech giants, universities could
challenge the inevitability of
our every digital interaction
being tracked, packaged and
sold. Higher education bills
itself as an intellectual leader
that
enables
scholars
and
students to change the world
— here’s an opportunity to live
up to it.
KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN
The ability to measure environmental justice is the key to our future
I
n the recent 1619 Project,
by The New York Times,
Jamelle Bouie comments
on one of the main reasons
why the political climate in the
United States today has become
extremely combative: “America
holds
onto
an
undemocratic
assumption from its founding:
that some people deserve more
power than others.” For decades,
the features of our capitalist
system have translated into an
attitude that we all exhibit: the
necessity to compete in order
to succeed more than the next
person, with success generally
measured by monetary gain. As
a result, Bouie mentions, our
current system favors those who
are cutthroat enough to step
on others and dismiss them for
being inferior or for lacking some
qualification.
In the same way that there is
an unfair distribution of social and
economic benefits throughout
our
country,
underprivileged
and marginalized communities
continue
to
suffer
from
environmental
injustice.
We
have been able to conceptualize
this idea on a macroscale, such
as with the idea that regions
in North America with more
wealth to recover from natural
disasters experience a better
quality of life than some regions
of South America or Asia. To our
misfortune,
our
bureaucratic
system hasn’t been able to realize
that this phenomenon also exists
on a microscale within our own
cities and neighborhoods. That is,
until now.
Over this summer, graduate
students attending the University
of
Michigan’s
School
for
Environment and Sustainability
developed a tool to identify
the
areas
of
environmental
injustice in the state of Michigan.
Combining techniques used in
the tools developed to measure
environmental
injustice
in
the states of California and
Minnesota, these students used
11 environmental indicators and
six demographic indicators to
determine a community’s risk
of exposure to environmental
hazards and vulnerability due to
social factors. Ultimately, these
indicators were used to calculate
an overall environmental justice
score for each census tract in
Michigan. After applying this
tool, Paul Mohai, a founder of the
Environmental Justice Program
at the University and past member
of the National Environmental
Justice Advisory Council, was
able to make a conclusion about
environmental
injustice
in
Michigan: “A key finding of this
report is that environmental
injustice exists across Michigan,
with residents of low-income
and
minority
communities
disproportionately burdened by
environmental
contamination
and health risks — just as we saw
in Flint.”
In
addition,
this
study
involved
interviews
with
30
Michigan
environmental
justice leaders regarding how
they
themselves
experience
environmental injustice and how
they use data and assessment tools
in general. The study concluded
that “people” and “community”
were the most utilized words
by these environmental justice
leaders who also responded that
decisions were influenced more
often by monetary value than by
the interest of the people. These
leaders went on to commend
affected communities for being
“resilient despite adversity” and
noted that difficulties in achieving
environmental justice in Michigan
existed due to “lack of political
will and the erosion of democratic
processes.” In expressing desire
to utilize this tool for measuring
holistic impacts in Michigan,
these
leaders
acknowledged
that it needs to be administered
statewide to become effective.
As a result of this study, the
state of Michigan now has the
capability to identify the areas
that need to be prioritized in
terms
of
socioeconomic
and
environmental restoration. While
the statewide implementation of
this tool is completely feasible, last
year local and state government
officials were restricted by the
lame-duck session, the period
between an election and the end
of a lawmaker’s term. Regulations
were
to
proceed
only
with
legislative approval for those new
operations that exceed federal
standards. In other words, a vital
assessment tool that measures
the extent that environmental
injustice occurring in our state is
being limited to a legislative body
that may or may not understand
the importance of its immediate
implementation.
I believe that this tool is
groundbreaking
and
should
be considered a top priority in
existing efforts to improve our
quality of life in Michigan. As
this tool seeks to identify areas
of environmental weakness and
public health shortcomings, I
believe that a sustainable future
will be possible with similar tools
that can be used for restoring
socioeconomic
equality
along
with a flourishing environment.
As a student who has invested
much of my attention and efforts
into this University that serves
the student body, I am extremely
proud of the work that our
graduate students have done for
our community and urge that this
University waste no opportunity
to promote the beneficial work
our students do for our state
legislature.
It’s essential that our state
legislature
understands
the
necessity
for
environmental
justice
because,
as
we
can
expect, a beneficial tool means
nothing if our legislature doesn’t
understand why it should be used.
The greatest misunderstanding
comes
from
neglecting
marginalized communities, and
this neglect comes from having
a
predisposed
discrimination
against a type of person or group
for what they are. Furthermore,
it’s important that we urge our
government not to neglect those
who are underprivileged and
disadvantaged because we are
indirectly hindering the quality of
our environment as a result.
There
is
a
plaque
commemorating
the
loss
of
Iceland’s first glacier to global
warming
that
reads:
“This
monument is to acknowledge that
we know what is happening and
what needs to be done. Only you
know if we did it.” For the sake
of our future, we must do what
needs to be done, especially since
we now know how.
L
ast week, Sen. Elizabeth
Warren,
D-Mass.,
announced her plan for
criminal justice reform. The
plan contains a host of changes
to the current system, but
one in particular stands out:
ending the cash bail system. She
joins eight other presidential
candidates who also support
eliminating cash bail.
To be clear, this does not
mean eliminating all forms of
money bail, which the state of
California did last year. Cash
bail is one of the primary forms
of money bail in the United
States. Another more common
form is through a bail agent. A
court will determine a certain
amount of money to be paid,
and, rather than pay the full
amount, the defendant will pay
a bail agent a small percentage
of it, which the defendant does
not get back. If the defendant
does not show up for court,
the bail agent must pay the full
amount, but they can go after
the person’s assets to be repaid.
Cash bail, however, is when the
defendant pays the full bail
amount to the court and gets
most of it back (there usually is
a fee) after showing up for all of
their proceedings.
The
problem
with
this
system is that many people
cannot afford to pay the full
amount for bail. This puts
them in the position of having
to decide whether to go to
jail or go to a bail bondsman,
which will be more expensive
in the long run. In addition,
courts know that bail agents
initially require their clients to
only pay a percentage of their
bail, so they will set a higher
amount if they suspect that
a defendant will go to a bail
agent. Faced with this choice,
many defendants choose to go
to jail. This may be why almost
half a million people in jail
have not been convicted. The
justice system is slow, meaning
those awaiting trial can spend
many months or even years
behind bars.
The
impacts
of
that
incarceration can be tragic,
such is the case of Djibril
Niyomugabo. In Grand Rapids
in January 2016, Niyomugabo
was
charged
with
stealing
a bottle of wine from a car,
to which he pled not guilty.
Because he could not post bail,
he was held in jail. A few days
later, he was found unconscious
with
a
bedsheet
wrapped
around his neck. He was taken
to a hospital in Grand Rapids
and died two days later.
Furthermore,
the
flaws
in
the
cash
bail
system
disproportionately
affect
minorities,
specifically
African
Americans
and
Latinx
individuals.
Courts
were less likely to release a
Black defendant on their own
recognizance than they were
white defendants. In addition,
Black defendants between 18
and 29 were given higher bail
amounts than defendants of any
other race or age.
The problems do not end once
people are let out. Those who
are incarcerated for anytime
longer than a few days can lose
their jobs, making it harder to
get their lives back together
if released. If the defendant
has a family, losing income
can make it difficult to make
ends meet. To avoid putting
that strain on themselves or
their families, defendants will
sometimes simply plead guilty.
That decision can subject them
to harsh fines and years of
probation. In addition, having
a criminal record makes it
much harder to get a job, get
into school and access certain
public
benefits.
This
also
increases that likelihood of a
false conviction, which means
the real perpetrator would go
unpunished.
It does not have to be like
this. There are alternatives
to a cash bail system, such as
one Washington, D.C. began
implementing
as
far
back
as the 1990s. Rather than
forcing people to pay money to
maintain their freedom, they
determine which defendants
are most likely to show up for
trial as well as which ones are
threats to public safety and
make a judgment on whether
to jail them. In this system, 89
percent of defendants appear
for their proceedings.
The injustices in the cash
bail system undermine the
integrity of the criminal justice
system as a whole. It is a system
that jails people based not on
their guilt or the threat they
pose to the public, but on their
ability to pay. Resolving this
issue is critical to fighting the
United States’s problem with
mass
incarceration.
Former
Vice
President
Joe
Biden,
despite
having
worked
on
the 1994 crime bill that many
progressives have pointed to
as being deeply flawed, has
changed his position on cash
bail. It is well past time for the
country to follow suit.
How cash bail is deeply flawed
Kianna Marquez can be reached at
kmarquez@umich.edu.
CHAND RAJENDRA-NICOLUCCI | COLUMN
Chand Rajendra-Nicolucci can be
reached at chandrn@umich.edu.
Big data is coming to college campuses
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.
Joel Weiner can be reached at
jgweiner@umich.edu.
JOEL WEINER | COLUMN
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.
The problems
do not end once
people are let
out
Schools will need
to avoid simply
automating historical
stereotypes and biases
A beneficial tool means
nothing if our legislature
doesn’t understand why
it should be used