Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, September 16, 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
N
o
one
likes
it
—
disagreement.
It’s
uncomfortable.
It manages to creep its way
into
many
a
conversation,
ranging from a new show on
television your friend thinks is
great (but you find genuinely
terrible) to a political issue.
It can be the elephant in the
room at Thanksgiving dinner
or in a group project. There is
something inherent in human
nature to avoid tension at almost
all costs, to smooth over the
potential discomfort and just
agree or refuse to acknowledge
something.
This past summer, I found
myself
in
a
conversation
about
disagreement.
I
had
just attended a political event,
and my friend had struck up
a conversation while we were
there with a person who had
entirely different ideas on the
issue addressed at the event. She
said, while they disagreed, they
were able to openly talk about
their perspectives on the given
issue and find common ground.
This is not the norm, as I am
keenly aware.
Disagreement seems to be
entirely present in society today:
from pundits on Sunday morning
talk shows undercutting one
another regarding the state of
our nation to the most recent
spat between Democrats and
Republicans on the Hill. There
are endless channels through
which division flows, and while
not all forms of disagreement
are intrinsically bad, I cannot
argue all are healthy either. I
believe, sometimes, individuals
get so wrapped up in their
own views they refuse to
acknowledge that not everyone
feels the same way.
Coming
to
college
gave
me exposure to perspectives
and viewpoints outside of my
personal realm of familiarity.
I had never been confronted
with the possibility that so
many people felt the same,
particularly
with
regard
to
political or social issues, but
that so many also felt differently
and that there were platforms
to discuss these differences so
openly. In the past, I had ducked
these contentious conversations
about
politics
with
family
members and others, knowing
we may disagree. I never had
so many venues to voice how I
felt about different issues, and I
know I am not alone in this.
How
can
we
as
college
students and beyond move past
the fear of creating division
and work towards productive
conversation? How can we turn
disagreement and the constant
back-and-forth
so
prevalent
in
the
media,
politics
and
popular culture into something
constructive?
I
know
I
am
strongly
opinionated and often tense
up when I hear arguments I
don’t agree with or when I
know a disagreement could
arise between friends, family
members, classmates or even
strangers. I struggle knowing
there is continuous disagreement
over the little, and, often times,
larger issues. However, I know
as I grow into my own beliefs
as a college student and adult, I
need to be comfortable knowing
disagreement is a fact of life,
avoidable or not, and invite
conversation instead of shying
away from it.
As my friend reflected on her
discussion with the individual
at the political event, something
stuck with me. She said, up until
recently, if she had been faced
with the same conversation,
she would have failed to even
try to see their perspective and,
instead, would have stuck to
her own ideological agenda. I,
in all honesty, probably would
have done something similar. I
challenge myself and others, in
an age when we quiver at the
thought of contention or fight
to prove each other wrong, to
find common ground. I am not
saying all contrary opinions
are a good thing or a similarity
can always be found, as there is
no place for bigotry, hatred or
discrimination in any place or
conversation. What I am saying
is we need to recognize that with
the prevalence of disagreement
comes the responsibility of
making it constructive and
finding a middle ground instead
of remaining in a place of socio-
political stagnation.
We owe it to ourselves, our
communities,
our
campus
and our country to take a
step back and recognize the
power of listening first and
talking second. Disagreement
is
everywhere,
but
the
humanizing
moments
are
those
in
which
individuals
of differing perspectives can
recognize, while they may not
see eye to eye, there is space
for
conversation
and
some
form of agreement. As we
begin the new school year, let
us work toward collaborating,
understanding
and
creating
spaces in which disagreement
can be constructive. Let us
welcome conversation instead
of pointing fingers. Let us find
common ground, which is the
only way disagreement can turn
from potentially being spiteful
to being productive. It is time to
move past contention and work
toward
making
substantive
socio-political change.
Finding common ground
CHAND RAJENDRA-NICOLUCCI | COLUMN
Facing ethics in a CS career
SAMANTHA SZUHAJ | COLUMN
I
t’s recruiting season, and that
means North Campus at the
University of Michigan is being
flooded with companies desperate
for computer science talent. This
past week, Microsoft, Palantir and
Uber had events on North Campus,
and this week’s engineering career
fair will host more than 300
companies, most of them recruiting
computer science students. It’s a
good time to be studying CS, which
is part of why it’s now the second
largest undergraduate major at the
University, only behind a Bachelor’s
degree from the Ross School of
Business. With all the resources and
diplomas going to these students,
what does a University of Michigan
CS education prepare them for?
Increasingly, it seems, life at a big
tech company.
Facebook,
Amazon,
Google,
Microsoft and Apple were five of the
top eight employers of engineering
graduates from the University in
2018. The University is promoting this
fact, highlighting these companies
in an annual report on engineering
grad employment — but is it really
something we should be proud of?
Tech companies are increasingly
doing work that should raise ethical
concerns. Palantir builds tools that
help ICE detain and deport migrants;
Amazon sells facial recognition
software to police departments and
creates neighborhood dragnets with
Ring; Facebook continually violates
user privacy and stokes extremism;
and Google (until recently) provided
AI for the Pentagon’s drone program.
As the digital revolution continues,
issues like these will only grow more
common and more serious. Yet, ethics
are rarely found in the University’s
CS curriculum, and concern for these
issues seems to be rare among the
student body.
It’s time computer science students
consider the morality and ethics of
where they work and what they work
on. A CS degree from the University
provides a wealth of opportunities.
Too often, though, it seems students’
career decisions are based solely on
factors such as prestige, salary and
benefits — with little thought or
preparation for the moral quandaries
presented by their work.
CS students often view a job in
big tech as an indication that they’ve
“made it.” It proves to people that
they’re smart. When comparing
companies, students trade stories
about free lunches, comped-parties
and massive bonuses while neglecting
discussions of what they worked on,
it’s impact or the workplace culture.
This environment is part of what
leads to three-hour lines at Facebook
and Google’s career fair tables and
the prioritization of perks over
impact when it comes to work. The
technology we create is what should
matter, not paternalistic “benefits”
and false “prestige.” CS students
should respect and appreciate all
types of work — the current situation
only helps big tech and hurts the rest
of us.
The University bears responsibility
as well. It promotes big tech
companies and gives little attention
to other options for employment
such as non-profits and startups.
This puts the onus on students to
find other opportunities, making it
even harder to avoid the pull of big
tech. As a CS student myself, I often
struggled with the feeling that my
only options were jobs in big tech or
the financial industry. Additionally,
because the CS curriculum largely
avoids any discussion of ethics or the
societal impact of CS work, issues
such as data privacy and algorithmic
bias are rarely, or never, addressed
in the classroom. Neither are case
studies about major ethical failures
and dilemmas in the field. Students
should have to confront and discuss
the societal impact of the systems
they create, not just build projects in
a vacuum.
For
students
aware
of
the
responsibilities
that
come
with
their power as computer scientists,
working in big tech may even be the
right choice. With the potential to
affect millions or billions of people
with their code and the shortage of
CS talent, there is little precedent
for the power that computer
scientists have today. Because of
this, collective action by computer
scientists can have a substantial
impact on the places they work,
and by extension, the world. In
the past year we’ve seen Google
employees instigate changes to
sexual harassment policies, end
the company’s Pentagon contract
and halt the development of a
censored search engine for China.
Enlightened students could work
from the inside on many of the hard
problems facing these companies,
encouraging reform and helping
navigate tech to a more sustainable
place. Sending engineers to big
tech with little awareness of the
implications of their work ignores
the realities of today’s world
and misses an opportunity for
meaningful change.
The culture of apathy among
CS students must come to an end.
The technology we create and
companies we work for have too
much of an impact for us to ignore our
moral and ethical responsibilities.
These responsibilities should be
an integral part of a CS education.
Individual classes should discuss
ethical considerations and case
studies related to their topic, and
instead of a humanities requirement
often serving as a blow-off class,
the University should institute a
dedicated technology and society
requirement. These changes would
be a valuable and overdue update
to the CS curriculum and follow in
the footsteps of other universities.
Additionally, the University should
do more to promote opportunities
outside of big tech. The startup
career fair is a good start, but we
need more emphasis and options. As
a University and as individuals, we
have a responsibility to consider our
impact on the world. It’s time to live
up to the stated objectives of our CS
program and prepare graduates to
“recognize the implications of their
work” and “contribute substantively,
as leaders, to science, technology,
and society.”
Chand Rajendra-Nicolucci can be
reached at chandrn@umich.edu.
Samantha Szuhaj can be reached at
szuhajs@umich.edu.
ATTEND A MASS MEETING
Join The Michigan Daily! We will be holding a mass
meeting at 7 p.m. in the Newsroom, 420 Maynard Street
on September 18. Come browse the different sections
and learn more about the paper.
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.
FROM THE DAILY
Whitmer, expand the ban
E
arlier this month, Michigan passed a ban on flavored e-cigarettes
after a string of illnesses and deaths were linked to vaporizers. The
response was announced under emergency rules created by Gov.
Gretchen Whitmer in part because many of those affected were minors. The
ban outlaws the sale of fruity e-cigarette flavors, like mango and cherry, but
does not limit the sale of flavors like mint, menthol and tobacco.
The response to this bill
has been mixed, with many
praising Whitmer for pushing
Michigan to be the first state
to take action against the
epidemic of recreational vape
use by minors. Others, like
business owners and legal
e-cigarette
users,
believe
this is a poor decision that
could cause businesses to lose
money or lead people to seek
out illegal sources of flavored
vaping products, which can
be dangerous. The Editorial
Board believes this legislation
is a small step in the right
direction, but it is rushed and
insufficient.
There is no denying the
problem
between
minors
and
nicotine.
E-cigarette
usage has skyrocketed since
products like Juul hit the
market,
and
a
significant
number of those new users
have been minors. Even here
at the University of Michigan,
it probably isn’t hard to find
someone who has illegally
vaped before. The rhetoric
expressed in the media tends
to blame these young people
for their addiction, citing the
vaping craze as a Generation Z
phenomenon and diminishing
its seriousness. But young
people are a vulnerable group,
susceptible
to
the
precise
marketing
of
e-cigarette
companies, peer pressure and
curiosity. Young vape addicts
need to be viewed as people
with just that — an addiction.
A
major
cause
of
this
epidemic comes from the way
these products are marketed
and
presented
to
youth.
Companies like Juul make
their products seem attractive
and cool. Juul is already under
investigation
by
the
Food
and Drug Administration for
illegal marketing practices,
claiming their products are
“safer than cigarettes,” even
“totally safe,” and for targeting
minors. Juul has even been
accused of tailoring their ads
to schools and summer camps
and admitted to sponsoring
a camp in Baltimore when
interrogated
by
a
U.S.
House
of
Representatives
subcommittee.
Whitmer’s plan addresses
this, prohibiting the use of
words like “clean,” “safe” and
“healthy” in the marketing
of
vaping
products.
An
existing law forbidding vaping
billboard ads will be more
strongly enforced with the ban
as well. As witnessed in the
opioid crisis, corporations are
skilled at finding loopholes in
order to still sell their product.
Perhaps
Whitmer
could
employ an extended-liability
model,
wherein
companies
like Juul are legally bound to
provide reparations to those
harmed by their products.
Outweighing their monetary
benefit with high costs in
this way could be enough to
discourage them from selling
dangerous products.
Additionally,
adopting
European models of marketing
traditional cigarettes could
help, such as printing images
on the packaging that show
how nicotine damages the
body. Whitmer could look
to programs, such as Truth,
that are able to reach a wide
array of teenagers because
they know how to tailor their
programming
to
younger
audiences effectively. There
also need to be new programs
and government Public Service
Announcements dedicated to
advising against e-cigarette
use in minors and helping
those already affected.
Whitmer’s ban also fails to
acknowledge that the flavor
of e-cigarettes will not be
enough to discourage teens
from
vaping.
Thousands
of young people now have
nicotine
addictions
that
will be satisfied one way or
another, whether it’s from a
mango-flavored Juul pod or a
cigarette. For the 354 possible
recent cases of vaping-related
lung
illness
in
the
U.S.,
many involve oils purchased
from
unlicensed
vendors.
Yesterday, a Wisconsin drug
bust showed the true extent
of this hidden market. Police
found close to 100,000 vaping
cartridges in a small-town
condo. Investigators from the
Center for Disease Control
believe that “home brews”
and contaminants such as
THC found in black market
vape substances are the most
likely culprit for the reported
health issues, rather than the
standard vaping products that
have been widely used for
years. Whitmer’s ban could
do more harm than good by
pushing users to look more to
illegal marketplaces and do-it-
yourself solutions that are
more likely to cause immediate
and lasting health problems.
The
solution
to
this
epidemic does not stop simply
with bans on vaping products.
Michigan’s
youth
need
comprehensive rehabilitation
plans to quell their addictions,
and this policy should be
influenced by the young people
who are being targeted by
e-cigarette manufacturers, or
by representatives who truly
understand
them.
Whitmer
cannot simply ban a product
and
then
leave
teenagers
to fend off their addiction
themselves.
It’s also important to ponder
Whitmer’s quick action on this
issue, when other crises –
like that in Flint – have been
on-going for years. Whitmer
hasn’t reinstated free water
bottles for the citizens after
former Gov. Rick Snyder cut
the program, and she did not
meet her lead pipe replacement
goal of late July.
Whitmer’s
attempt
at
solving the vaping epidemic
is good in principle, but only
goes so far in combating the
issue. In order to truly stop
minors from seeking nicotine
and THC in harmful ways,
Whitmer needs to expand her
plan to include rehabilitation,
restrictions
on
marketing
and comprehensive, inclusive
education programs for youth
on the dangers of e-cigarettes.
The lives of Michiganders and
our youth are at stake.
I need to be
comfortable
knowing
disagreement is a
part of life
The culture of
apathy among
CS students must
come to an end