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