Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, October 3, 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

F

elicity 
Huffman, 
who 
plays 
Lynette 
in 
“Desperate 
Housewives,” 
was 
sentenced 
in 
early 
September 
for 
her 
role in the college 
admissions 
scam. 
For those of you that 
don’t 
remember, 
that 
was 
when 
the 
University 
of 
Southern California 
(and 
a 
few 
other 
selective 
schools) 
vaulted to the front 
pages of The Wall Street Journal 
and other newspapers for taking 
bribes for admissions spots. 
Now, 
Huffman 
has 
been 
sentenced for her actions in 
helping the Trojans beclown 
themselves yet again, to 14 days 
in the slammer, one year of 
probation, a $30,000 fine and 
a requirement that she wear 
Stanford gear for the next eight 
months. That last one is a lie, 
but the rest of it is true. Upon 
reading her sentence, I was 
struck by a couple of things.
First, it seemed like a fair 
sentence to me. I obviously 
think the actions of the parents 
were pretty shameful but, at 
the end of the day, these actions 
didn’t really hurt anyone. You 
could make a case that not 
getting into some of those 
schools had injurious effects 
or devalued your degree and — 
indicating the desperate need 
for tort reform — you could even 
file a lawsuit along those lines. 
However, 
you 
should 
do 
none of those things because, 
ultimately, 
Huffman 
got 
sentenced in a manner that 
was pretty fair relative to her 
crime. She’s not a murderer – 
why treat her like one? This 
principle should be applied 
to more than just Huffman, 
though. For example, when 
Tanya McDowell used her son’s 
babysitter’s address to register 
her son in school, she absolutely 
should not have gotten five 

years in prison. 
McDowell 
and 
Huffman’s 
respective cases illustrate a 
number 
of 
things, 
but 
two 
to 
point 
out are the obvious 
racial 
difference 
and the inefficiency 
of criminal justice. 
Both of these crimes 
were 
committed 
by 
mothers 
and 
both were in the 
educational 
field 
and, to be honest, 
neither 
one 
needs 
a five-year sentence. I’m open 
to the argument that neither 
one needs a sentence at all, 
which brings me to point out 
the obvious inefficiencies here. 
Keeping people locked up is not 
cheap and, all in all, is a pretty 
bad use of state resources. 
Decades 
of 
just 
throwing 
homeless people behind bars 
has yet to yield positive results 
and yet we continue as if we 
have a collective memory span 
than a fruit fly. Instead of 
wasting taxpayer resources on 
an endless scheme of locking 
up nonviolent offenders along 
with the less fortunate, there 
should be investments made 
in 
rehabilitation 
and 
social 
services as those have much 
better returns on investment for 
the community and much better 
results for those who utilize 
them. 
Second, this made me think 
about Lori Loughlin and her 
case. She reportedly regrets 
not taking a plea deal early on 
and deciding to go to court, 
because she and her husband 
got hit with additional charges 
after that. And, since Huffman 
got prison time, she almost 
certainly will as well. It seems 
unfair that choosing to go trial 
will cause negative impacts 
out of the gate, as we all have 
a 
Sixth 
Amendment 
right 
to a speedy and public trial. 
However, 
in 
practice, 
what 
happened to Loughlin is the 

norm. Defendants who choose 
to plead not guilty and go to 
trial routinely receive harsher 
punishments than those who 
take plea deals, and this is a 
well known threat to induce 
confessions – innocence be 
damned. 
Huffman 
and 
Loughlin 
(and the rest of the clown car) 
did something that’s bad. You 
could look at it in a positive 
light if you want my against-
the-grain take but not many 
people do (for obvious reasons). 
Neither of these two women 
are convenient avatars for the 
injustices that are part and 
parcel of the criminal justice 
system but that does not mean 
that we should ignore the 
lessons that we can take from 
this event.
First, USC is a bit of a joke. 
Second, Huffman getting a 
light sentence for a pretty light 
crime is a good thing, and if 
more people got those kinds of 
sentences, it would generally 
be a better world and making 
these sentences harder to get 
through a trial is on the merits, 
bad. A nation ruled by lawyers 
will 
always 
be 
procedural 
hell and there is no reason at 
all to encourage that. Third, 
Loughlin choosing to go to trial 
and appearing to get a harsher 
punishment for it is not a good 
thing. We all have a right to 
a fair trial, and it shouldn’t 
be 
unnecessarily 
abrogated. 
People 
will 
say 
that 
we 
shouldn’t care about Huffman’s 
and Loughlin’s run-ins with 
justice, and while I see their 
point, I disagree. The people 
who usually deal with that 
system are far less privileged, 
far less rich and oftentimes 
far less white. If some of the 
lessons from these cases can 
be applied a little more broadly, 
it’d be a much better country for 
all of us.

Felicity Huffman and the criminal justice we deserve

SOLOMON MEDINTZ | COLUMN

AB5 attacks the heart of the gig economy

T

his year’s most important 
bill for the future of work 
passed in California in 
September, and we should all take 
note. The law — Assembly Bill 5 
— sets a new definition for what it 
means to be an employee, and it is 
the most direct legislative affront 
to the so-called “gig economy” 
yet. AB5 sends the right message, 
but it now seems too late. The gig 
economy and the companies that 
have made it are too far and too 
powerful.
The timing of this bill is 
significant 
because 
the 
gig 
economy — where independent 
workers are paid by the individual 
job instead of a wage or salary — is 
growing quickly. By 2027, according 
to one model, approximately 50 
percent of workers in the United 
States will not be tied to a specific 
employer. Instead, they will do 
some freelance or gig work. It is a 
dangerous trend. It signifies the 
end of a work culture in which 
employees rely on their employers 
for social insurance. 
The gig economy has grown 
because employment has become 
more of a burden and finding quick 
work has become easier. It has led 
companies to do everything in their 
power to classify their workers 
as independent contractors and 
not full employees. For their 
employees, employers have to 
provide unemployment and health 
insurance, pay for parental leave 
and overtime, abide by minimum 
wage laws and grant the right to 
form a union. For independent 
contractors, employers are off the 
hook for all of it. 
Specifically, AB5 clearly lays out 
the criteria for classifying a worker 
as an independent contractor, in 
contrast to the vague federal law 
under which most states operate. 
AB5 
says 
that 
independent 
contractors are those who are not 
under company control, whose 
work is not the core part of the 
company’s business and that has 
an independent business in the 
industry.
This law will have enormous 
consequences for gig workers 
across the state and their employers, 
but most saliently for Uber and 
Lyft. Under AB5, drivers will get 
all the employee benefits they have 
missed as independent contractors. 

The National Employment Law 
Project estimates that it is 30 
percent cheaper for employers to 
hire someone as an independent 
contractor than as an employee, 
a 
potentially 
crippling 
blow 
for companies that are already 
running deficits.
But they will not go down 
without a fight. Uber and Lyft are 
up in arms over AB5 because it has 
the potential to reverberate around 
the country. The rival companies 
recently united to pour $90 million 
into a lobbying campaign to fight 
the bill and its implementation – 
and their efforts underscore how 
they cannot be trusted to give fair 
deals to their drivers.
Their campaign has three parts. 
The first is the standard libertarian 
messaging 
that 
government 
regulation is limiting business. 
They are not wrong. Uber and Lyft 
will suffer as companies, drivers 
may not have as much flexibility and 
wait times and ride fares will likely 
rise. However, tech companies that 
rely on the gig economy should see 
AB5 as a challenge that needs to 
be faced. If forcing the companies 
to comply with standard labor law 
is a gut punch, Uber and Lyft’s 
business model needs to become 
more resilient. 
The second part of the campaign 
has been to try and mobilize 
drivers against AB5. But this 
effort has been full of deceit and 
intimidation. In early June, drivers 
were asked to sign petitions to 
support flexible hours without 
realizing 
they 
were 
fighting 
against employee classification. 
Some drivers were also under 
the impression that signing the 
petition was mandatory, including 
drivers for whom English is a 
second language.
The tech companies’ negotiating 
tactics 
show 
how 
necessary 
confrontational 
organizing 
is. 
Drivers have been protesting how 
the companies take excessive 
portions of fares for years, but Uber 
and Lyft did nothing because their 
independent contractors did not 
have the capacity to collectively 
organize. Only after AB5 picked 
up 
steam 
in 
the 
California 
legislature did Uber roll out a 
compromise plan, even though its 
concessions were weak. Uber and 
Lyft marketed the proposal as a 

$21 minimum wage, but since 
that wage only applies to drivers 
who are actively picking up or 
with passengers, drivers would 
still be making below California 
minimum wage. 
It is easy to frame AB5 as an 
unequivocal win. But under the 
law, Uber and Lyft can still make 
the working lives of their drivers 
terrible, and have suggested 
that they will. First, they have 
suggested that they will just 
ignore the new law. More likely 
and thus more concerning is what 
kind of retribution the companies 
will deliver to their drivers. The 
biggest question is what will 
happen to driver flexibility. Lots 
of Uber and Lyft drivers say that 
without the ability to choose their 
own hours, they would not work. 
This is especially true for drivers 
who work other jobs, quasi-
retirees who will not commit 
to working different hours and 
students with irregular schedules. 
When AB5 comes into effect, 
Uber and Lyft say they may have 
to start setting hour minimums 
or preventing certain drivers 
from logging on in low-traffic 
areas. The bill’s supporters have 
countered that AB5 does compel 
Uber and Lyft to implement such 
restrictions. If they do, it would be 
by their own volition. 
There is a way to address the 
ambiguities of AB5 as well as 
Uber and Lyft’s public relations 
campaign 
against 
the 
bill 
that will send a clear message 
to the gig economy. Instead 
of mandating drivers have a 
different relationship with their 
employers, they should be able to 
choose whether to be classified 
as employees or independent 
contractors. The drivers putting 
in 50 hours in the car per week 
are employees who deserve the 
rights that label entails. But 
the drivers who are actually 
independent 
contractors 
could 
retain the flexibility they need. 
If the vast majority of drivers 
choose to be employees instead of 
independent contractors, it would 
send an unequivocal statement of 
opposition to the gig economy, one 
that Uber and Lyft cannot muddle. 

Solomon Medintz can be reached 

at smedintz@umich.edu.

Anik Joshi can be reached at anikj@

umich.edu.

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.

JOIN EDITBOARD

Join The Michigan Daily! Come to Editboard meetings 
Monday and Wednesday from 7:15 to 8:45 at the 
Newsroom, 420 Maynard St. Engage in discourse about 
important issues and become a journalist!

L

ast year, a coalition of 
University of Michigan 
faculty 
and 
students 
launched the One University 
(1U) campaign, with the goal of 
advocating for more equitable 
funding across U-M’s three 
campuses. 
The 
campaign’s 
efforts 
culminated 
in 
May 
with the opportunity to speak 
directly to the Board of Regents 
at their meeting in Dearborn, 
after which the board did not 
implement the changes that 
1U sought out. Despite this 
setback, 
the 
movement 
has 
built considerable momentum, 
with several regents expressing 
support 
and 
multiple 
state 
lawmakers publishing an op-ed 
advancing the 1U’s viewpoint.
1U’s 
argument 
is 
simple: 
The University’s Ann Arbor 
campus is substantially better-
funded than either of the Flint 
or Dearborn campuses 
– a 
problem exacerbated by the fact 
that Ann Arbor students tend 
to be from significantly more 
advantaged backgrounds. The 
argument of those who oppose 
the coalition’s view, such as 
University 
President 
Mark 
Schlissel, is also simple: The 
three campuses have different 
purposes and different goals, 
and the funding stream reflects 
that. While I’ve always found 
the “different goals” argument 
to be a dismissive response to 
a highly consequential issue, I 
also have been hesitant to fully 
embrace 1U’s mission. 
Most of the people I had heard 
advocate for 1U were either 
students at Flint and Dearborn 
— who only had things to gain 
— and Ann Arbor students like 
me, who come from wealthier 
backgrounds 
and 
would 
therefore 
be 
well-insulated 
from the impacts of budget cuts. 
On the other hand, many of my 
friends in Ann Arbor come from 
small towns in rural Michigan 
and are not necessarily better off 
financially than those students 
at Flint or Dearborn.
Moreover, 
research 
shows 
that students who attend U-M’s 
Ann Arbor campus from less 
wealthy backgrounds are nearly 
twice as likely to move up the 
income ladder as students at 
Flint or Dearborn. Initially, 
I worried that budget cuts 
could reduce U-M Ann Arbor’s 
effectiveness as a platform for 
social mobility for people like 
my friends, either by harming 
the quality of the education 

they had worked hard for, or by 
reducing the financial aid they 
depended on to go here.
However, when I actually set 
out to look into the budgets of the 
three campuses, I realized that 
1U was stating their case in the 
most conservative way possible. 
1U’s research already indicates 
that Ann Arbor students receive 
over 
twice 
as 
much 
state 
funding per student and well 
over twice as much total funding 
in comparison to Flint and 
Dearborn. But this is calculated 
based only on the U-M General 
Budget. The General Budget, 
which comprises only of the 
revenue that U-M generates 
through 
tuition 
and 
state 
funding, accounts for less than 
a quarter of U-M Ann Arbor’s 
funding, as compared to over 80 
percent of funding for the other 
two campuses.
The rest of Ann Arbor’s 
funding comes from interest off 
of its $11.9 billion endowment, 
research 
grants 
from 
foundations and the federal 
government, designated funds 
and 
“auxiliary” 
components 
of the campus, like Michigan 
Medicine and Campus Housing, 
which 
generate 
their 
own 
revenue. These funding streams, 
which result from the Ann 
Arbor campus’ status as a world-
renowned research university 
with wealthy alumni, are simply 
less to the other campuses. Once 
these other funding streams 
are factored in, the calculations 
show that state funding shrinks 
to 3 percent of the Ann Arbor 
campus’ total budget, compared 
to over 15 percent on both 
of the other campuses. The 
endowment interest alone brings 
in millions of dollars more than 
the totality of state funding. 
This means state funding for 
U-M 
Ann 
Arbor 
students, 
which, to reiterate, is twice that 
of Dearborn and Flint, is barely 
significant in the context of the 
campus’ total budget.
Thinking about my initial 
reservations 
about 
1U’s 
arguments, 
I 
looked 
into 
financial aid. Unsurprisingly, 
the Ann Arbor campus spends 
only a miniscule amount of its 
total budget of financial aid – 
just 3 percent compared to 10 
percent and 18 percent at the 
Flint and Dearborn campuses 
respectively. Since U-M Ann 
Arbor also relies so little on 
state funding, this means that 
reallocating state appropriations 

would 
be 
unlikely 
to 
significantly affect financial aid 
on the Ann Arbor campus.
To get a sense of how big the 
effect of reallocations might 
be, I did some back-of-the-
envelope calculations. I held 
each campus’s percent spending 
on financial aid constant, and 
transferred an amount equal 
to one quarter of the Ann 
Arbor campus’s state funding 
to the other two campuses. 
The result? Average financial 
aid packages in Dearborn and 
Flint by increased by over 15 
percent, while reducing Ann 
Arbor students’ financial aid 
by less than one percent. In 
light of numbers like these, the 
current funding structure isn’t 
simply unfair or inequitable: 
It’s completely at odds with 
common sense. 
Of course, the effect of 
reallocations 
might 
not 
be 
exactly what I found. There 
is a good reason why 1U only 
considers the General Fund 
in 
their 
calculations: 
much 
of the rest of the budget 
is 
earmarked 
for 
specific 
activities. Endowment donors 
want their money spent on 
specific programs, foundation 
funding is tied to particular 
research projects, and units like 
Michigan Medicine need much 
of their revenue to carry out 
daily operations. However, these 
funds heavily subsidize many of 
the activities, such as research, 
student services and financial 
aid, that are also paid out of the 
General Fund. Not accounting 
for these components completely 
disregards 
the 
enormous 
amount of funding that benefits 
Ann Arbor students at the cost 
of those in other campuses.
Ultimately, the Ann Arbor 
campus simply doesn’t need 
state funding the way that either 
the Flint or Dearborn campuses 
do. U-M Dearborn and Flint 
students 
come 
from 
less 
advantaged backgrounds and 
receive less funding and support 
even while their schools dedicate 
much larger portions of their 
budget to serve students. These 
disparities 
across 
campuses 
can’t be erased, but it’s clear that 
they can be easily improved. 
What isn’t clear is why Schlissel, 
the Board of Regents, and the 
state legislature refuse to take 
action.

U-M Ann Arbor doesn’t need state funding

JARED STOLOVE | COLUMN

Jared Stolove can be reached at 

jstolove@umich.edu.

ANIK JOSHI | COLUMN

ANIK
JOSHI

