Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Friday, October 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
O
n March 12, one of the
greatest — if not the
greatest — scandals in
academia was unceremoniously
unveiled to the world after a
federal indictment, confirming
a
suspicion
many
people
had regarding the American
college system. Despite their
championing of merit, selective
colleges
at
their
core
are
subservient
to
corruption,
privilege and wealth. At the
time, 50 people were implicated
in the scandal ranging from
coaches, college prep executives
and actors. Now, the fallout
is finally being seen, and it’s a
slap in the face in the name of
justice.
Felicity
Huffman
paid
$15,000
to
artificially
alter
her
daughter’s
SAT
score.
Undoubtedly, her actions are
morally abhorrent. Thousands
of students every year dedicate
themselves
to
studying
and
preparing
for
these
standardized tests, sacrificing
their already small amount
of free time in the hopes of
raising their scores. Huffman
rooted her actions in a familiar
sense of desperation to secure
a better score for her daughter,
to which prosecutors hit back
stating that “all parents want
to help their kids get ahead...yet
most manage to steer clear of
conspiracy, bribery and fraud.
By means of her privilege and
wealth, Huffman was almost
able to completely bypass this
dedication
and
hard-earned
merit. Her actions undoubtedly
undermine the integrity of the
college
preparatory
system
as something that genuinely
prepares students for college.
On May 13, Huffman pleaded
guilty to conspiracy to commit
mail fraud and honest services
mail fraud.” Now, according
to
2019
federal
guidelines,
her charges would entail a
punishment spanning four to
10 months in prison. Huffman’s
bribe was marginally smaller
than
others
implicated
in
the
scandal
including
Lori
Loughlin’s
alleged
$500,000
bribe
to
the
University
of
Southern California. So, what is
the punishment? Five months?
Maybe even the bare minimum
— let’s say four months?
14 days.
Felicity
Huffman
was
sentenced to 14 days in prison.
Fourteen days in prison, one
year of probation, 250 hours
of community service and a
$30,000 fine. The government
asked for one to 15 months of
imprisonment,
but
Huffman
was still able to pass by with
just a slap on the wrist. Sure,
probation is commonplace for
those who plead guilty. But,
for a woman worth nearly
$20 million, a $30,000 fine
is nothing. Fourteen days is
nothing compared to what the
federal
guidelines
suggest.
Two hundred and fifty hours
of community service when it
comes to celebrities has become
so menial that it’s hard to even
gauge if it’s a punishment.
At first, the college admissions
scandal served as a hallmark,
reminding the American public
that privilege will continue to
overrule the hard work of those
with true dedication and merit.
However, let us not forget
the accomplices in this entire
scandal: the colleges themselves.
Though all of these colleges
should be ashamed to even have
their names mentioned in this
scandal, these specific shameful
colleges
are
the
University
of
California-Los
Angeles,
University
of
California-San
Diego and the University of
Texas at Austin — all public
schools. These schools have
been funded by the government,
and under that pretense, they
are supposed to be different
from the elitist snobbery of
private schools.
But, of course, private schools
are equally guilty in the scandal.
When the scandal broke, I
hardly blinked an eye when
the
University
of
Southern
California was implicated in
the bribery scandal, seeing that
they’re
already
comfortable
taking upwards of $77,000 a
year from their students. For
private schools, this scandal
was
merely
a
confirmation
that the system was designed
for the over-privileged and
underqualified cowards bred
by America’s richest and most
famous. Seeing these public
schools proclaim themselves
separate from the bureaucratic
corruption many assumed was
present within private schools
is sickening.
With Huffman as the first
indicted celebrity in the case,
there is hope that the other high-
profile offenders like Loughlin
suffer a greater punishment
than Huffman’s. However, now
it has also become a mockery of
the punitive aspect of criminal
justice and an embarrassing slap
in the face to those who actually
believed the wealthy and the
privileged would be subjected
to the hard hand of justice.
“Varsity Blues” and the failure in the fallout
CHAND RAJENDRA-NICOLUCCI | COLUMN
How digital “crumbs” can help us understand privacy
JOSHUA KIM | COLUMN
T
he philosopher Timothy
Morton
refers
to
concepts that are all-
encompassing yet difficult to
see directly as “hyperobjects.”
He points to global warming as
an example of a hyperobject. Its
enormous scale and amorphous
nature often cause skepticism
and despair. Digital privacy can
be classified as a hyperobject,
too: We know our data is tracked,
packaged
and
traded
on
a
massive scale, but we don’t often
see it directly. We get glimpses
when an oddly specific ad shows
up on Instagram or Google, but
stories about huge data brokers
and detailed databases are tough
to conceptualize when we have
such a narrow window into the
system. Just like climate change,
this can lead to skepticism and
despair.
How can we avoid being
overwhelmed by digital privacy?
By interacting with the traces
left behind by systems of big
data. These digital “crumbs” can
help make tangible that uneasy
feeling we get from interacting
with digital systems. Because the
technology sector was allowed to
operate with free reign for so long,
untangling the breadth and depth
of the surveillance economy will
take years. However, confronting
the evidence currently available
to us can help clarify the
realities of the system and
overcome
the
powerlessness
that can accompany it. Just as
images of climate change can
be an effective way to galvanize
support for action, coming into
contact with pieces of our digital
world can help us understand the
scope and power of the system,
transforming the intangible into
the tangible and despair into
action.
There are some tools that have
emerged from the recent tech
backlash that can help us look
inside the black box of digital
privacy. The website Have I Been
Pwned?, created by a Microsoft
web
security
expert,
allows
people to see accounts associated
with their email that have been
compromised in a data breach.
Part of the reason the site exists
is that companies in the United
States are typically not required
to notify people when their data
is breached. When I put my
personal email address into the
site, I saw to my surprise that I
had compromised accounts from
two separate breaches. Neither
company had notified me, and
I was able to link a recent hack
of my Amazon account to one of
the breaches, because I (stupidly)
had reused a password from a
compromised account. Seeing
specific instances where my
data was breached, as well as
the fraudulent purchases that
followed, made the implications
of my data insecurity clearer.
Another tool that can help us
understand our digital existence
is an ad personalization tool from
Google that gives a glimpse of
the predictions gleaned from
our personal data. It lets people
see the interests and preferences
Google assigns them based off
of data such as their search
history, YouTube history and
partner (third-party) data. I
found the granularity of Google’s
predictions about me unnerving.
I counted 50 different inferences
that Google made, including my
estimated age, types of movies
and music I like and the type of
transportation I use. I’ve always
been vaguely aware that my
activities on the Internet are
tracked, packaged and traded,
but seeing how much was tracked
and how accurate the packaging
was reified that feeling.
Finally,
Facebook
built
a
tool that gives users an idea of
the breadth of organizations
that have their data. The tool
lists organizations that have
run an ad using users’ personal
information in the past seven
days. The sheer size of my list was
surprising, as was who was on
it. There were some companies
and organizations I directly
and often use like Spotify and
Netflix, but there were also
many I had never interacted with
and had no clear connection to.
For example, my list included a
lieutenant governor candidate
from Mississippi, the Kansas
City Grilled Cheese Festival
and the Arabic branch of
Newchic and a Hong Kong-
based retailer. How did these
organizations I never gave
my data to and have no clear
connection with end up with
my personal information? Why
do they want it? The answers to
these questions aren’t clear, but
they demonstrate the tangled,
Kafkaesque mess of online
advertising and data collection.
I will never go to the Kansas
City Grilled Cheese Festival
or shop in the Arabic branch
of Newchic. Yet, they have my
personal data and are using it
(seemingly) mistakenly.
Why does all this collection
matter? What’s the harm in
being served a few irrelevant
ads? First, collecting and storing
data puts it at risk of being
breached. Your data is only as
safe as the weakest organization
that has it, and we often don’t
get to choose who collects vast
profiles on us (see the Equifax
data breach). Second, it can
be used to shape our behavior.
All the data collected on us
fuels
behavioral
predictions
that can be used with nudges
to influence our behavior. This
can lead to a power dynamic
where organizations with data
and information can tune and
herd the rest of us, undermining
autonomy
and
potentially
democracy.
Proponents of surveillance
capitalism often argue that
people don’t care about privacy
(see Facebook arguing there is
no expectation of privacy on its
platform). Yet, polls consistently
show otherwise. So, where is
the disconnect? Because digital
privacy is a hyperobject, people
often struggle to articulate their
discomfort
and
frustrations
with the system. This can make
people seem apathetic when
they actually feel helpless. We
can overcome this by using tools
like the ones listed above. They
help us interact with the edges
of our digital world, giving us
a better understanding of the
system and its implications.
This is empowering — instead
of feeling overwhelmed and
aimless, we can demand specific
changes and start to truly grasp
our present and future in the
digital age.
Chand Rajendra-Nicolucci can be
reached at chandrn@umich.edu.
Joshua Kim can be reached at
joshica@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!
CHLOE PLESCHER | COLUMN
Michigan’s negligence with mental health
I
n September 2019, the
state
of
Michigan’s
Department of Licensing
and Regulatory Affairs released
new
revisions
for
licensed
professional counselors. These
revisions dictate that counselors
will be barred from diagnosing
and
using
psychotherapy
techniques with their clients.
The department is hoping to
have these rules in effect by
November 2019, approximately
a month after their Oct. 4 public
hearing on the proposal.
While LARA claims these
rules will help protect the
public, they will actually do the
opposite. Approximately 10,000
counseling jobs in Michigan
will be affected, as diagnosing
is
necessary
for
insurance
reimbursement.
Furthermore,
the mental health of clients
will suffer. There are 150,000
Michigan residents who seek aid
from professional counselors.
Under LARA’s new rules, clients
unable to afford the out-of-
pocket cost will be forced to exit
treatment, jeopardizing their
mental health.
The
updates
are
wildly
unnecessary. LPCs are the most
accessible resource in mental
health care, and their education
trains them to treat a broad
range of issues. They are clearly
qualified to diagnose and use
psychotherapy techniques. As
LARA’s rules will not change
counselors’
education
and
training, they will continue
to
be
qualified.
Therefore,
making revisions is nothing
more than adding unreasonable
limitations. If someone goes
through proper education and
training, they should be able to
use their skills, especially when
it goes toward helping others.
As someone who has received
therapy for over a year, I can say
it has been through the help of
LPCs that I have found success
in
my
recovery.
Through
counselors,
I
was
able
to
understand my eating disorder
and grasp my diagnosis of post-
traumatic stress disorder. I
was able to begin healing and
learn new coping mechanisms.
Counselors served as integral
parts of my treatment team.
Without them, my road to
recovery
would
be
more
strenuous than it already is.
When I was in a partial
hospitalization program, the
majority
of
my
treatment
team
was
counselors.
The
head coordinator of the eating
disorder program was an LPC,
as was my case manager. Outside
of them, my team was made
up of a dietitian, an activity
therapist and a psychiatrist.
More
often
than
not,
my
counselors were more helpful
than my psychiatrist. While my
psychiatrist was able to confirm
my
diagnoses,
prescribe
medicine
and
occasionally
offer
advice,
it
was
my
counselors who unquestionably
contributed to my recovery. I
was able to express my emotions
without judgment or pity, and
they provided support during
any difficult situations. In the
hospital,
these
impromptu
sessions
were
often
during
mealtimes. Depending on who
was with me, my team would
help me process my thoughts and
would help make the situation
seem less scary. In outpatient
treatment, my counselor back
home provided similar support
in and outside of sessions. But
she added another layer of
support outside of sessions by
texting me to check in and by
allowing me to text her during
panic attacks, if needed. Today,
my counselor in Ann Arbor
still serves as a vital part of my
recovery. If LARA’s revisions
are approved, I will no longer
be able to attend counseling,
and I will lose a needed service.
Thousands more like me will
suffer from the regulations.
Mental
health
care
will
continue
to
deteriorate
if
counselors are barred from
providing
diagnoses
and
utilizing
psychotherapy.
Michigan already has a mental
health crisis. The need for care
continually increases, but there
are
not
enough
counselors
to aid people suffering from
mental illness. By limiting the
help even more, Michigan will
further the mental health crisis.
As a result, mental health
insurance
will
be
rendered
useless,
as
counselors
will
no longer be qualified for
reimbursement and will have
to charge clients full price.
Consequently, only the rich
can then afford counseling.
If counselors are not able to
diagnose or use psychotherapy
anyway, the sessions would
not be worth the money, and
help will be sought only from
psychologists.
However,
there are not nearly as many
psychologists, and their higher
education makes them more
expensive. Poorer clients cannot
afford such a high financial
change.
Thus,
LARA’s
revisions will create a broken
system,
where
qualified
counselors
are
unable
to
treat, and the mental health of
poorer patients will suffer.
But it’s not a hopeless
situation.
Though
LARA’s
public hearing is already on
Oct. 4, a Michigan House bill
currently in committee can
neutralize the changes. House
Bill
4325
was
introduced
by state Rep. Aaron Miller,
R-Sturgis, and its purpose is
to clarify the state’s wording
and requirements for LPCs.
Unlike LARA’s revisions, HB
4325 will expand educational
requirements while allowing
counselors
to
continue
to
diagnose and treat. This bill is
what would actually benefit the
Michigan population, as it does
not place practicing limitations
on
counselors.
Expanding
education does require more
training to become a counselor,
but it does not limit their
treatment
approach
and
diagnosing ability. No jobs will
be lost and no clients will bear
the consequences.
If HB 4325 is passed before
LARA’s revisions are accepted,
then it will stop the revisions
from happening. And yet, if the
revisions are accepted, the bill
will then be inapplicable. It is a
fateful race against time, but it’s
not entirely out of the public’s
control. Residents must voice
their support for counselors
and inclusive mental health
care.
Michigan has a responsibility
to represent and care for its
residents, but the regulations
are negligent and endangering.
Therefore,
we
must
fight
back. Signing petitions and
participating in letter-writing
campaigns are good starting
points. Taking the time out of
your day to support counselors
and mental health in Michigan
is worth it and will benefit
our
society.
Mental
health
is a personal issue affecting
our communities, but mental
health care will flounder if we
silently
allow
unreasonable
and unnecessary requirements
for
counselors.
Access
to
mental health care is a human
right, and we cannot allow our
government to threaten the
health of its residents.
Chloe Plescher can be reached at
chloebp@umich.edu.
How can we
avoid being
overwhelmed by
digital privacy?
Let us not forget
the accomplices in
this entire scandal:
the colleges
themselves