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

