Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Tuesday, November 5, 2019

Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Michael Russo

Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
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

CHAND RAJENDRA-NICOLUCCI | COLUMN

AI for everyone

KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN

ALLISON PUJOL | COLUMN

Demanding a fight against systemic exploitation

Losing hope for Iran’s denuclearization

A 

common 
theme 
that 
has come up during 
my Latinx Leadership 
Program 
meetings 
is that people in our 
community 
have 
been 
silenced 
and 
marginalized for far 
too long. The system 
was not built for us 
and has not done 
nearly 
enough 
to 
include us, so I have 
been 
emphasizing 
that we have to work 
on 
breaking 
our 
silence in order to renovate the 
system into one that serves us. 
We have to act out, get selfish 
and actually be the ones to put 
ourselves over the privileged 
for a change. Have you ever 
known what that feels like? 
Have you ever had to engage 
and 
challenge 
bureaucratic 
systems just so they serve you 
and meet your needs? Whether 
you realize it or not, we are 
all facing the inequity and 
degradation that come at the 
hands of corporate interests 
preventing us from being able 
to adopt sustainable practices 
into our daily lifestyles.
All of us, whether or not 
we belong to a distinguished 
ethnic 
group, 
experience 
discrimination 
every 
day 
simply due to the strain of 
money. Our lives have become 
dictated 
by 
money, 
and 
corporations continue to make 
it harder for us to earn and keep 
it for ourselves. We are forced 
by the system to overpay for 
necessities and are punished 
when we don’t have enough 
of the money it takes from us. 
As an example, rising costs 
of rent and health care have 
been contributing to growing 
financial insecurity in a third 
of 
middle 
class 
American 
families, thousands of which 
are criminalized because of 
the money they owe back. In 
one way or another, people are 
burdened by the fact that they 
have to pay and it is especially 
alarming when these burdens 
affect our needs.
With 
a 
looming 
climate 
catastrophe in our lifetimes, it 
is undeniable that sustainable 
practices 
have 
become 
a 
necessity. And yet, not only 
are corporations themselves 
contributing to the acceleration 
of that catastrophe through 
unsustainable 
practices, 
but they are also preventing 
people from being able to 
mitigate catastrophic effects 
by limiting what we are able 
to buy. Several corporations 
have made it harder for people 

to do their part, whether 
that be investing in clean 
energy, adopting sustainable 
food practices or 
taking part in land 
preservation.
For 
instance, 
DTE 
Energy 
has 
formed 
a 
program 
called 
MIGreenPower 
in 
an 
effort 
to 
more 
cleanly 
source energy. The 
program 
allows 
customers to enroll 
in a service that provides 
a portion of their energy 
from renewable sources and 
a portion of their energy 
from nonrenewable sources. 
Conveniently, 
customers 
have the option of making a 
percentage of their energy 
bill from renewable sources, 
but the catch is that it costs 
more to do so. In this way, 
this program is completely 
counterproductive and flawed.

If the average household 
in Michigan uses about 750 
kilowatt-hours of energy per 
month and chose to convert 
about 58 percent of their 
monthly bill to renewable 
energy, 
this 
would 
add 
approximately $11 onto their 
average monthly bill. While 
this is arguably a modest price 
increase, this alone creates 
an environmental benefit of 
reducing only about half the 
amount of greenhouse gases 
from one car and planting 
about 74 trees. One can argue 
this is a substantial step 
towards 
the 
improvement 
of 
environmental 
quality, 
but we all know that these 
reductions are not enough to 
have the effect necessary to 
save our planet. In fact, even 
if the average household in 
Michigan were to convert 
100 percent of their monthly 
bill to renewable energy, the 
resulting beneficial effects on 
the environment would still 
not be enough to solve the 
global climate issue. While it’s 
not entirely up to DTE Energy 
to be responsible for saving 

our planet by committing 
to 
accessible 
sustainable 
practices, I know that the 
effects of their initiatives 
would be that much more far-
reaching if they eliminated 
the financial burden they 
pose.
Similarly, 
some 
organic 
food 
companies 
have 
demonstrated 
their 
commitment 
toward 
sustainable 
practices 
and 
products 
by 
setting 
high 
standards, but without the 
understanding that collective 
sustainability is only possible 
if it can be implementable 
and accessible. What if I 
wanted 
to 
do 
something 
better for the environment 
but couldn’t afford to? Is it 
my fault for not being able to 
adopt green practices with 
my low-income budget? How 
am I supposed to care for 
my family and think about 
humanity’s future when I 
don’t make enough money 
to do both? These are the 
questions that DTE Energy 
and other corporations are 
not asking themselves.
From the perspective of 
a marginalized community 
member, we are often thought 
to be incapable or undeserving 
of an opportunity to challenge 
our authorities. Instead, we 
are expected to be content 
with those who claim to 
serve us, but this is not the 
case. We know we deserve 
the chance to rise to the 
challenges our system places 
in front of us and we should 
not 
be 
marginalized 
as 
communities any longer. From 
our perspective as people 
challenged by the capitalist 
system that values money over 
our and the environment’s 
well-being, we have to know 
that we deserve better from 
our society. Corporations feed 
off of our susceptibility to the 
comfort of convenience and 
desire for laid-back lifestyles, 
but you have to know that you 
are capable of achieving more 
and you are only held back by 
those you place in power who 
limit you. We should not be 
limited to what we can and 
can’t do because of money any 
longer. We need to fight today 
because in the end, when 
we still have needs that are 
not met after all the system 
offers us, not only has the 
system failed us but we have 
also failed ourselves for not 
demanding more from it.

Kianna Marquez can be reached 

at kmarquez@umich.edu.

A

t the Bushehr nuclear 
power plant in Iran, 
all activity is closely 
monitored. Twenty-four-hour 
surveillance of the plant is one 
of the conditions of the 2015 
Iran nuclear agreement, or the 
Joint Comprehensive Plan of 
Action. Regular inspections 
and inspectors having daily 
access 
to 
the 
plant 
from 
the United Nations and the 
International Atomic Energy 
Agency are also part of the 
conditions to verify that Iran 
is in compliance with terms 
to have a peaceful nuclear 
program.
But maybe not for long. On 
Oct. 16, Iran announced that it 
would be turning back on some 
of the commitments outlined in 
the JCPOA by further limiting 
inspectors’ access to some of its 
nuclear facilities. While some 
have suggested that the Middle 
Eastern country’s focus on 
nuclear development indicates 
Iran’s desire to successfully 
construct a nuclear weapon, 
Iranian authorities have stated 
that the goal of these plants is 
to strengthen the economy. The 
Atomic Energy Organization of 
Iran argues that nuclear plants 
like Bushehr “will provide 
between 8 and 10 percent of 
the country’s electricity after 
these plants come online.”
When 
the 
JCPOA 
was 
finalized 
in 
2015, 
those 
who 
debated 
its 
potential 
ramifications could not have 
imagined the world’s current 
state of affairs. Some policy 
experts 
speculated 
about 
the potential violations to 
the 
deal’s 
standards, 
but 
it would be news to me if 
anybody would have guessed 
that the United States, one of 
the key players in the deal’s 
construction, 
would 
have 
withdrawn 
from 
the 
deal 
within the three years of its 
implementation. 
The 
JCPOA 
provides 
the 
framework 
for 
Iran’s 
nuclear 
activities, 
setting 
internationally 
agreed-upon 
levels of uranium enrichment 
and 
mandating 
routine 

inspections from the U.N. 
and the IAEA. In exchange 
for 
accepting 
these 
limits 
on 
its 
nuclear 
activities, 
proponents of the deal argued 
Iran 
would 
benefit 
from 
lessened sanctions from the 
United States and European 
countries. President Barack 
Obama’s decision to push for 
the JCPOA was likely based 
on his view at the time that 
Iran would almost certainly 
attempt 
to 
nuclearize 
in 
the near future. With this 
in mind, the White House 
maintained the position that 
the only clear strategic paths 
for the United States were to 
sanction Iran, declare war on 
Iran or negotiate with Tehran 
about giving up its dreams of a 
nuclear weapon. 

At first, it seems easy to 
point fingers at Iran for what 
looks like a clear violation 
of the terms of the deal. 
And Iran’s violations of the 
agreement terms are nothing 
new. Shortly after the deal 
went into effect, Tehran faced 
international 
condemnation 
for 
refusing 
to 
formally 
disclose 
certain 
nuclear 
facilities to the IAEA. Since 
President Trump’s imposition 
of strict economic sanctions, 
Iran has used more advanced 
centrifuges 
and 
enriched 
larger quantities of uranium 
than was agreed upon. But 
it’s harder now to blame 
Iran for refusing to uphold 
commitments; 
the 
United 
States, after all, has formally 
withdrawn from the deal and 
has reimposed sanctions on 
Iran. The European Union 

has been accused of reneging 
on its part of the deal as well; 
Iran has argued that countries 
such as France and the U.K. 
have not improved their trade 
ties in accordance with the 
deal. The United States also 
has thousands of its own 
nuclear weapons, so why the 
desperate 
push 
for 
Iran’s 
compliance? 
We can see a compelling 
case made for the nuclear 
deal in Obama’s push for the 
JCPOA. In 2015, deep in the 
hot month of August, then-
President 
Obama 
gave 
a 
powerful speech at American 
University about the JCPOA 
shortly after negotiations with 
Iran concluded. He framed 
the urgent need for a solution 
to nuclear proliferation in the 
Middle East, arguing that “the 
choice we face is ultimately 
between diplomacy or some 
form of war – maybe not 
tomorrow, maybe not three 
months from now, but soon.” 
Arguably, Obama’s statement 
is more true now than it 
was then. Trump’s aversion 
to diplomacy with Iran on 
nuclearization 
might 
have 
dangerous implications – Iran 
has even declared that the 
United States is conducting 
“economic terrorism” on a 
country that is still struggling 
to reboot its economy. 
Like 
much 
of 
Trump’s 
foreign 
policy, 
the 
future 
of U.S. policy towards Iran 
remains 
uncertain. 
All 
relevant parties in the JCPOA’s 
framework – the U.S., the rest 
of the permanent members 
of the U.N. Security Council, 
Germany, Iran and the EU 
– should work together to 
revitalize and/or renegotiate 
the deal. With Trump’s current 
bellicose stance and rhetoric 
towards Iran, further progress 
on the deal is unlikely. Iran 
doesn’t have an incentive to 
comply with the deal if the 
United States can’t comply 
with its side of the bargain. 

Allison Pujol can be reached at 

ampmich@umich.edu.

P

hilosophy, 
health, 
business, 
politics, 
economics, law, music 
— 
no 
matter 
what 
field you are planning 
on entering, artificial 
intelligence is sure to 
have an effect on it. 
Yet, university-level AI 
courses are typically 
restricted to technical 
audiences, making the 
topic inaccessible for 
much of the student 
body. 
For 
example, 
at the University of 
Michigan, you must 
take at least four computer 
science courses before you can 
take “Introduction to Artificial 
Intelligence” or “Introduction 
to Machine Learning.” 
This barrier to entry, among 
others, is keeping out the 
diversity of perspectives that 
AI desperately needs. Already 
we are seeing racially-biased 
facial 
recognition 
systems, 
social media algorithms that 
encourage 
negative, 
primal 
content and increased use of 
autonomous weapons. We need 
leaders that can understand 
AI from a wide range of 
viewpoints — but this doesn’t 
reflect the insulated system we 
have now. Relying on computer 
scientists to gain expertise in 
other fields neglects the value 
and expertise of non-technical 
experts 
and 
underestimates 
the complexity of these issues. 
Computer scientists are not 
often experts in anthropology, 
sociology, philosophy, health 
care, economics or law, but 
often there is an assumption 
that they can become experts 
in little time. This hubris is 
what has allowed Silicon Valley 
to threaten privacy, autonomy 
and 
democracy. 
We 
need 
experts from other fields who 
understand the basics of AI, not 
experts on AI who understand 
bits and pieces of other fields. 
Additionally, many jobs now 
require a basic understanding of 
how AI works, what it’s good for 
and what its risks are. Without 
a good understanding, people 
may make poor decisions, rely 

on AI too much or too little 
and exacerbate existing biases 
— with major consequences. 
Just this week, a 
study found racial 
bias in a health 
care 
algorithm 
sold 
by 
Optum. 
The 
algorithm 
consistently 
underestimated 
the health needs 
of Black patients, 
potentially 
affecting 
millions 
of people. As AI 
enters more and 
more of our lives, we need 
people from a diverse range of 
perspectives who can reason 
about its impacts.

This is why I believe we 
need an AI course for a non-
technical audience. I envision 
an introductory AI class, similar 
to 
introductory 
economics 
or statistics, that teaches the 
basics of AI to students from 
a wide range of majors and 
educational 
backgrounds. 
Creating such a class would 
acknowledge 
our 
changing 
world and prepare students 
for challenges they will face 
in their careers. Additionally, 
it would empower groups who 
are underrepresented in STEM, 
but whose perspectives are 
desperately needed, to access 
AI. Andrew Ng, a leading AI 
researcher and adjunct professor 
at Stanford University, recently 
created an online course called 
“AI for Everyone” that aims 
to teach non-technical people 
the basics of AI. More than 

180,000 students have enrolled 
in it so far, demonstrating 
the appetite for the topic. At 
the University, a similar class 
would be a good match for our 
interdisciplinary 
academic 
environment and could be a 
model for other schools. The 
class could cover the technical 
fundamentals of AI, ethical and 
societal 
considerations, 
case 
studies involving its successes 
and failures and the future of 
AI. This would enable students 
to pursue AI further, whether 
in research or practice, gain 
skills and understanding that 
will be vital to their careers 
and contribute to important 
discussions about AI.
Also, 
by 
limiting 
comprehension 
to 
a 
small, 
relatively exclusive group of 
people, we are missing out on 
potentially 
transformational 
applications of AI. Opening up AI 
could lead to more applications 
in finance, medicine, among 
other multifaceted uses that 
would not be possible if we 
relied on computer scientists 
alone. For example, an art 
collective created a piece with 
AI that sold for over $400,000 
at auction. The University of 
Southern 
California 
Center 
for Artificial Intelligence in 
Society is using AI in areas such 
as homelessness and suicide 
prevention. AI is also assisting 
in the fight against climate 
change. Who knows what could 
be dreamt up by a generation of 
students with a new, immensely 
powerful tool?
We need an AI course for 
people 
of 
all 
backgrounds 
because the impacts of AI 
extend far beyond computer 
science. We have already seen 
the consequences of keeping this 
field closed off, and as the power 
of AI grows, so does the need 
for leaders who understand it. 
By making AI more accessible, 
we can mitigate its risks and 
enable 
innovative, 
beneficial 
applications, helping to ensure a 
better future for us all.

Chand Rajendra-Nicolucci can be 

reached at chandrn@umich.edu.

CHAND
RAJENDRA-
NICOLUCCI

We need 
experts 
from other 
fields who 
understand the 
basics of AI

It’s harder now 
to blame Iran for 
refusing to uphold 
commitments

KIANNA
MARQUEZ

Collective 
sustainability 
is only possible 
if it can be 
implementable

SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK

The Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan 
Daily for first-person accounts of sexual assault and 
its corresponding personal, academic and legal 
implications. Submission information can be found at 
https://tinyurl.com/survivespeak.

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.

