Opinion

T

hough it is good that 
social 
media 
sites, 

particularly 
Twitter, 

are finally working to prevent the 
rampant spread of misinformation 
on their platforms, this alone is 
not enough. These fact-checking 
provisions are limited in scope, and 
thus do not absolve social media 
users of responsibility for verifying 
that content they consume or amplify 
is factually accurate, especially when 
it relates to topics as paramount as 
the upcoming election.

First, it is important for social 

media users to understand the 
limited reach of Twitter and 
Facebook’s new social media fact-
checking policies, both in terms of 
the types of posts they cover and 
the impact they have on online 
discourse. Even Twitter, the most 
proactive social media network with 
regard to misinformation, only flags 
and censors a small portion of false 
political claims, specifically ones 
that violate its “civic integrity policy.” 
This policy only covers tweets which 
are aimed at “manipulating or 
interfering in elections or other civic 
processes,” and does not extend to 
general political falsehoods. 

This is why only a small 

subsection of Trump’s lies, including 
his assertion that mail-in voting is 
inherently fraudulent, are flagged, 
while the vast majority, such as 
his oft-repeated claim that the 
U.S. only has the most COVID-
19 cases in the world because of 
the nation’s widespread testing, 
remain on Twitter unimpeded. In 
practical terms, this means that the 
vast majority of false or misleading 
tweets 
go 
unflagged, 
severely 

limiting the impact that Twitter’s 
fact-checking procedures have on 
Trump. Considering that, the onus 
is still largely on Twitter users to 
think critically, and they cannot rely 
on Twitter’s narrow fact-checking 
policies to do that for them. 

It is important to consider how 

much of an impact Twitter’s fact-
checking policies actually have on 
online political discourse. With 
regard to Trump in particular, 
Twitter’s efforts to call out his 

political falsehoods have only a 
marginal impact — at best — on 
the national political conversation, 
for several reasons. First, even on 
tweets that Twitter flagged as false 
and provided fact-checking for, 
Trump still received a large number 
of reactions, indicating that his 
opinions were still widely shared 
and publicized. For instance, his 
tweet declaring that mail-in voting 
could not be “anything less than 
substantially fraudulent” has more 
than 35,000 retweets and 125,000 
likes as of Sept. 27. 

In tandem with that, fact-

checking Trump’s blatant falsehoods 
do little to actually regulate the 
political climate. People who do not 
support Trump already know that 
many of his claims are false, while his 
supporters are exceedingly unlikely 
to change their views based on fact-
checking, especially provided by a site 
that Trump claims is biased against 
Republicans. 
Ultimately, 
while 

Twitter’s fact-checking policies help 
improve political discourse and call 
out falsehoods in theory, their impact 
on the president’s social media 
presence is effectively null. 

While Twitter’s approach to 

Trump has been widely discussed, 
less-publicized causes and groups 
can still easily manipulate Twitter 
users, providing a reminder that 
the 
responsibility 
for 
verifying 

information found on the site still 
resides with the users themselves. 
The Black Lives Matter Foundation 
in Santa Clarita, Calif., supports 
bridging the silos between the local 
community and the police. However, 
the foundation’s misnomer led people 
to believe it was associated with 
the Black Lives Matter movement, 
which was founded to end violence 
against Black communities. 

As a result, many looking to 

financially aid the social justice 
movement 
donated, 
or 
almost 

donated, to the Santa Clarita 
foundation: According to Buzzfeed 
News, Apple, Google and Microsoft 
almost donated a combined $4 
million to the foundation in the wake 
of George Floyd’s murder before 
realizing that they almost donated 

to a foundation that encourages 
communities’ 
relationship 
with 

the 
police 
— 
which 
directly 

contradicts the Black Lives Matter 
movement’s call to defund the 
police. This case highlights how 
while misinformation is a problem, 
an unwillingness to fact check or 
research claims contributes to how 
people uncritically take information 
at face value. Major corporations, like 
Apple, have the resources to look into 
the foundations they associate with. 
However, their failure to do research 
before nearly making a multimillion-
dollar donation suggests that failing 
to investigate or verify things 
sourced from Twitter is common not 
only among social media users but 
the populace at large. 

Major social media platforms 

indicate their focus is primarily 
on aiding the spread of factual 
information, 
as 
demonstrated 

through mission statements and 
corporate 
social 
responsibility 

initiatives. For example, in 2018, 
Twitter 
supported 
Reporters 

Without Borders and celebrated 
World Press Freedom Day with 
multilingual hashtags and global 
events. Events like this demonstrate 
Twitter’s focus on press freedom, 
an 
admirable 
initiative 
which 

occasionally is misconstrued as 
open dialogue without a focus 
on 
fact-checking 
and 
ensuring 

truthfulness. To emphasize that, 
on June 2, Twitter stated that its 
“focus is on providing context, not 
fact-checking,” a reminder that 
the website is first and foremost a 
conversational outlet. 

While Facebook has a third-party 

fact-checking program founded in 
2016, Twitter’s approach to handling 
misinformation shows that it is 
largely up to social media users 
to validate claims they see online. 
While this can come in many forms, 
such as cross-checking facts with 
those of other sources and seeking 
the opinion of reputable publications 
and 
journalists, 
recognizing 

dangerous misinformation ploys 
on social media is essential in 
ethical and productive news and 
information consumption. 

ERIN WHITE
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.

ELIZABETH LAWRENCE

Editor in Chief

BRITTANY BOWMAN AND 

EMILY CONSIDINE

Editorial Page Editors

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

SIERRA ÉLISE HANSEN | COLUMN

When avoiding the truth is part of 
your University’s business model

Ray Ajemian

Zack Blumberg

Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Elizabeth Cook

Jess D’Agostino
Jenny Gurung
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Min Soo Kim

Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes

Gabrijela Skoko

Joel Weiner
Erin White

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.

ELIZABETH LAWRENCE

Editor in Chief

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.

Wednesday, September 30, 2020 — 8
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

F

or a recent Detroit Metro 
Times 
article, 
reporter 

Lee DeVito asked Rick 

Fitzgerald, 
the 
University 
of 

Michigan spokesman, about an 
op-ed written by an anonymous U-M 
staff member. Fitzgerald’s response, 
which regarded an alleged conflict 
of interest with Regent Ron Weiser 
(R), came close to engaging the 
point that such conflicts of interest 
aren’t anything new. Fitzgerald, 
presumably 
unintentionally, 

focuses on what the University 
prioritizes: serving private wealth 
and preserving its reputation. The 
anonymous 
staffer 
writes 
that 

this is additionally symptomatic 
of nationwide “deterioration and 
rot,” which they believe descended 
upon us only in the past four years. 
However, 
there 
is 
significant 

evidence 
that 
this 
distinctly 

American cultural rot at an ostensibly 
“progressive” public University isn’t 
new, with institutional cowardice 
running rampant alongside it.

What then, might you ask, is the 

true culprit? The business model the 
University uses is not unique from 
the traditional college and university 
model. It is a patently corporate 
business model that discourages 
accountability from top to bottom. 
This dependence on private wealth 
actively privileges the interests of 
its wealthy donors over the well-
being of its students, vulnerable 
faculty, graduate student employees, 
adjuncts and other members of the 
community, with the University’s 
endowment driving these decisions. 
In service of its brand, the University 
prioritizes burying the smoking gun 
of imminent harm. Such political 
theater is ignited when one of 
its 
administrators, 
a 
powerful 

member of its athletic department 
or a tenured faculty member, is 
implicated in wrongdoing.

The necessity of preserving the 

University’s lifestyle brand is the real 
reason we’ve only recently learned 
of the decades of preventable sexual 
misconduct and manipulation by 
former University Provost Martin 
Philbert. The logic is obvious when 
one looks more closely at the scandal: 
If a university is known to allow its 
tenured faculty members to sexually 
assault students with impunity, how 
does that affect its reputation? If it is 
known to use Title IX investigations 
as legal cover to protect itself from 
liability, how might that affect a 
parent’s decision to send their child 
to school there?

There is a term for this: 

institutional complicity. University 
leadership is protected from legal 
liability in most cases by qualified 
immunity laws and misbehaving 
faculty reported to OIE are protected 
by employment laws meant to 
safeguard their right to privacy. In 
other 
words, 
if 
OIE 
had 
hypothetically 

investigated Philbert at various 
points, it is incredibly unlikely they 
would have done anything to stop 
him. Smart criminals, unfortunately, 
don’t leave trails aside from their 
victims, and OIE has no incentive to 
look into those cases properly. OIE’s 
staff are paid by the University, and 
acknowledging a sexual predator’s 
presence, past or present, doesn’t 
serve the institution.

When reached for comment, 

Fitzgerald said he doesn’t believe 
these claims about the University’s 
transparency are accurate, citing the 
fact that “the University publishes 
annual reports on sexual misconduct 
matters that allow anyone to follow a 
case through to conclusion.”

In the years following the advent 

of the #MeToo movement, the 
entire University community was 
deceived into believing they were 

not capable of such crises. That’s 

not because a crisis didn’t exist, but 
because the University does what 
administrative offices have always 
done when faced with what the 
anonymous University staff member 
calls “unprofitable inevitabilities”: 
They gaslight individuals already 
victimized by the scandal, and then 
suppress the truth until they can no 
longer do so. That is, when the trail 
of harms becomes extensive and 
undeniable. 

With that in mind, the sexual 

misconduct cases of Philbert and 
former University physician Dr. 

Robert Anderson have much in 

common. Both men were exalted 
and protected by the institution 
even after their predatory behavior 
was brought to the attention of 
administrators. Both hid their 
malicious targeting of victims under 
the veneer of professionalism and 
preyed on their victims’ ambitions 
while exploiting a culture of silence. 
Knowing this, it is important to 

acknowledge that under institutional 
layers of negligence there were 
other bad actors who enabled 
predatory behavior. The truth was, 
as they say, hidden in plain sight — by 
administrators with ample reasons 
for doing so.

Philbert accuser Emily Renda told 

The Daily that “President Schlissel 
100% lied to the Michigan Daily 
when he told you that he first learned 
of any allegations against Philbert in 
January of this year.” 

Indeed, 
evidence 
uncovered 

during the WilmerHale investigation 
indicates Schlissel should have 
known — a survey he was charged 
with reviewing in advance of Philbert 
being appointed Provost described 
him as a “notorious sexual predator.” 

Additionally, another individual 

abused by Anderson, Tad DeLuca, 
reported his abuse to former 
University wrestling coach Bill 
Johannesen in 1975 — over 40 years 
ago. Not only was he disbelieved 
despite how Anderson’s serial abuse 
was an open secret, but he was kicked 
off the wrestling team. Anderson was 
allowed to continue his sexual abuse 
unabated. At Anderson’s funeral 
in 2008, football coach Lloyd Carr 
called him “a tremendous asset 
in this community.” When the 
University was made aware of the 
extent of the allegations, rather than 
opening an internal investigation, it 
passed them on to the University of 
Michigan Police Department and 
the Washtenaw County prosecutor’s 
office. 
The 
prosecutor 
quietly 

dismissed the charges, because 
Anderson was deceased and the 
statute of limitations had passed.

There is also the case of David 

Daniels, a disgraced opera singer 
and former School of Music, Theatre 
& Dance Professor. Daniels was 
fired one year after he and his 
husband were charged with sexually 
assaulting fellow singer and former 
SMTD graduate student Andrew 
Lipian. But in his civil suit against 
the University, Lipian alleges the 
University had known about his 
allegations for years and failed to 
act. Even in comments made by 
representatives for Daniels and 
the University after several other 
accusers came forward, the specter 
of a ruined reputation overshadows 
the importance of learning from 
institutional mistakes and ensuring 
the well-being of alleged victims.

It is important to note the 

University has other options. For 
example, it can allow Michigan 
Attorney General Dana Nessel 
to 
completely 
investigate 
any 

allegations. 
Knowing 
this, 
the 

University has refused to suspend 
attorney-client 
privilege 
or 
to 

commit to complete transparency, 
shutting down those possibilities in 
favor of taking measures to control 
the narrative.

Case workers for the University 

of 
Michigan’s 
Sexual 
Assault 

Prevention and Awareness Center 
could direct survivors to OSCR’s 
much less formal Adaptable Conflict 
Resolution process rather than 
an OIE investigation in the case 
of reported sexual misconduct. 
In 
choosing 
the 
ACR 
route, 

survivors 
(or 
“complainants”) 

forego the possibility of sanctions 
or a guilty finding for the offender 
(or “respondent”). This is part 
of a defense strategy meant to 
protect the University and avoid 
liability traps, due to how imposing 
sanctions or punishment of any 
kind on the respondent (including 
a finding of policy violation) opens 
the University up to litigation. As a 
result, even in cases where a Title 
IX investigation results in a guilty 
finding, it behooves the University 
to impose sanctions on the offending 
party that can be considered 
inappropriately light.

With the current Title IX process 

being what it is, encouraging a survivor 
to endure a long and emotionally 
taxing investigation, with inadequate 
professional support provided by 
the school, might be thought of as 
an endangerment of the survivor’s 
well-being. While case managers at 
SAPAC are licensed professionals, 
the on-staff advocates often charged 
with supporting survivors through 
traumatic processes are trained 
interns, not licensed therapists nor 
trained legal professionals.

With regards to the allegation 

that the University’s Title IX Office 
is in place to protect the reputation 
of the University and not the 
members of its protected classes 
nor the members of its community, 
Fitzgerald 
replied, 
“That’s 
not 

accurate. 
The 
safety 
of 
our 

community is our highest priority.”

Fitzgerald additionally stated 

that “SAPAC advocates and all staff 
are trained in the empowerment 
philosophy approach, which has 
at its foundation the belief that 
survivors are the ones who know 
what they need best, and SAPAC 
advocates are available to help them 
understand all of their options and 
not make decisions for them. This is 
affirmed on the SAPAC website.” 

In the case of Claire*, a former 

SMTD student, the student she 
accused of sexual assault was found 
guilty after a lengthy investigation by 
OIE. However, once OIE concluded 
its 
investigation, 
responsibility 

for 
imposing 
sanctions 
or 

“punishment” was then passed 
to OSCR because the respondent 
in her case was another student. 
Other than the OSCR sanctioning 
board’s 
recommendation 
that 

the respondent seek counseling 
— noting they had taken into 
consideration his autism spectrum 
disorder diagnosis and suggested he 
disclose the finding appropriately 
in the future — the board’s only 
required sanctions were a monthly 
“educational project focused on 
building awareness” that could be 
“satisfied in a variety of formats, 
including 
outside 
professional 

providers,” in addition to a short 
reflection essay he was given six 
months to write. 

Claire 
says 
a 
permanent, 

no-contact directive OSCR gave 
the respondent was never enforced. 
Instead, she was forced to see him in 
class every day for her final two years 
in SMTD. Now enrolled in graduate 
school at another institution, she 
disclosed that she experienced panic 
attacks as a result of nearly constant 
exposure to her assailant after the 
investigation concluded. She added 
that she found SAPAC’s resources to 
be unhelpful.

In 
a 
letter 
containing 
the 

sanctions sent from OSCR to the 
respondent dated May 5, 2017, and 
copied to Claire, the sanctioning 
board wrote, “You are to write 
an essay of 1,200-1,500 words 
(size 12, Times New Roman font, 
standard margins) discussing your 
experience. Please reflect on the 
situation and how this experience 
has affected your personal, social 
and academic experience since the 
time of the incident.” 

While the letter from OSCR goes 

on to say the essay can’t be used to 
justify the respondent’s actions, I’m 
unsure what’s more concerning: 
how a school’s punishment for a 
finding of responsibility for sexual 
assault can be so light, to the point 
of amounting to no real punishment 
at all or that the University imposes 
such 
light 
punishment 
while 

proclaiming they want to prevent 
sexual misconduct from occurring. 
When potential offenders know they 
won’t be appropriately punished 
for their crimes even if they are 
found guilty — particularly faculty 
offenders who know very well how 
much the system is already stacked 
in their favor — why wouldn’t they 
exploit an opportunity? Despite all 
this, Claire could not sue the school 
due to how OIE’s investigation had 
run down the clock, on the window 
during which victims can file for 
their right to sue: 180 days from the 
date of the trigger incident.

Meanwhile, 
Counseling 
and 

Psychological Services continues 
to have long wait times and 
currently has one on-staff counselor 
specializing in the treatment of 
sexual assault and trauma, Danielle 
Zohrob, 
Psy.D. 
Rather 
than 

enacting change, the administration 
continues to speak publicly over 
those they’ve harmed.

With that said, the University 

community 
needs 
to 
talk 

about exploitation marketed as 
empowerment. Given the OIE’s 
process for adjudicating sexual 
misconduct — one that Philbert 
himself actively defended — and the 
administration’s initial decision to 
hire a defense firm that has listed 
among its clients the notorious 
sexual predators Jeffrey Epstein 
and Roman Polanski (a decision only 
changed later, after it met swift public 
backlash), it seems the University is 
good at cover ups. It is to the point that 
while rights for complainants in Title 
IX processes are being gutted, the 
University administration has placed 
a spin on this gutting reminiscent 
of a “right-to-work” advertisement 
campaign.

*Name has been changed to protect 

survivor’s anonymity.

Sierra Élise Hansen can be reached 

at hsierra@umich.edu.

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

FROM THE DAILY

The dangers of social media, even in 

the age of fact checking

O

n June 23, Twitter censored President Donald Trump’s tweets by 
attaching warning labels on tweets, including one about protesters 
in Portland and another tweet which said, “There will never be 

an ‘Autonomous Zone’ in Washington, D.C., as long as I’m your President. 
If they try they will be met with serious force!” This move comes after 
Twitter flagged two of Trump’s tweets on May 27 for violating their 
misinformation policies. Twitter and Facebook began censoring posts or 
notifying viewers if they spread egregiously false information, particularly 
pertaining to voting procedures for the upcoming 2020 general election.

