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.