7-Opinion
M
y worst habit involves
reading the comments
and quote tweets on
The New York Times articles about
sexual
misconduct
allegations.
They are, without fail, a dumpster
fire of victim blaming. However,
given
the
well-corroborated
account of New York Gov. Andrew
Cuomo’s sexual harassment of
former aide, Charlotte Bennett, I
thought the discourse might reflect
reality.
No such luck.
It doesn’t matter that the
simplest explanation is that Cuomo
did, in fact, do what he’s accused
of, at least in the case of Bennett.
For some, it is apparently easier to
believe that Bennett lied to both
Cuomo’s Chief of Staff and the
administration’s special counsel
and
planted
contemporaneous
text messages to several different
people only to sit on the lies for
months to wait for a convenient
time to let them blossom. I haven’t
heard anyone outright suggest that
she did all of those things, even
defenders of Cuomo, probably
because it would be ridiculous.
Skeptics of sexual misconduct
allegations hold themselves to a
low standard. It is simple to invoke
a horrible hypothetical without
considering
publicly
available
information, but that doesn’t make
it smart or logical.
For some, it seems it is
easier to believe that Cuomo’s
lack of a categorical denial is
inconsequential.
However,
Cuomo
has
denied
other
allegations — his press secretary
called an earlier allegation of
sexual harassment by a different
woman “quite simply false.” In
other words, if he could plausibly
deny Bennett’s accusation, his
own history indicates that he
would. To me, the cries that
Bennett is lying or that we must
wait to pass judgment ring
hollow. Cuomo has rights within
the American legal system, but in
the court of public opinion, I don’t
know what stops people from
simply being rational.
Cuomo
even
issued
a
pseudo-apology,
emphasizing
that he never touched anyone
inappropriately (Bennett does not
accuse him of touching her) but
that he may have made people feel
uncomfortable without knowing
he was doing so. Whether he
intended to harass Bennett is
irrelevant to her experience of
harassment.
So let’s recap: Cuomo is accused
of sexual harassment, and the
accuser has an extensive paper trail
to back up her claim. Cuomo has
not denied all the allegations but
has issued something that appears
to be an apology. Same page?
I believe Charlotte Bennett
because I am typically far more
willing to risk the small chance
that someone who has experienced
sexual misconduct or harassment is
lying than the much larger chance
that they are is telling the truth.
In refusing to believe a survivor,
one makes their worst nightmare
even harder. You should believe
Bennett, and the other women
making
accusations
against
Cuomo, because they are believable
allegations.
There is more research on the
instances of false allegations of
rape (somewhere between 2-10%
are false) than instances of false
allegations of harassment, but
given it all falls under the umbrella
of sexual misconduct, similar
principles likely apply. Yes, false
allegations are rare, but even the
ones that do happen do not look
like what Bennett asserts. For
example, studies have repeatedly
shown that a common type of
false allegation is one that comes
from a teenage girl looking to
avoid trouble with her parents.
In those cases, it is almost always
the parents who get authorities
involved, after which the truth
usually comes out pretty quickly.
Another common type of false
allegation comes from those who
use it in order to obtain medical
care or medication.
False accusers, much like real
perpetrators, also often show
a string of similar behavior.
They may have a history of
filing personal injury claims or
committing fraud. But the most
important characteristic of most
false allegations is that, if they were
true, they would be can’t-look-away
horrifying (which is certainly not
to say that horrifying allegations
can’t also be true). These are
the
aggravated
assault
cases;
the University of Virginia case
documented in the now infamous
Rolling Stones article is a good
example.
False accusers want shock and
action, so they wouldn’t make
an accusation like the one made
by Bennett, which involves no
physical violence and one which
any woman with access to the
internet would know would be
met with a solid contingent of
people questioning whether or
not it was ‘actually bad.’
Some may say it doesn’t matter
whether they believe Bennett
because Cuomo deserves due
process anyway. For the wealth
of other allegations that have
been made, allegations which he
disputes, I would agree. But the
original calls for an investigation
arose after Bennett came forward.
As author and lawyer Alexandra
Brodsky points out, investigations
are for disputes and, insofar as she
can tell, there is no dispute here.
Bennett said she was sexually
harassed, and Cuomo conceded
that what he did might have
made
others
uncomfortable.
“Uncomfortable” is euphemistic,
but it definitely isn’t a denial.
Even if Cuomo manages to
dodge the ever-growing chorus
of voices asking him to resign,
the question of whether we
believe Bennett matters now. The
investigation provides him time
to let news cycles pass, to let other
scandals take precedent.
The
investigation
into
a
matter which the governor has
seemingly
already
apologized
for shifts the conversation from
an
uncomfortable
one
about
workplace ethics to a familiar one
about procedure. The conversation
we need to be having is this: In
the plausible event that Bennett’s
accusations are true, what should
happen?
He should resign. And all of the
not-that-bad naysayers need to take
a hard look at their own workplace
behavior.
F
ar from the 1960s American
promise of a nuclear family —
a heterosexual couple, their 2
to 3 children and a stable unionized
job with a guaranteed pension —
college students now face a complex
and troubling outlook. Today, many
American
college
students
and
recent graduates are confronted by
egregious student loans, a significant
barrier to economic mobility in the
United States.
Not only are excessive loans a
driving reason for students to drop
out of school, but over half of indebted
graduates claim that their loans
have decreased their credit scores
and forced them to delay saving for
emergencies.
Unfortunately,
the
brunt of this burden is on minority
communities.
Specifically,
Black
college graduates on average owe
$25,000 more than their white
counterparts. These diverse students
have
fewer
job
opportunities,
contributing to the fact that default
rates are 36% and 49% among
Hispanic
and
Black
borrowers,
respectively, compared to just 21%
among whites.
This amounts to an American
crisis affecting the way 53% of
borrowers choose their careers. It
also decreases entrepreneurship and
overall economic consumption while
precipitously increasing household
debt, and the problem is only getting
worse, with student debt slowly
encroaching on overall household
spending.
In 2019, the average student
owed $30,062 upon graduation,
which represents about a 26%
increase over the last decade.
Furthermore, the average 2019
college graduate makes $53,889
per year. The average loan payment
is $393 per month, which means
that the average graduate uses
8.75% of their yearly salary on loan
repayment. Compounding on this,
recent graduates of color typically
have fewer opportunities for recent
graduates.
Now, while it is easy to dismiss
this as an issue plaguing some
individuals who were swindled
into signing onto unaffordable
loans, this is actually a systemic
failure that has spiraled into a
crisis that threatens our economy
on multiple levels. At the micro-
level, college dropouts make 35%
less than graduates, which, in 2011,
amounted to $3.8 billion per year
in lost wages and likely more in lost
economic output. At the macro-
level, the federal government
holds $1.5 trillion in student loan
debt,accounting
for
29.8%
of
all government assets. Holding
these high-risk assets is costing
taxpayers $170 billion from 2017 to
2026. The current trajectory of this
crisis, especially due to the onset
of the COVID-19 pandemic, is
untenable. Our government needs
to formulate a comprehensive,
multi-pronged
approach
to
mitigate this impending crisis
and develop more opportunities
for economic mobility through
education.
Now, many at the federal
level have devoted a significant
amount of time and effort to fix
the problem, specifically proposals
from Sens. Elizabeth Warren,
D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.,
for the cancellation of student debt.
While both of these are admirable
efforts that would make the
problem better than it is currently,
there are two main issues.
Primarily, the idea is politically
infeasible. But even if it weren’t, it
would only provide an economic
multiplier of 0.08x to 0.23x, which
are both low returns — especially
relative to infrastructure spending
that provides a 1.6x multiplier
in a recession. Instead, many on
the more moderate end of the
spectrum have chosen to advocate
for modest reforms like increasing
the availability of Pell Grants or
switching the system to income-
based loan repayment, both of
which would help mitigate the
crisis.
With that being said, I personally
prefer a more market-based solution.
Specifically, to free working capital,
the
federal
government
should
increase the scope of the current
Public Service Loan Forgiveness
program. Currently, PSLF forgives
federal student loans for those who
have paid loans on time and worked
for ten years in the government, a
nonprofit, AmeriCorps or the Peace
Corps. However, if the government
were to expand the program through
a public-private partnership, they
could vastly increase the number
of jobs that are available to recent
graduates and decrease the amount
of outstanding student loan debt.
The system could operate in four
different funding categories: large
and medium-sized businesses (above
100 employees), small businesses
(100 employees and under), 501(c)(3)
nonprofits and state governments
and federal agencies. All businesses
participating must meet certain
diversity
standards
and
a
$15
minimum wage.
In
exchange,
the
federal
government
would
introduce
a
matching program: providing 50% of
the new hires’ salaries (up to $50,000
per year per employee) in treasury
bonds at large and medium businesses,
75% of the new hires’ salaries (up
to $75,000 per year per employee)
in subsidies at small businesses and
nonprofits and a Medicaid-like dollar-
for-dollar matching program with
state governments.
In order to incentivize students to
go into small businesses, nonprofits
and
government
careers,
PSLF
requirements would be altered based
on the category. For small businesses
and government, students would
have to work for seven years. For
nonprofits, students would only have
to work for five years.
This desperately needed update
to the PSLF would free students
from the shackles of student loans
more quickly while ensuring that the
backers of these loans retrieve their
principal. This, in turn, would create
a large multiplier whose shockwaves
would be felt across the nation,
providing a sustainable roadmap for
long-term growth.
With that being said, there are
many other ways of fixing this
uniquely American problem, and,
no matter your ideology, you should
do the research and get behind one
solution to student debt — our elected
officials won’t fix this issue unless we
make them.
U
niversity
of
Michigan
students are bad at failing.
While there is no doubt
that we form a community of
extraordinary go-getters, it is often a
fear of failure, rather than a passion
for success, that propels us. In a
highly-competitive academic setting,
these fears may develop into chronic
academic performance anxiety when
left unchecked. Ironically, a formidable
solution to our anxieties is to get better
at doing badly. Here’s how.
Picture yourself receiving a high
grade on a test after several grueling
nights of preparation. “It was all
worth it,” you acknowledge, beaming.
Now picture yourself failing that
same test despite your hours-long
commitment. Feeling the hole in your
chest widening, you think to yourself,
“it was all for nothing,” and you
criticize yourself for not being capable
enough. You dedicated the same
amount of determination and labor in
both scenarios. Yet, your evaluation
of the worth of your labor is entirely
dependent upon the final outcome.
When our appreciation of our effort
is entirely conditional like this, our
sense of worth hinges on an imagined
outcome that may never unfold the
way we planned, no matter how much
we went through in the hopes of
achieving it. Subsequently, when we
fail, we feel that it speaks to who we are
as a person, and this outlook ultimately
puts us farther away from our goals
than failure itself does.
When we permit our failures to
intersect with our core sense of identity
and self-esteem, we lose the ability to
extend compassion toward ourselves
and others. We become trapped in a
painful cycle of criticism and anxiety.
The underlying belief that self-worth
and happiness is conditional upon
a narrow view of success actually
threatens our potential for success
as it inhibits our ability to adapt to
challenges in the future. It even
threatens our ability to learn.
Performance anxiety rests on
the false assumption that the most
gratifying step toward a goal is
achieving
it.
This
is
a
misunderstanding.
The final result of our successes is
not the most meaningful part of our
journey. Accomplishments have value
because of the knowledge and skill
we gain in our effort to achieve them.
For example, you might not value an
accomplishment that took little effort
on your part, but one that took years
of training and preparation is cause
for immense celebration. Because
the value of our hard work is actually
independent from the final result,
hard-earned failure can hold the same
value as hard-earned accomplishment.
In order to feel good about ourselves,
we need to appreciate the equal
value of failure. From this expanded
viewpoint, we are able to honor our
shortcomings and bounce back from
feelings of inadequacy.
Another
challenge
to
our
relationship with success and failure is
our tendency to compare our suffering
against our peers’ suffering as a metric
for success. For example, when we
observe our classmates pulling all-
nighters and living on caffeine, we
worry that we ourselves are not doing
enough.
This mode of thinking is like
watching a race. As a runner reaches
the finish, you notice that she had
been running with a knife in her foot.
You assume that she won because
of the knife in her foot rather than
in spite of it. When it is your turn to
compete, you proceed to stick a knife
in your own foot, thinking that this
will aid your success. Clearly, this is
an irrational and inefficient mode of
approaching success. When we use
comparison of suffering to measure
success, we cultivate disingenuous
motivation. This kind of motivation
is founded in insecurity, anxiety-
driven
productivity
and
self-
resentment. While perpetuating this
negative feedback loop may lead to
“success,” it leaves us feeling so dead
inside that we lose the ability to enjoy
and appreciate what we are working
toward in the first place. The more
fulfilling
source
of
motivation
is internal — it lives within us in
the form of hope, passion and
commitment. We can avoid undue
suffering by cultivating genuine
motivation.
Constantly
feeling
exhausted
and overworked is not a virtue. It
is an inability to understand the
source of success. Success is not how
much suffering you can endure, but
rather how much suffering you can
let go of, knowing that passion and
determination will be there to carry
you once you let go of fear-driven
perfectionism. Academic performance
anxiety can be useful to give us the
boosts we need in small increments,
but running on it for years is draining
and destructive toward our physical
health, ultimately depriving us of
happiness.
Living life from a place of fear
retracts from our limitless personal
potential.
Before
we
enter
the
professional world, U-M students need
to dissect whether our fear of failure
stems from a fear that we are not
productive and valuable human beings
at our core.
Students can move away from this
fear by developing a greater sense
of self-compassion. This may seem
simple, but it is far from a magic trick.
Mindfulness practices constitute a
family of research-backed therapeutic
approaches to tackling low self-esteem
and anxiety. By practicing powerful
mindfulness techniques, we can
create space between ourselves and
our negative thought loops, enabling
us to observe and correct damaging
patterns without judgment.
Hopefully, we will fail a few times in
the process.
Opinion
Wednesday, March 24, 2021 — 9
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
BRITTANY BOWMAN | MANAGING EDITOR
KEITH JOHNSTONE | COLUMNIST
ALEXIS HANCZ | COLUMNIST
Jessie Mitchell can be reached at
jessiemi@umich.edu.
Brittany Bowman can be reached at
babowm@umich.edu.
Keith Johnstone can be reached at
keithja@umich.edu.
Alexis Hancz can be reached at
ahancz@umich.edu.
W
ith over 130 years of
independent
student
journalism,
The
Michigan Daily’s mission is to maintain
“impartiality, fairness and the complete
truth.” The editorial leadership of
The Daily holds the concepts of
journalistic integrity, accountability and
transparency in the highest regard and
we — as student journalists, University
of Michigan students and Ann Arbor
residents — derive a deep sense of
gratitude and appreciation for the
opportunities and responsibilities this
institution has afforded us.
That said, in order to maintain
transparency and hold ourselves
accountable in pursuing that mission,
we are notifying our readers that on
Feb. 28, The Daily’s Managing Editor
discovered numerous instances of
plagiarism during the editing process
in an ultimately unpublished Arts
column submission. A day later, the
individual who was found to have
plagiarized — an Arts writer and The
Statement contributor — was notified
of their termination as a Daily staffer.
As stated in The Daily’s bylaws, “A
violation of these bylaws and/or the
ethics code is cause for dismissal. …
Plagiarism is a fireable offense, but
should be considered in the context
of the situation.” Per the bylaws, the
individual appealed the firing, inviting
a formal investigation and hearing
to take place. Over the course of the
following week, the Managing Editor
met with a panel of nine editors across
three sections to review all published
articles by the individual to check for
any other instances of plagiarism.
Unfortunately, in addition to the
latest unpublished column submission
by the individual, four other articles
published
September
2020
to
December 2020 were found to have
varying levels of plagiarism. Since the
individual appealed the firing, The
Daily’s Management Desk met on
Sunday, March 14, to review the case.
Management Desk determined that
the writer’s plagiarism was intentional,
that the firing should not be overturned
and that the individual should not
be allowed to join another section of
The Daily. Seventy-six Management
Desk members were present, and all
three items were passed with majority
support.
Over the past two weeks since the
initial discovery of plagiarism, we have
taken steps to combat further instances
of this unethical and unacceptable
behavior. The Daily’s Copy Desk, as
well as the Managing Editor, now use a
plagiarism database checker; between
the Copy team and the Managing
Editor, all published editorial content
will be scanned for plagiarism moving
forward.
It is important to note that The
Daily’s Arts content was not edited by
the Copy Desk until January of this
year and, based on comprehensive
education of no-tolerance policies
regarding stealing others’ work put
in place by both The Daily and the
University, section editors do not
anticipate occurrences of plagiarism.
No matter the intent, plagiarism is
unacceptable and stands in stark
contrast with the ethical values and
goals of The Daily.
With that in mind, the following
articles containing plagiarism have
been permanently removed from
our website: “‘Raised by Wolves’ is
a religious sci-fi mashup” — Sept. 7,
2020; “Without live audiences, Ann
Arbor comedians search for ways to
perform” — Sept. 24, 2020; “Good dog
or bad dog? A condensed almanac of
canines in history” — Oct. 21, 2020;
“The Humor Column’s guide to off-
campus housing” — Dec. 3, 2020.
As we remain deeply invested in
maintaining the transparency and
integrity of The Daily, we apologize
on behalf of our institution. As student
journalists, we sincerely hope that this
incident can be a learning process for
all those involved and that we can all be
better for it. It is our honor and privilege
to provide our community with daily
content, and we will continue to do
so with an upgraded standard of fact-
checking and editorial solidarity.
Instances of plagiarism found in several Daily articles
Fix the damn loans
JESSIE MITCHELL | COLUMNIST
An investigation of what?
We need to get better at failing
BRITTANY BOWMAN
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.
CLAIRE HAO
Editor in Chief
ELIZABETH COOK
AND JOEL WEINER
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
Julian Barnard
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Elizabeth Cook
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Andrew Gerace
Krystal Hur
Min Soo Kim
Jessie Mitchell
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Gabrijela Skoko
Elayna Swift
Jack Tumpowsky
Joel Weiner
Erin White