7-Opinion

O

ne year ago, our campus 
felt 
chaotic. 
Inadequate 

testing, spiking COVID-19 

cases and thousands of frightened 
and disgruntled university workers, 
who, in a shock to the system, 
declared they were going on strike for 
better working conditions. 

Among 
these 
workers 
were 

more than a hundred members of 
University 
Housing’s 
Residential 

Staff who joined the strike to pursue 
their own demands, in a two-week-
long struggle that University Housing 
refers to as a “work stoppage.” With 
the Lecturers’ Union on track to go 
on strike this month, unmet labor 
demands could once again deeply 
impact student life on campus. 

Why are so many labor demands 

not met at our university? To 
understand this, we should first 
understand what happened with 
the largest undergraduate workers’ 
strike in the University of Michigan’s 
history, the 2020 ResStaff strike.

Without 
a 
union, 
these 

undergraduate student employees 
supported the Graduate Employees’ 
Organization 
in 
their 
strike, 

organized in opposition to the 
University’s fall 2020 reopening 
plans. After initial requests were not 
met, and insufficient answers were 
provided in a ResStaff Town Hall, the 
strike commenced. 

In a move that attracted the 

attention of national news outlets, 
the resident advisers held out for two 
weeks before accepting an offer by 
U-M administration and returning to 
work on Sept. 22, 2020.

One factor that explains the 

hardiness of the ResStaff strike 
was the overwhelming support on 
campus. LSA Student Government 
released a statement in support of the 
ResStaff strike after a vote of 26-0. 
One petition written in support of 
ResStaff received more than 2,000 
signatures before the strike’s end. 
GEO organized a solidarity rally with 
MDining workers and ResStaff. An 
open letter circulated among non-
tenured U-M staff garnered nearly 
200 signatures. Though support 
was not universal, it is certain that 
the ResStaff strike sent ripples 
throughout Ann Arbor and beyond.

***
Looking back on this “stoppage,” 

we are left to consider: What has 
changed? Was it a success? Are 
conditions now better for RAs and 
other members of ResStaff? 

One must look no further than 

at the strikers’ original demands to 
evaluate the impact:

First: 
“Regular 
access 
to 

testing for all of ResStaff (not only 
symptomatic 
individuals).” 
The 

University achieved this early on, 
offering as-needed testing for all 
members of the campus community, 
and mandating weekly testing for 
residence hall residents (including 
RAs) in the Winter 2021 semester. 
With the campus vaccine mandate 

now in effect, weekly testing is no 
longer mandated by the University 
except for students and faculty who 
have not yet received the vaccine or 
who are exempted.

Second: 
“Providing 
sufficient, 

effective PPE to ResStaff and 
Students.” Housing provided masks 
and gloves for ResStaff to use when 
working in community spaces, as 
well as plastic face barriers. Students 
were not extended this same degree 
of personal protective equipment, 
though they (and ResStaff) were 
issued reusable cotton masks as well 
as U-M-branded bandanas during 
their move-in.

Third: “Enforcement of social 

distancing and face coverings inside 
and outside of residence halls and 
dining halls” and “enforcement of 
currently unenforceable guest policy 
by non-student employees.” Though 
this policy was in place on paper, 
there were many reported cases of 
lax enforcement of U-M policies. The 
onus was placed on RAs to enforce 
these policies during their work 
inside residence halls; dining hall 
staff did likewise at their workplaces. 
It’s unclear whether this demand 
was ever fully met to the extent that 
the strikers desired. As part of this 
demand, RAs desired more stringent 
consequences for policy breakers. 
Whether it was due to this change 
or not, there were certainly students 
whose 
housing 
contracts 
were 

terminated as a result of COVID-19-
related violations.

Fourth: “Hiring and staffing to 

normal capacity for all facilities and 
housing teams.” This demand is 
harder to pin down, however, given 
the fact that University Housing’s 
website has job postings for both 
undergraduate 
and 
graduate 

communities. It’s likely still the case 
that the residence halls are not fully 
staffed at the moment. 

Fifth: 
“More 
specific 
public 

and ResStaff communication and 
transparency.” University Housing 
reinstated their policy of providing 
daily updates to ResStaff members 
via email; the U-M COVID-19 
dashboard also began breaking down 
case statistics by building and floor. 
However, ResStaff members were 
quick to point out inaccuracies that 
seemed to appear in the dashboard 
data.

Sixth: “Hazard pay for ResStaff.” 

Most members of ResStaff are not 
compensated outside of their room 
and board expenses. ResStaff was 
not provided with hazard pay in any 

form; a stipend of $200 in Blue Bucks 
was provided to ResStaff, to be used 
at 
University-owned 
restaurants 

and stores. This one-time payment 
of “Rick Bucks” (so dubbed after the 
Director of Housing, Rick Gibson) did 
not fully meet the strikers’ demands 
for compensation in recognition of 
the unique threats of the pandemic.

And lastly: “A formal statement 

of no retaliation from Housing 
Administration should a ResStaff 
Union be formed” and “a formal 
statement of no retaliation from 
Housing 
Administration 
or 

University Administration against 
any ResStaff member who went on 
strike, is currently on strike, or is 
supporting the strike.” For many on 
ResStaff, this point was especially 
controversial, as ResStaff members 
allege 
that 
Gibson 
implicitly 

threatened to fire ResStaff members 
in a closed-door meeting. Regarding 
a ResStaff union, the University 
explicitly declined to make any 
agreements regarding any sort of 
future bargaining unit.

***
Most of the demands were met, 

in one way or another, by University 
Housing. Others will eventually be 
deemed moot after the end of the 
pandemic. This does not include, 
however, the two most important 
long-term demands: hazard pay and 
the tacit permission that a ResStaff 
union may be formed. 

It comes as no surprise that the 

University would want to prevent the 

formal unionization of ResStaff, given 
the successes that have been achieved 
by the RAs already, as well as those 
achieved by actual unions in the form 
of GEO and LEO in recent years.

The tactics used by the University 

to defuse the strike are not new. In the 
case of the ResStaff strike, the same 
tactics can continue to be employed. 

Most RAs work for a maximum 

of three years before they graduate. 
When they put forth their demands, 
all the administration needs to do is 
wait them out. They will graduate 
and be replaced by students who don’t 
have the knowledge or confidence to 
make the same demands. By the time 
these students become empowered to 
advocate for themselves, it is often too 
late, and the cycle repeats. 

It’s with this framework in mind 

that we look toward an uncertain 
future. Time will only tell what will 
become of the ResStaff’s unmet 
demands and whether they emerge 
as an exception or an embodiment of 
this cycle.

W

omen’s 
reproductive 

rights 
are 
under 

assault in Texas. The 

passage of a new anti-abortion law 
by the conservative state legislature 
and the complicity of the Supreme 
Court has endangered the freedom 
and safety of women across Texas 
and the entire nation. 

At midnight on Sept. 1, 2021, a 

new anti-abortion law went into 
effect in Texas. This law prohibits 
women from obtaining an abortion 
if a fetal heartbeat is detected. 
Fetal heartbeats can be detected 
as early as six weeks, before many 
women know they are pregnant. 
Therefore, this new law all but 
ensures that countless women in 
Texas will not have access to safe 
abortion services. This law is so 
restrictive that it does not even 
have exceptions for cases of rape or 
incest.

The 
Texas 
law 
is 
unique 

compared to other “heartbeat 
bills” in that it does not set criminal 
penalties for violating the ban. 
Instead, the law allows private 
citizens to sue anyone who helps 
women receive an abortion if a fetal 
heartbeat is present.

This 
means 
that 
private 

citizens with no relationship to 
the patient can sue anyone who is 
even tangentially connected to the 
patient. Therefore, everyone from 
a doctor, to a partner, to the Uber 
driver who drove the woman to the 
clinic could be sued if the abortion 
was performed with a heartbeat 
present. 

The law reads like a scene 

from Margaret Atwood’s “The 
Handmaid’s 
Tale,” 
with 
the 

government exerting control over 

women’s reproductive health and 
encouraging people to spy on each 
other and report to the authorities. 
Anti-abortion groups in Texas 
have already set up whistleblower 
sites to encourage people to turn in 
clinics and individuals they believe 
are violating the new law.

Opponents of the bill have 

warned that anti-abortion groups 
will use this law as a pretext to 
continuously sue clinics, causing 
major financial and legal hardship 
to clinics that provide a wide range 
of health services beyond abortion 
services. 

In the case of other so-called 

“heartbeat laws,” the United States 
Supreme Court has prevented 
the laws from going into effect. 
The court had continually used 
the precedent set in the landmark 
Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court 
decision, which established the 
constitutional right to obtain an 
abortion. However, after a day of 
silence, the Supreme Court ruled 
late at night on Sept. 1 that the Texas 
abortion ban can be implemented 
while challenges to the law work 
their way through the federal court 
system. 

The shocking 5-4 decision, 

with most conservative justices 
ruling in favor of the abortion ban, 
effectively gutted the constitutional 
protections of Roe vs. Wade in 
Texas. 

This ruling of the court will 

have major repercussions beyond 
Texas. Other conservative states 
have signaled that they will try to 
pass similar legislation. Even if the 
Supreme Court eventually strikes 
down this law, the precedent 
set in Wednesday night’s ruling 
sends a message that this highly 
conservative court does not intend 
to protect reproductive rights. 

The impact that this bill will have 

on women in Texas and beyond is 
truly dire. At only six weeks, many 
women will not know they are 
pregnant and will therefore miss 
their window to receive the care 
they need. 

This bill is especially callous 

because it will harm lower-income 
women at a much higher rate. For 
women in Texas, the only way to 
receive care after six weeks is to 
travel out of state, but for many 
women, this is an unattainable 
solution. Traveling out of state to 
receive reproductive health care 
is not possible for many women. 
The cost of traveling out of state, 
time required to take off of work 
or other commitments are factors 
that disproportionately bar lower-
income women from accessing 
safe abortions. On the other hand, 
those who have wealth can access 
abortions with relative ease.

The women who cannot afford 

to go out of state to receive care may 
turn to unsafe measures instead. 
We have seen in the past that when 
abortion is not legal, women will 
utilize unsafe methods to terminate 
their pregnancy, which can result 
in severe injury or death.

Even women who do receive 

care before a heartbeat is detected 
will likely be plagued with fear that 
someone could find out about their 
procedure and attempt to initiate a 
lawsuit against people in their lives, 
or even those barely related, such 
as the aforementioned ride-share 
driver. 

The ruling by the Supreme Court 

has made women across the United 
States less free and sent a message 
that women cannot have autonomy 
over their bodies and their health 
care decisions. It is up to all of us to 
speak in opposition to this ruling 
and use our voice and our vote to 
protect reproductive rights. 

I

magine 
a 
technological 

innovation that can weed out 
child predators hiding in the dark 

pockets of the internet — a beautiful, 
life-saving move that prioritizes safety 
and protection and one the architect 
should be celebrated for. 

Now 
imagine 
opposition, 

resistance and dissent toward 
that tool — specifically, rooted in 
fears of technological abuse and 
contaminated privacy. 

Apple has been facing criticism 

recently for a new policy aimed 
at protecting minors from child 
sexual 
abuse 
material. 
This 

backlash is ridiculous. And I support 
Apple’s decision to introduce new 
regulations and technology that 
“empowers people and enriches 
their lives.”

Last month, I moved back to my 

childhood home where I finally 
confronted my hoarder tendencies 
and upturned a closet flooded with 
Zhu Zhu pets, my Rainbow Loom 
kit, Orbeez, a Nintendo DS and too 
many Silly Bandz and Sticky Hands. 
As old memories began to surge back 
into my mind, I couldn’t help but 
think about the experiences of kids 
that enter into an already present 
social media world. It is frustrating 
and concerning that younger kids 
confront the same space that gives 
adults body insecurities and adverse 
mental health effects; that they live 
in a world where cyberbullying is 
widespread and normal. 

How are we changing, really? 

How is technology changing us? 
A recent Ezra Klein Show episode 
on The New York Times hosted 

guest L.M. Sacasas, author of the 
newsletter The Convivial Society, 
to discuss 41 questions concerning 
technology. Sacasas pulls from 
20th-century 
philosophers 
of 

technology to argue that technology 
is not an innocent medium — we 
become these tools and are reshaped 
by them. The choices we make and 
the habits we form in the virtual 
world spill out and become reality. 
His questions directed me to take 
a backseat from the technocentric 
screen and consider our generation’s 
relationship with technology: 

When 
we 
spew 
unfiltered, 

negative comments just because 
we can’t see the person behind the 
screen, what sort of person does that 
make us? When we fill open cracks 
of time with a subconscious, trained 
flick of the thumb to open Snapchat 
or 
TikTok, 
what 
experiences 

does that prevent? What rituals, 
conversations, 
relationships, 

spontaneous moments? When we 
post on Instagram and obsessively 
submit to ‘like’ and follower counts, 
are we being authentic to ourselves 
or are we just performances 
ourselves, hungry for the audience’s 
approval? When we persist in a 
toxic relationship with social media 
platforms, is it anxiety and fear 
keeping us hanging on? Why do we 
continue? 

In a place where saying anything 

is better than saying nothing, 
misinformation thrives. This form 
of social media undermines us and 
makes our lives worse. 

In its infant stage, social media 

was seemingly innocent, welcoming 
society with boundless freedom and 
individual expression (remember 
the world of Dylan O’Brien’s 
homemade sketches on YouTube, 

or very random highly filtered 
Instagram posts?) Because of that 
nostalgic optimism, I understand 
the hesitation or objections to 
regulation that feels as though 
companies are stealing the magic 
of the virtual society. People are 
afraid of limited rights, reveling in 
the current state of nature where 
we stand as equal beings without a 
form of government and legislature 
to restrain us. 

In 
the 
political 
sphere, 

libertarians value a minimal state 
and maximum individual rights. 
They hate being used for the sake 
of others’ welfare (think seatbelt 
laws or income redistribution from 
the rich to the poor). Applied to the 
virtual society, I think it’s analogous 
to hating regulation as a means for 
the collective welfare of technology 
users 
(think 
privacy 
breach 

complaints amidst efforts of child 
pornography surveillance). 

John Locke argues that there 

are inconveniences in a state of 
nature, 
namely 
over-aggression 

in punishment and heightened 
violence, which ultimately leaves 
people insecure in their enjoyment 
of their inalienable rights. Users 
“cancel” influencers in extreme 
measures, often accompanied by 
suicide threats. 

Sometimes we find ourselves 

overcome with unbearable anxiety 
in a toxic environment and delete 
social media apps for weeks. In our 
developing virtual society, we need 
to find civility and recover the ability 
to enjoy our rights to life, liberty 
and happiness by striking a balance 
between individual rights and the 
common good.

Opinion

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

Elizabeth Cook
Brandon Cowit

Jess D’Agostino
Andrew Gerace
Shubhum Giroti

Krystal Hur

Jessie Mitchell

Mary Rolfes

Gabrijela Skoko

Evan Stern
Elayna Swift

Jack Tumpowsky

Joel Weiner

B

itcoin is, for the time being, 
on the up and up. Earlier 
this year, Venmo, a financial 

services company, announced that 
it will be incorporating Bitcoin 
transactions into its platform, as the 
currency recently surpassed a record 
value of $63,000 per coin. Though 
Bitcoin has many benefactors in the 
tech executive class and beyond, this 
cryptocurrency has limited utility 
compared to the cost that it takes to 
maintain the entire system. . 

An indictment of Bitcoin is not an 

indictment of blockchain technology 
— the multi-agent authentication 
system on which Bitcoin operates — or 
its many other uses. Bitcoin, outside of 
the fact that it is a bubble likely to pop, 
creates more problems for the world 
than it solves.

Bitcoin has prominent proponents, 

such as Twitter and Square CEO Jack 
Dorsey and the Winklevoss twins. It 
makes sense — a democratized, purely 
digital currency is exactly the kind of 
futuristic, disruptive thing tech CEOs 
flock to. But why is it appealing? What 
problem is Bitcoin meant to solve? 

Proponents will give you a number 

of answers. The currency is meant 
to escape the harmful oversight of 
a central bank, which is allegedly 
devaluing the money of hard-working 
Americans. You may have heard a 

similar argument from proponents 
of gold. In reality, the fluctuations 
in Bitcoin are otherworldly when 
compared to the stable inflation rate of 
the U.S. dollar. Even Bitcoin’s original 
selling point of complete anonymity is 
going down the drain, as many of the 
Bitcoin exchange services do in fact 
require a verified identity.

Bitcoin is much more an (volatile) 

investment 
opportunity 
than 
a 

revolutionary way to do commerce. 
Economist Nouriel Roubini has called 
Bitcoin “the mother of all scams” 
because of how it preys on the least 
financially literate with promises of 
revolutionizing the financial systems 
and the possibility to develop extreme 
personal wealth. In a speech this 
August, Gary Gensler, Securities 
and Exchange Commission chair, 
called for stricter regulation of the 
cryptocurrency 
market. 
Gensler 

called the current market “like the 
Wild West” in terms of protection for 
vulnerable new investors.

Those already bought into Bitcoin 

have the most incentive to encourage 
new investors to buy into the currency 
because that is the way their personal 
Bitcoin fortune can increase in value. 
In the same way that many first-time 
investors were left high and dry after 
the GameStop situation earlier this 
year, if the hype train slows down, 
millions of Bitcoin holders will be left 
holding the check.

Bitcoin has an environmental 

impact 
as 
well. 
Every 
Bitcoin 

transaction 
consumes 
around 

500,000 times more energy to 
authenticate than a traditional online 
transaction. The immense energy cost 
of Bitcoin is built into the platform. 
Miners, or different computers all 
over the world who would like to 
authenticate, are all competing with 
each other for blocks, or groups, of 
transactions. This competition, while 
making the platform secure, also 
wastes incredible amounts of money on 
redundancy. Though Bitcoin “mines” 
are sometimes built in colder climates 
to alleviate some of the energy cost 
associated with cooling, (at this stage 
in the technology) Bitcoin mining still 
manages to consume more energy than 
the entire country of Finland.

Cryptocurrencies 
are 
already 

classified as securities and are thus in 
SEC jurisdiction in some regard, but 
the issue of taxes is still a weak point 
in the American crypto regulation 
scheme. Hopefully, cryptocurrencies 
will be coming under more stringent 
tax regulations soon. 

The 
bipartisan 
infrastructure 

bill passed by the Senate includes a 
provision that would require crypto 
“brokers” to report their client’s 
cryptocurrencies transactions, much 
like how stockbrokers are required to 
report their client’s stock transactions 
to tax regulators. This reasonable 
change is expected to bring in $28 
billion in previously untaxed revenue.

Bitcoin is more trouble than it’s worth

Apple isn’t the problem, we are.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
8 — Wednesday, September 15, 2021 

A threat to women anywhere is a 

threat to women everywhere

ISABELLE SCHINDLER

Opinion Columnist

LILY KWAK

Opinion Columnist

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Op-Ed: Looking back on the 
ResStaff strike, one year later

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

TYLER WATT & 

ZACKARIAH FARAH

Contributors

JULIAN BARNARD
Senior Opinion Editor

ALLISON ENGKVIST/Daily

