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