7-Opinion

S

ince our formation three 
years ago, the One University 
Coalition (1U) has called upon 

University President Mark Schlissel 
and the Board of Regents to provide 
the funds necessary to give University 
of Michigan – Flint and Dearborn 
campuses more of the opportunities 
already available on the Ann Arbor 
campus. As we see it, we have one 
University President and one Board 
of Regents; we are one university, and 
we should share resources so that 
all of our students — regardless of 
campus — can thrive.

The 
current 
budget 
model 

relegates the Flint and Dearborn 
campuses to a state of permanent 
austerity, constantly subject to cuts 
in programs, incapable of offering 
fair wages and offering only about a 
quarter of the support spending per 
student found in Ann Arbor. These 
disparities are unjust. The current 
budget model is also unsustainable: 
If we extrapolate the experience of 
recent years, the College of Arts & 
Sciences in Flint will be thoroughly 
hollowed out in a decade. The 
current model must change if we 
are committed to strong Flint and 
Dearborn campuses. 

From the start of our campaign, 

we have faced intense resistance from 
Schlissel and his administration. 
In June 2020, after two years of 
organizing, the president and the 
regents finally agreed to transfer 
an extra $10 million to each of the 
Flint and Dearborn campuses, but it 
took a majority of the regents voting 
down Schlissel’s proposed budget to 
make that happen. Since his budget 

passed, the president insisted that 
the extra $20 million for Flint and 
Dearborn would be a one-shot deal, to 
be spread out over three years, rather 
than be renewed the following year, 
as the regents favoring the transfers 
intended.

This summer the 1U campaign 

won two more victories. First, the 
Go Blue Guarantee (GBG) — which 
waives tuition for students from 
families with an income of less than 
$65,000 — was extended from Ann 
Arbor, where it was adopted in 2018, 
to Flint and Dearborn. However, 
while finally bowing to community 
pressure and regental authority, 
the 
president 
truncated 
the 

transformative potential of the new 
policy by introducing a minimum 
GPA eligibility requirement. There 
is no such requirement in the Ann 
Arbor version of the GBG, and it 
could halve the number of eligible 
UM-Flint 
and 
UM-Dearborn 

students. 

Our second victory came when 

the student governments of all three 
campuses came together in the Fund 
Our Future rally to announce their 
common demand that U-M commits 
$10 million per year to the Flint and 
Dearborn campuses for at least five 
years.

Lecturers’ 
Employee 

Organization, the union representing 
lecturers 
(i.e., 
nontenure-track 

faculty) on U-M’s three campuses, 
was already on the same page. When 
lecturers began negotiating a new 
collective bargaining agreement in 
January 2021, a core demand was 
that $15 million be transferred to 
Flint and $15 million to Dearborn, 
from funds controlled by the central 
(i.e., university-wide) administration, 
for each of the three years of the 
collective bargaining agreement. 

LEO members attached high 

priority to this demand for two 
reasons: They are committed to 
fair salaries for their Flint and 
Dearborn members without raising 
student tuition or provoking cuts in 
programming and they want to help 
dismantle the institutional racism 
and classism embodied in the current 
budget model. 

Commissioned by LEO, research 

by university budget expert Professor 
Howard Bunsis of Eastern Michigan 
University shows that the central 
administration could easily provide 
this level of increased support for 
Flint and Dearborn, notwithstanding 
the challenges of COVID-19. The 
$30 million per year (for the two 
campuses combined) is 1.3% of the 
Ann Arbor General Fund budget 
for 2021-22, but would be a 12.8% 
increase in U-M Flint’s General Fund 
budget, and a 9.7% increase in U-M 
Dearborn’s. 

Nevertheless, 
the 
president 

continues to publicly say no to such 
a change in the budget model. No to 
the student governments and no to 
LEO. Every time LEO presented its 
demand for $30 million for the two 
campuses at the bargaining table, 
the administration bargaining team 
crossed it out. LEO has made it clear 
that the change does not need to be 
included in the collective bargaining 
agreement, so long as it happens, but 
Schlissel seems uninterested in either 
approach. 

Why is the president who was 

proud to allocate $85 million to 
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion goals 
on the Ann Arbor campus so opposed 
to applying DEI principles and money 
across the three campuses of U-M? 
We’re not sure, but the current budget 
model needs to change to align with 
our DEI values.

I

t’s another average Monday 
evening and I’m seriously 
hungry. Without fail, I enter 

a debate: Should I eat out, cook rice 
or ramen (yes, those two meals are 
the peak of my dorm cooking) or eat 
in the dining hall? Most nights, the 
dining hall wins, mostly because it 
feels free, and I can eat as much as 
I want. Tonight, however, nothing 
on the menu looks appetizing. I 
muddle over whether to get lamb 
marsala, beef stir fry or the classic 
pizza or burger. 

My gut reaction is to skip the 

dining hall and venture down 
South University Avenue or State 
Street in search of safe, dependable 
take-out. Convincing myself this is 
the right idea, I gather my things 
and prepare to leave my room. But 
wait. Something stops me. I didn’t 
come to the University of Michigan 
to operate within my comfort zone, 
including its culinary element. I 
came here to try something new.

A few days later, I am strolling 

through the Michigan Union, 
traveling back to my dorm for my 
3 p.m. political science class on 
Zoom. Suddenly, the study lounge 
— which bears a slight resemblance 
to the esteemed law library, in 
my opinion — catches my eye. 
Intuitively, I want to keep walking 
and plop down in the black leather 
chair that awaits me in my dorm, 
but I can’t help but feel that the 
moment is yet another opportunity 
waiting to be seized. I meander 
through the desks, the old wood 
creaking beneath me, take a seat by 
the fireplace and open my laptop. 

In my short time as a student on 

campus, I have made it a priority 
to challenge my comfort zone. 
Perhaps eating two plates of beef 

stir fry and taking a class in the 
Union is not the best definition 
of “spontaneous and exciting,” 
but for me, it is. The meal was 
delicious, and the hour spent in a 
Hogwartsian lounge will lead me 
to come back more often. Yet, I’d 
have never known about either of 
them if I hadn’t ventured beyond 
what is secure.

As humans, we like what 

we 
are 
accustomed 
to. 
The 

mere-exposure effect, as first 
developed by psychologist Robert 
Zajonc, states that “individuals 
show an increased preference 
(or liking) for a stimulus as a 
consequence of repeated exposure 
to that stimulus.” Additionally, 
we are guided by our brain’s dual-
processing systems. System 1 is 
our “brain’s fast, automatic and 
intuitive approach” to situations. 
System 2, comparatively, is the 
mind’s “slower, analytical mode 
where reason dominates.”

In 
taking 
these 
scientific 

observations together, it is no 
surprise that we prefer options that 
we are familiar with. Yet, aren’t 
we ever curious about that Greek 
restaurant we haven’t tried? The 
abstract red sculpture outside the 
UMMA? A class about something 
we have zero prior knowledge 
about? 

To 
some 
students, 
these 

decisions 
are 
nothing 
special 

and, frankly, while it may be 
understandable, 
it 
is 
equally 

disappointing. In underutilizing 
the resources available to us, we are 
failing ourselves. We are students 
at a university offering a plethora 
of diverse opportunities, both in 
and out of the classroom. Not to 
mention the varied combinations 
of foods, study spaces and shopping 
that we often take for granted. Even 
the weather has variety. Parking 
too — much to the displeasure of 

campus visitors — has its variety.

Quite simply, I’m baffled by 

the number of students who are 
stuck in a routine, let alone the 
same routine. Yes, predictability 
is good, but too much of it can 
be a detriment to our mental 
health. 
Winston-Salem 
State 

University 
psychologist 
Rich 

Walker found that people who 
“engage in a variety of experiences 
are more likely to retain positive 
emotions and minimize negative 
(emotions) than those who have 
fewer experiences.” Additionally, 
cognitive 
psychologist 
Gary 

Marcus notes that a greater sense 
of personal growth and purpose is 
associated with living life to one’s 
fullest (eudaimonia). 

As we enter the midst of club 

recruitment season, I challenge you 
to find an organization that sparks 
your curiosity — even if it’s not the 
exact resume-booster you seek. It 
is easy, especially as a freshman, 
to come here and fall prey to the 
exact same experiences you had 
in high school. One of my friends 
from home is rushing a fraternity, 
simply because he doesn’t know 
what else is out there. Students, 
don’t do that! Educate yourself, 
then seek out and participate in 
student organizations that provide 
internal satisfaction, not external 
validation. 

Perhaps I’m waxing poetic or 

sappy, but I’ve always believed 
that diversifying our experiences 
is what college is all about. There’s 
a whole world out there, and we 
only have so much time to live. We 
need to talk to that person sitting 
by themselves, go to a place that 
we ordinarily wouldn’t and try our 
best to shake things up at every 
juncture along the way. Otherwise, 
how will we truly know what we 
enjoy? Now, pardon me, but I need 
to get in line for more beef stir fry.

I

n 
early 
August, 
Apple 

announced some new child 
safety 
features, 
slated 
to 

arrive in the upcoming updates to 
iOS, macOS and iPadOS. The first 
change is that the Messages app 
warns minors (and their parents) of 
sexually explicit images and gives 
parents the option to be alerted if a 
child views or sends such an image. 
The second involves Siri and Search 
being tweaked to intervene when 
someone makes queries related 
to Child Sexual Abuse Material 
(CSAM) . The last, and most major, 
introduces 
automatic 
on-device 

matching of photos (stored inside 
iCloud Photos) against a database of 
known CSAM content. If the system 
discovers enough flagged pictures, a 
report will be sent to a moderator for 
evaluation. If the moderator confirms 
the assessment, Apple will decrypt 
the photos and share them with the 
relevant authorities.

These 
new 
features 
were 

announced with the stated intent 
of protecting children from sexual 
predators, and they do sound like 
measures with great intentions 
behind them. But the changes have 
been met with considerable backlash 
and feelings of betrayal.

Of the three features, the changes 

to Siri and Search have been generally 
uncontroversial. The others, however, 
have 
seen 
massive 
opposition, 

ranging from discontent about the 
tweak to the Messages app to outrage 

about the CSAM scanning. So much 
so that Apple was forced to delay (but 
not stop) the implementation of these 
features. 

It may still be unclear to you why 

there even is opposition or why I’m 
asking you to be scared.

Even if well-intended, these new 

features are a massive invasion of 
privacy and have the potential to 
inflict serious damage. Coming 
from Apple, a company that prides 
itself on taking customer privacy 
seriously (extending even into their 
advertisement’s music choices), this is 
a huge disappointment.

The 
largest 
change 
is 
the 

monitoring of peoples’ Photos app. 
Some might be tempted to think 
the detection process itself is novel 
and problematic. This emotion is a 
natural spillover from tech’s well-
documented issues with image 
scanning and detection. For example, 
studies show facial recognition 
software from IBM, Amazon and 
Microsoft have all underperformed 
for people of color and women. 
Recognition software is only as good 
as its training dataset. Train it on 
a homogenous dataset, and it will 
struggle with diversity when used. 

These are valid concerns, but 

they are not the whole picture. 
While it is not common knowledge, 
it is commonplace for major cloud 
service providers to scan for CSAMs 
hosted on their platform. This occurs 
with the help of a database of known 
CSAM content maintained by the 
National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children and a few checks 
to prevent false reports.

If this is an established procedure 

with checks in place to avoid false 
flagging, why is there backlash at all? 
The answer lies in where Apple is 
conducting these scans. 

Traditionally, all of this happens on 

a company’s servers which cannot see 
the contents of end-to-end encrypted 
data. Apple’s purported scanning 
will occur on-device, with an option 
to decrypt photos if need be. That’s 
very dangerous since end-to-end 
encryption doesn’t hide information 
from the device itself, which could 
lead to a potential backdoor for 
cyberattacks. 

Speaking of cyberattacks, Apple 

only recently came out with a 
security patch to protect iPhones 
from spyware attacks, which could 
turn on the camera and microphone 
on-demand and read messages and 
other local data, all without any 
visible sign. Apple, like any other 
tech giant, is only a few steps ahead 
of attackers at any given time (and 
perhaps a few steps behind as well in 
some cases).

This 
leads 
to 
other 
issues. 

Countries could put pressure on 
Apple to report photos it finds 
objectionable, such as photos of 
protests or dissenters. Will Apple 
always be able to say no? 

Even if Apple does manage to resist 

these demands, many companies sell 
software exploits that give access to 
devices to governments. These are all 
scary scenarios.

So while the cause for Apple’s 

new software updates may be 
noble, the risks are too high to be 
considered safe.

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

W

hether it be in Amazon 
facilities 
across 
the 

country or right here at 

the University of Michigan, unions 
and union activity have been making 
headlines in recent days. Unions have 
been relevant in American politics 
and life since the organized labor 
movement gained a foundation in 
1886, when the American Federation 
of Labor was founded. As we come 
out of Labor Day and approach a 
potential strike by the University’s 
Lecturers’ Employee Organization, 
it is imperative to think about the 
role of organized labor both in our 
community and beyond. Apart from 
delivering 
things 
like 
increased 

wages, safer working conditions, eight-
hour workdays and the concept of a 
weekend, unions play a critical role in 
the operations of a vast place like the 
University of Michigan.

Before last fall, when the Graduate 

Employees’ 
Organization 
struck, 

I doubt most of us could name a 
single union on campus, let alone 
understand the varied roles these 
labor 
organizations 
play. 
Many 

students don’t realize unions — 
such as GEO, LEO, the American 
Federation of State, County, and 
Municipal Employees, the American 
Federation of Labor and Congress 
of 
Industrial 
Organizations, 
the 

American Federation of Teachers, the 
International Alliance of Theatrical 
Stage Employees and others — 
represent workers from all across the 
job spectrum at the University. 

From graduate student instructors 

to lecturers, bus drivers, hospital 
nurses, construction workers, stage 
crewmen 
and 
countless 
other 

professions, union work is what keeps 
the University of Michigan going — and 
sometimes grinds it to a halt. Whether 
it involves GEO, LEO or another labor 
organization, understanding striking 
and its implications is both timely and 
important. 

If you were on campus this time 

last year, you most certainly saw, 
participated in or at least heard about 
the GEO and Residential Adviser 
strikes that took place on campus. 
Between picket lines across campus 
and chants of “U-M works because 
we do,” the presence of a strike was 
unmissable.

A strike, or a work stoppage “in 

order to force an employer to comply 
with demands,” according to Merriam-
Webster Dictionary, is an incredibly 
powerful tool in a union’s arsenal 
when fighting against uncooperative 
management. Union strength comes 
from its numbers, promise of collective 
action and the possibility of a strike. 

Generally speaking, unions try 

to avoid striking due to the potential 
ramifications of such action. Unions 
can face a misguided public backlash 
if they withhold labor from producing 
a popular product or service. Union 
workers also do not get paid during 
strikes and rely on strike pay, 
something that can diminish or 
disappear if strikes drag out. 

In some circumstances, unions may 

even face legal consequences. In the 
state of Michigan, public sector unions 
aren’t legally allowed to strike. In this 
instance, however, it is important to 
note that legality and morality do not 
always go hand-in-hand; striking 
is a form of speech and should be 
protected whether it’s being done by a 
private or public union. When strikes 
arrive, they deserve respect. As Mary 
Manning, the famous flashpoint of the 
anti-apartheid Dunnes Stores strike in 
Ireland, was taught by her father as a 
child, “no one loses a day’s wages and 
stands in the bitter cold without a good 
reason.”

In GEO’s case last fall, the 

University’s lack of robust testing 
protocols, failure to provide sufficient 
resources for international students 
and unwillingness to provide graduate 
student caregivers with flexible, 
pandemic-sensitive childcare options 
were the tip of a dangerous iceberg. 
In addition, the University’s lack of 
substantive response to Black Lives 
Matter and policing concerns on 
campus was starkly apparent. 

After the University failed to come 

to an agreement with GEO regarding 
COVID-19 protocols and refused 
to have any dialogue surrounding 
policing demands, GEO voted to strike 
for a safer, smarter 
University 

reopening that wouldn’t needlessly 
risk the lives of undergraduates, 
graduate students, faculty, staff and 

the wider Ann Arbor community. 
While the strike ended under the 
threat of a cowardly legal recourse 
from the University, concrete gains 
were made to make the fall 2020 
semester safer for all.

In our own community, the 

GEO strike had a massive impact. 
While it was a bit disruptive to 
undergraduates for a week or two — 

again, disruption is the point — we 
were all safer because of it. While 
GEO’s strike focused primarily on 
ensuring the safety and health of its 
own members, the union’s successes 
were a victory for all students amid a 
deadly pandemic. 

As 
LEO 
continues 
to 
be 

stonewalled and gaslit by the 
University, the feelings of a strike are 
in the air. Regardless of whether or 
not University lecturers strike, here 
are a couple of things to keep in mind:

First and foremost, don’t cross 

the picket line in the event of a strike. 
“Crossing the picket line” is an 
expression used to describe shopping 
or working at a store or business 
that’s workers are on strike. When 
a union decides to strike, whether it 
be outside Angell Hall, the shopping 
mall or an online retailer, cooperation 
from the public helps strikers secure 
their goals, which are generally in 
the public interest. Crossing a picket 
line and purchasing a product or 
partaking in a service is a tacit consent 
of whatever the strikers are fighting 
against and makes strikes drag out 
longer as unions and management 
struggle over leverage.

Second, do research, understand 

labor laws in your state and advocate 
for positive change. At the federal 
level, consider supporting legislation 
like the Protecting the Right to 
Organize Act. At the state level, push 
back against exploitative laws and 
union-busting practices. And at the 
local level, work to understand how 
your company or university interacts 
with unions or organized labor, and 
advocate that they treat workers and 
unions with respect and dignity.

Third, consider joining or starting 

a union. Labor has been and continues 
to be a strong force in politics and 

American life. Union representation 
and collective bargaining have helped 
the American worker secure political 
standing, increased wages, better 
working conditions and a host of other 
concrete gains. Unions have already 
helped you over the years in more 
ways than you probably can imagine. 

Respect and support Umich unions

The dark side of Apple’s new 

child safety features

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
8 — Wednesday, September 22, 2021 

Students, push yourself to explore 

the University of Michigan

SAM WOITESHEK
Opinion Columnist

SIDDHARTH PARMAR

Opinion Columnist

Op-Ed: The Flint and Dearborn 

funding models perpetuate inequality

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

JASON KOSNOSKI & 

DAILLE HELD

Contributors

ANDREW GERACE
Senior Opinion Editor

MADELINE HINKLEY/Daily