 The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
 Wednesday, February 9, 2022 — 9

O

n Aug. 19, 2021, Only-
Fans announced that 
the 
platform 
would 

ban sexually explicit content. This 
came as a shock to many, espe-
cially sex workers who depend 
on posting their content on the 
site for income. OnlyFans’ pub-
licity has skyrocketed because 
of its explicit content, and it is 
supported immensely by explicit 
content creators. Banks and pay-
ment companies were the main 
reason behind OnlyFans’ deci-
sion. Many banks do not process 
payments connected to the adult 
industry, citing the risks of asso-
ciating with adult content. A simi-
lar business move was seen when 
PornHub removed all unverified 
partner content in response to 
Mastercard and Visa prohibiting 
the use of their payment method 
on the site after images of rape and 
abuse were discovered. Despite 

OnlyFans’ seemingly set-in-stone 
intention to ban explicit con-
tent, the company suspended it 
only six days later, claiming that 
they received assurance that they 
would be able to support their 
entire creator community. This 
action from OnlyFans was a major 
discredit to sex workers’ labor. Sex 
work is and should be seen as labor 
that is valued. Further, sex work 
should be legalized or at least 
decriminalized because the bene-
fits of legalized sex work outweigh 
the moral aversions those against 
sex workers hold.

OnlyFans’ demeanor toward the 

sex workers on its platform is indica-
tive of the wider negative stigma 
attached to sex work. Several argu-
ments are common, often made to 
discredit and immoralize sex work, 
but most of them neglect the com-
plexity of the issues they discuss. A 
common argument is that sex work 
isn’t “real” work. This takes a narrow 
view at what the concept of work can 
entail. Work is not just a process by 
which a laborer produces an object or 

traditional, physical labor. Sex work is 
actually closely related to the work of 
a masseuse, therapist, actor, and so on. 
This type of work produces emotional 
labor that consumers gain a benefit 
from. While sex work may not be be 
providing a “traditional” good or ser-
vice, the labor provided suffices the 
occupation as real work.

Another 
common 
argument 

against sex work is that female sex 
workers’ choice to become a sex work-
er harms other women and sends a 
bad message. For one, this argument 
neglects that people of all genders can 
be sex workers, but that’s besides the 
point. Some sex workers do say that 
in an ideal world sex work wouldn’t 
exist, but you have to play the hand 
you’re dealt in life. Sex work can often 
be easier to do than getting help from 
the state by hopping through tons of 
bureaucratic welfare hoops. 

But on the point that women par-

taking in sex work harm other women, 
it could be claimed that many occu-
pations women assume harm other 
women. Lawyers, police officers and 
other occupations can cause real harm 

to women at times. Sex workers are 
often targeted and harassed by police 
even more viscously than the clients 
they deal with. So, if those against sex 
work wish to claim that sex work is 
wrong because it harms women, they 
have to play the harm against women 
card consistently. 

The reality for sex workers at the 

moment is bleak, to say the least. 
Because much of sex work is criminal-
ized, sex workers are regularly appre-
hended and arrested. Police brutality 
against sex workers is also not uncom-
mon. Lack of legalization or decrimi-
nalization means that the industry is 
mostly unregulated and leaves sex 
workers unprotected. Sex workers 
are threatened by clients, others in the 
industry and the law. If a sex worker 
is on the receiving end of abuse from 
a client, they are unable to go to law 
enforcement for help because they will 
most likely be detained for participating 
in sex work or prostitution. Contacting 
clients through the internet can be safer 
for sex workers as they can screen cli-
ents before meeting in person. But laws 
like SESTA and FOSTA have made 

doing that quite difficult, influencing 
platforms like Tumblr, Craigslist and 
most recently OnlyFans to curtail or 
ban not safe for work (NSFW) content 
from their platforms. Criminalizing sex 
work makes the occupation a form of 
black market labor that ends up being 
unsafe for the sex workers themselves. 
A lot of these issues could be helped 
through legalization or decriminaliza-
tion.

Legalizing, or at the very least decrimi-

nalizing, sex work would bring about 
many benefits for the lives of sex work-
ers and the sex work industry. For one, it 
would keep sex workers safer. Having sex 
work decriminalized would likely abate 
some of the police brutality afflicting sex 
workers, since officers would not be able 
to charge them on account of their occu-
pation. It also would allow sex workers to 
be able to reach out to law enforcement 
when needed if they experience danger 
in their work. Another benefit would be 
that sex work would become taxable and 
would be able to generate more income 
for governments if it were not criminal-
ized. 

In terms of whether sex work 

should be decriminalized or legal-
ized, many sex workers advocate for 
decriminalization over legalization. 
Legalization has the potential to create 
a sort of brothel system that may not 
allot much agency to sex workers and 
to create a two-tiered system where 
only some sex workers are able to 
front the fees to pay for proper licens-
ing. Decriminalization, on the other 
hand, would put power directly into 
the hands of sex workers and would 
not create legal barriers that only some 
have the means to bypass.

Sex work should be legalized, or 

at least decriminalized. As the Only-
Fans’ NSFW content ban shows, stig-
ma around sex work is still rampant. 
When looking at all of the arguments 
leveled against sex work, only per-
sonal moral imperatives remain. One 
should not be able to dictate the pro-
fession of another based on their per-
sonal beliefs. Sex work is valid labor, it 
should be viewed as such. The Only-
Fans ban is a litmus test that indicates 
the devaluation of sex workers. It’s 
time for this to change for the benefit 
of sex workers everywhere.

PAIGE HODDER

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.

JASMIN LEE

Editor in Chief

JULIAN BARNARD 

AND SHUBHUM GIROTI

Editorial Page Editors

ficial 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
Emily Considine
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino

Zoe Phillips

Ben Davis

Andrew Gerace
Shubhum Giroti

Min Soo Kim
Jessie Mitchell

Mary Rolfes

Nikhil Sharma

Jack Tumpowsky

Joel Weiner
Erin White

Anna Tupiano

W

inters 
in 
Michigan 

are not for the faint 
of heart. As students 

here at the University of Michigan, 
we have all experienced the wind 
biting at our faces as we trek from 
class to class in the blustering winter 
weather. The cold, however, is only 
half the battle. Along these walks, 
patches of ice, piles of snow and 
areas of sludge serve as obstacles to 
our destinations. With a two-day 
snowstorm striking Ann Arbor just 
this past week, we understand these 
phenomena all too well. 

The winter obstacles we face 

are not only an inconvenience 
for students, but a danger to the 
community as a whole. There are 
serious 
consequences 
for 
Ann 

Arbor citizens, especially for the 
elderly and the disabled. Last year, 
an 88-year-old man named Richard 
Derick was walking his dog in 
Kerrytown when he slipped and 
fell after stepping over a snowbank 
left by a plow truck. A couple hours 
later, he tragically passed away from 
a brain bleed.

Incidents such as Derick’s are 

preventable, but only with adequate 
maintenance 
of 
our 
sidewalks 

and roads during the winter. 
Unfortunately, Ann Arbor currently 
lacks effective maintenance in this 
area. In light of this, it is necessary 
to consider potential solutions to the 
dangers of poor snow removals in 
Ann Arbor. 

In Holland, Mich., there is 

an intricate system of hot water 
that runs beneath the sidewalks 
in order to melt snow and ice as 
soon as it begins to accumulate. 
Ann Arbor could certainly follow 
suit; however, council members 
expressed 
concern 
about 
this 

strategy, as this would be out of the 
question in terms of budget and 
logistics. While the eventual result 
of more effective snow removal 
is worthwhile, it is unlikely that 
Ann Arbor residents would be 
happy with years of disruptive 
construction across the city.

Alternatively, Ann Arbor could 

ramp up the number of employees 
who work to clear the roads and 
sidewalks. The worker shortages 
plaguing not only Ann Arbor, 
but the entire country, make this 
easier said than done. Some council 
members have also noted that fiscal 
considerations need to be made, 
arguing that the costs of this solution 
would again be too high. Depending 

on the extent of the staffing ramp 
up, the cost could reach into the 
millions.

This all seems pretty dismal, with 

solution after solution being shot 
down. However, there are actions 
we can take as a university to help 
the greater Ann Arbor community.

To understand our role in 

snow removal, we must first 
acknowledge that the vast majority 
of the student population is young 
and able-bodied. Because of this, 
we are sometimes oblivious to the 
risks that icy sidewalks and piled 
up snow pose. Yet, as members of 
the larger community, there is a 
level of responsibility students need 
to take on in order to ensure they 
are playing their role in protecting 
others. We must understand that 
not all members of the campus 
community, nor Ann Arbor as a 
whole, have the capacity to jump 
around or over snow and ice. For 
many, effective snow removal is 
not about convenience, it is about 
safety. 

We must also remind ourselves 

that snow removal is not only a 
responsibility, but a law we must 
follow. The city of Ann Arbor has 
clear requirements for residents 
and property owners, including 
the need to clear snow and ice on 
adjacent sidewalks and crosswalk 
ramps, as well as near bus stops and 
mailboxes. Individuals who fail to 
follow the city ordinance can be 
subject to the costs it takes for the 
city to clear the areas the resident 
failed to clear. Residents also have 
the ability to report those who are 
not following the ordinance. 

Those who live off campus 

are 
sometimes 
responsible 
for 

snow removal on their property, 
depending on the caveats in their 
lease. Students should check their 
lease to see what their landlord’s 
policy is. Those who are proactive 
about knowing the relevant terms 
of their lease can avoid potential 
fines if it is indeed the landlord’s 
responsibility to remove snow and 
ice on that property. They can hold 
their landlords accountable if and 
when they fail to properly maintain 
the surrounding sidewalks and 
streets. 

For those who are required to 

remove snow under their lease, 
many properties do not offer salt 
treatment to residents, as this is not 
standard. To remedy this, the city 
offers free salt and sand solution 
that residents can use to prevent 
ice accumulation at seven locations 
throughout the city. 

Unfortunately, none of those 

locations are particularly close to 
the U-M campus or the off-campus 
areas where students tend to live, 
making it even more difficult 
for students living off campus to 
effectively treat their sidewalks. 
We recommend that, in order to 
help students play their role in 
snow removal, the University or 
the city could offer salt to students 
in a location they frequent daily. 
This could be at a location such 
as The Union on Central Campus 
or Pierpont Commons on North 
Campus. 

Though the Editorial Board 

recognizes that the University is 
generally effective in keeping the 
campus cleared and safe of snow 
and ice, there is certainly room 
for improvement. In the past, the 
University has done a comparatively 
better job of removing snow and 
ice on Central Campus than in 
off-campus areas, even though 
many students live in those areas. 
It seems that there is an invisible 
boundary where the level of care 
that the University provides to its 
campus fades away. The University 
should extend their boundaries 
of snow removal in order to play 
a role in helping off-campus sites. 
Using University resources to help 
remove snow in nearby off campus 
sidewalks would help alleviate the 
burden felt by both residents and the 
city. 

When shoveling snow or salting 

driveways and sidewalks, it is 
important that students wear the 
proper winter gear. Unfortunately, 
some are unable to afford a pair of 
winter boots and a heavy winter 
coat. There are no immediate 
locations on or around campus 
where students can go for cheap 
winter gear. Bivouac, on State 
Street, is one of the few stores that 
sells winter gear on campus, but 
the brands they sell are relatively 
expensive, and this may be out of 
reach for some students. As such, 
the University should also consider 
adding a winter clothing and gear 
bank, similar to the successful food 
bank program they run, where 
students in need can go for cheap or 
free winter attire. 

While snow removal can seem 

a trivial issue on the surface, 
considering the risks that can come 
with improper or inadequate snow 
removal show how important it 
is. Especially to a populace that 
traverses to and from campus on 
foot daily, it is crucial that a proper 
system is in place and that all players 
do their part to ensure the safety of 
Ann Arbor residents.

From The Daily: Snow removal 

policies in Ann Arbor need to change

BENJAMIN DAVIS

Opinion Columnist

Sex work stigma is alive and well on OnlyFans 

T

he University announced 
on Jan. 15 that President 
Mark Schlissel had been 

fired, effective immediately, for an 
“inappropriate relationship” with 
a subordinate employee. It should 
be noted, given the present social 
climate around issues of sexual 
and workplace misconduct, that 
there is no evidence that Schlissel 
engaged in any form of predation 
or coercion; he was removed solely 
for the inappropriate relationship 
he maintained with a subordinate. 
While many in the University 
community 
were 
blindsided 

by the news, either because of 
the timing or the nature of the 
allegations which finally did him 
in, a outpouring of student support 
for Schlissel’s removal took shape 
as the news broke. Schlissel had 
long been a divisive figure in Ann 
Arbor — his alleged affair was only 
his latest in a long line of blunders 
and humiliations throughout his 
otherwise-forgettable 
term 
as 

president.

Whether Schlissel should have 

been fired isn’t really the issue 
here — he violated the University’s 
supervisor 
relationship 
policy. 

The bigger problem at hand is 
how he could possibly have been 
allowed to continue in his position 
up to this point, sex scandals 
notwithstanding. 
Schlissel 
has 

consistently been under fire for 
his handling of a variety of issues 
throughout his seven-plus years 
leading the University, but his 
most notable failure came with 
his handling of the COVID-19 
pandemic. It’s a common sentiment 
around campus that Schlissel has 

brazenly placed the University’s 
economic 
interests 
ahead 
of 

the safety and security of U-M 
students.

While in retrospect it’s obvious 

that 
every 
university 
would 

face significant challenges in 
mitigating the impact of COVID-
19 on campus, Schlissel’s failures 
were glaring. It wasn’t enough 
for him to bring nearly 30,000 
students back to campus for 
the fall 2020 semester, despite 
keeping all instruction online. It 
also was not enough to eschew 
routine mandatory testing for all 
students — clearly in the interest 
of limiting documented cases and 
keeping students on campus. It 
wasn’t enough to brazenly ignore 
a vote of no-confidence by the 
Faculty Senate in response to his 
COVID-19 protocols. It was raising 
student tuition — with approval 
from the Board of Regents — 
amid a crippling economic crisis 
and public health emergency 
that made it abundantly clear 
Schlissel had one singular motive 
for his administrative policies: 
the University’s bottom line. It 
was not student safety, nor was 
it providing the most fruitful 
academic experience in spite of the 
circumstances. It was money.

It should outrage the U-M 

community that this man has 
retained his employment by the 
school in a more limited capacity: as 
a tenured professor. At a time when 
University accountability is at the 
forefront, Schlissel is going to keep 
a cushy title and an on-campus 
office? The University is sending 
this man into the classroom as a 
role model to the next generation 
of doctors and educators? It’s 
offensive. It’s a slap in the face 
to a community that was clearly 

happy to have seen the last of Mark 
Schlissel.

This is someone with plenty to 

be ashamed of, but what should 
embarrass him most is his betrayal 
of his obligations as a trained 
medical 
professional; 
Schlissel 

is both a medical doctor and a 
professor of immunology and 
molecular biology. He spent years 
of his life studying the human 
immune system, but was willfully 
negligent as a highly infectious 
disease ran rampant through an 
institution he claimed to oversee. 
He knew opening the dorms at 
full capacity would render the 
University 
an 
industrial-sized 

petri dish. He also knew one of his 
bosses, the widely-loathed U-M 
Regent Ron Weiser (R), stood to 
benefit economically from the 
hastily-implemented 
return 
to 

campus. It doesn’t take an M.D. to 
come to those conclusions, only 
common sense and basic human 
decency. What is clear is that optics 
did not matter to Schlissel. In less 
than two years, that amounts to 
no less than five fireable offenses, 
but only when he became a social 
pariah was he removed. 

That’s what makes this so hard 

to understand. At one of the largest 
and most prestigious institutions 
of higher education in the country, 
the President placing students 
and the city at risk with his apathy 
was not cause for termination, 
but a relationship with a staffer 
was a bridge too far. The Board of 
Regents have a lot to answer for 
here, too. Schlissel was derelict in 
his duty to U-M students as a result 
of his actions, but the Board was 
derelict in its inaction. They are 
not blameless bystanders – they are 
constituent parties to a years-long, 
humiliating institutional scandal.

Schlissel’s firing is long overdue

JACK ROSHCO
Opinion Columnist

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

T

his month in Virginia, 
my 
home 
state, 
Gov. 

Glenn Youngkin, R-Va., 

signed an executive order banning 
mask mandates in public schools 
— a move that produced mixed 
reactions from school districts 
across the state. Rural districts 
were quick to lift their mandates, 
while 
suburban 
districts 
in 

Northern Virginia and Richmond 
openly defied the governor. Seven 
districts went so far as to sue him for 
encroaching upon the authority of 
school districts to run themselves. 
Lt. Gov. Winsome Sears responded 
to the rebellious districts by stating 
the governor would withhold state 
funds from these districts to ensure 
compliance. 

Further complicating matters, 

a group of parents in Loudoun 
County (yes, that Loudoun County 
you might have heard of) stood 
outside a high school before 
classes to protest the school’s mask 
mandate. Thirty students, after 
refusing to wear a mask, were 
escorted to an auditorium and given 
the option to work asynchronously 
or go home. Similar treatment was 
given to a 10-year-old student at 
a neighboring elementary school. 
Broadly, however, there was little 
to no backlash against continued 
mask 
mandates 
in 
Northern 

Virginia.

Youngkin’s decision to ban these 

mandates, instead of leaving it up 
to local school districts, seems 
ill-advised. 
Rural 
communities 

might have been eager to lift their 
mandates, but, as evidenced by the 
response in Northern Virginia, the 
majority of families in suburban 
communities were still in favor 
of mask mandates. Youngkin is 
politically astute enough to have 
foreseen the widespread backlash. 
Wouldn’t devolving power back to 
individual districts increase local 
communities’ agency over their 
COVID-19 protocols and avoid 
unnecessary 
conflict? 
Perhaps, 

but Youngkin doesn’t need to 
make everyone happy — just the 
parents who voted him in. He ran 
a strong campaign that promised 
to give parents more control over 
education and is making good on 
that promise now.

While that may be all well 

and good for certain parents, 
Youngkin’s policy has already 
harmed some students, and it 
has the potential to wreak even 
more havoc. At least 31 students 
in Loudoun were humiliated as a 
consequence of Youngkin’s order. 
One could argue that the school 
administrators are to blame in this 
case, since they physically sent the 
kids into auditoriums, but they 
were acting according to public 
health guidelines and the interests 
of a majority of their respective 
school’s families. By signing the 
order, Youngkin gave his contingent 

of supporters in Northern Virginia 
false confidence that they could 
wave a piece of paper and get their 
way. Additionally, I find it difficult 
to believe that wearing a mask 
would have been worse for those 
students than being yanked into 
an auditorium. Sure, they may not 
have liked having to wear a mask all 
day, but it certainly wouldn’t have 
ostracized them from their peers 
to do so. 

I pray that case counts will be 

low in mask-optional schools. If 
Youngkin’s policy keeps people 
healthy, that would be great! But, 
if cases rise, then schools might 
encounter staffing issues that could 
precipitate temporary shifts back 
to remote learning, something 
districts around the country dealt 
with earlier this month. That 
would be unequivocally worse for 
students than a mask requirement 
due to the well documented mental 
health consequences of remote 
learning. 

Beyond the issue of masks, 

the crusade for “parents’ rights” 
raises bigger, long-term concerns 
for public education in Virginia. 
On the campaign trail, Youngkin 
released an ad featuring Laura 
Murphy, a Fairfax County parent 
who sought to ban Toni Morrison’s 
novel “Beloved” from the school’s 
curriculum because of the book’s 
explicit content. 

Gov. Youngkin’s push for “parents’ 

rights” opposes the interests of children

ALEX YEE

Opinion Columnist

THE MICHIGAN DAILY 

EDITORIAL BOARD

