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