Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
10 — Wednesday, October 19, 2022
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
“T
he
helicopter
parent” is a term
that has gained
significant popularity over
the past several years. It
was coined for the parent
who deems it their personal
responsibility to be involved
in
every
aspect
of
their
child’s life. The duties of the
helicopter
parent
include
endlessly prying about their
child’s friends, relationships
and, often, their whereabouts.
For
years,
technology
did
not offer a means for the
child
surveillance
that
helicopter
parents
desire,
but today — in the age of
advanced smartphones — a
variety of tracking apps exist,
and they act as the perfect
way for anxious parents to
have constant eyes on their
children.
One
app
in
particular,
Life360,
has
garnered
significant attention — good
and bad — since its launch
in 2008. Before examining
its ethics, it’s important to
understand how exactly an
app like Life360 works. It
is essentially a GPS tracker,
putting your child in your
pocket at all times. Since
young adults today spend so
much time with their phone on
their person, digital tracking
is an easy way to have constant
access to their location. The
app even allows users to
pinpoint specific locations, so
that they are notified when
their child arrives at school, or
when they return home.
There are clearly safety
benefits to an app like this.
When teenagers are out and
about
with
their
friends,
it can give parents intense
peace of mind to always have
their location. The app’s paid
version even offers impressive
safety features that monitor a
user’s driving, and can detect
if a crash has occurred while
simultaneously
dispatching
emergency services. Life360
has even managed to locate
some missing kids, so it is by
no means the devil. However,
questions have been raised
regarding its invasiveness.
Pre-digital
era,
parents
didn’t have access to child
surveillance apps. Many would
tell their kids to be home at a
certain time — perhaps before
dark — and if they chose to
disrespect
that
rule,
they
would be barred from hanging
out with their friends in the
future. Obviously, in a world
without fancy tracking devices,
parents didn’t have much of a
choice but to put their trust in
their child. Still, this parenting
model allows for something
that helicopter parenting does
not — the benefit of the doubt.
Apps like Life360 undermine
this very principle, assuming
the worst of their kids before
they have any reason to.
Young
adulthood
is
supposed to be a time for
self-exploration.
Many
are
yearning for things that are
key to their future happiness
— a sense of independence, an
established identity. However,
it is impossible for a child to
gain any form of self-reliance
if
their
time
away
from
their parents is constantly
punctuated by anxious texts
and calls facilitated by always
knowing
where
they
are.
Tracking apps rob kids of the
very thing they need most:
space to grow up.
This can have irrevocable
negative effects. As kids, we
are like sponges, absorbing the
world around us and, oftentimes,
hanging on our parent’s every
word. We carry the rules and
boundaries that are set in the
childhood home into adulthood.
Intense monitoring by parents
communicates to a child in a
not-so-subtle way that the world
is a dangerous and unforgiving
place, and that they will only
be safe if Mom and Dad are
standing over their shoulder,
watching their every move. This
can have starkly negative effects
on a child’s mental health.
Developmental psychologist
Kathleen Jodl — a lecturer in
the Department of Psychology
— is wary of the effects that
tracking apps can have on
adolescents. She emphasized
that
this
generation
in
particular
may
be
more
susceptible to the app’s effects.
“The data suggests that this is
a generation with high levels
of anxiety,” she said. “And
these kinds of things can
feed into that, and cause false
perceptions of dangers that
might not actually be there.”
Countless
studies
have
shown
this
to
be
true.
According to the American
Psychological Association, just
45% of Gen Z reports their
mental health as being good.
Older generations fared much
better, with 56% of Millennials
and 70% of Boomers claiming
good mental health. Of course,
this anxiety did not appear out
of thin air. Gen Z has been given
plenty to worry about — school
shootings, a global pandemic,
climate change — and these
problems don’t appear to be
going anywhere. Instead, we
have been forced to grow up
with them as a fact of life.
Invasive use of apps like
Life360 means that instead of
parents easing their children’s
anxiety about the world around
them, many add to it. With the
use of tracking apps at an all
time high, parents are implicitly
telling their kids that they
should feel anxious about the
world around them, because
they are anxious about it too.
It is even more concerning
that, for many, the tracking
does not end with childhood.
Families who are dedicated
users of Life360 will often
continue to track their kids
into
their
college
years.
The app allows them to see
whether their child is in class
or partying in a frat house.
While this will give parents
grappling with empty nest
syndrome some piece of mind,
it comes at a price. College
students are supposed to be
learning to live independently
— a task that comes with its
own unique set of challenges
— but if parents are monitoring
every move they make, they are
robbed of this rite of passage.
So, how do we loosen this
digital leash? While many
would say that ceasing to
track your child altogether is
the answer, many are entirely
uncomfortable with this. The
solution may then arise from
the way parents use the app. An
LSA sophomore who wishes to
keep their thoughts on Life360
anonymous said that they do
not feel their privacy is being
violated by their family’s use of
the app. Their family decided
together to download Life360
in order to provide some peace
of mind as they moved away to
college. “My family personally,
we have an understanding,”
they said, “it’s okay if I go
offline for a while. They trust
me enough to know that if my
location is off, it’s not because
I’m doing something unsafe.”
They aren’t alone. Many
have reported their family’s
use of the app as something
they are totally comfortable
with.
However,
in
order
for this to be the case, the
app needs to be used as
a
safety
precaution,
not
as a means for control or
punishment.
Realistically,
if a child feels as though
their
parents
don’t
trust
them, downloading Life360
will only feed that belief,
not solve it. To use the app
noninvasively means setting
boundaries — likely to look
different for each family —
through an open conversation
between the parents and the
child.
Most
importantly,
the
child’s
independence
and freedom need to be
preserved,
particularly
in
young adulthood. This means
refraining
from
checking
the app 24/7, or immediately
calling when your child’s
location has moved all but an
inch. Instead, choose to trust
your child until they give
you a reason not to — and it
is more than likely they will
trust you in return.
Life 360: Friend or foe?
REBECCA SMITH
Opinion Contributor
F
ew
issues
are
as
polarizing in American
political discourse as
affirmative action. Lying at
the center of the national
conversation
on
diversity
and inclusion, many ardently
defend it as a pillar of the
U.S. collegiate system, while
others strongly oppose its
unmeritocratic principles and
argue that other methods exist
to better promote diversity on
campuses. Since its inception
in
the
1960s,
affirmative
action has been entrenched in
controversy, yet has managed
to survive in some form at
many major universities. With
the Supreme Court set to hear
arguments
on
affirmative
action this month and likely to
finally strike it down this term,
however, it’s worth evaluating
both the positive and negative
aspects of affirmative action
to see if there’s room for
compromise on future policies
to better promote diversity in
higher education.
Of
all
the
educational
institutions
in
America,
few
have been as directly involved in
the history of affirmative action
as the University of Michigan.
After years of incorporating race
into its admissions criteria, the
University’s affirmative action
policies were first thrust into the
national spotlight in the 2003
Supreme Court case Gratz v.
Bollinger. In a 6-3 decision, the
Supreme Court ruled that while
the University of Michigan’s
Office
of
Undergraduate
Admissions could use race as a
factor in their decisions, it must
individually
assess
applicants
rather
than
automatically
boosting the candidacy of any
underrepresented
minority.
Shortly
after
the
decision,
support began to build for an
outright
ban
on
affirmative
action, culminating in a 2006
statewide vote that struck down
any preferential treatment by race
in public education. After a lower
court set aside this referendum,
the
University
again
lost
a
Supreme Court case in 2014 when
the justices voted 6-2 to reinstate
the law, banning the use of racial
criteria in University admissions.
Since
then,
University
administration has worked to
find alternative ways to diversify
the campus without utilizing
affirmative action. Despite their
efforts, however, the percentage
of Black students on campus has
decreased from 7% to 4% since the
2006 vote, leading some to argue
that, while imperfect, affirmative
action is the most effective way
for the University to maintain
diversity. While there are many
arguments in favor of affirmative
action, perhaps the most common
one stresses the importance of
creating
equitable
admissions
standards
that
account
for
racial inequality and differences
in
opportunity.
Secondarily,
supporters
emphasize
the
importance of exposing students
to
diverse
perspectives
on
campus and creating a culture of
diverse leadership that can draw
from their experiences to make
better decisions.
Though these are all strong
arguments
that
capture
the
positive aspects of affirmative
action, there are also many valid
critiques
that
uncover
some
unsavory
components.
While
opinion has shifted over time, a
majority of Americans in each
racial group still believe that
race and ethnicity should not be
factored into college acceptance
decisions.
Most
arguments
against affirmative are rooted in
ideas of fairness and meritocracy.
In recent years, the most
common criticism of affirmative
action has been its negative effects
on Asians. On average, when
taking the SAT, Asian Americans
must score 270 points higher than
Latino students and 450 points
higher than African American
students “to be considered equal
in
the
application
process.”
This, in addition to disparities
in the way the personality and
achievements of Asian students
are evaluated compared to other
minorities, has led many to
contend that affirmative action
helps some minorities at the
expense of others.
In some instances, the existence
of affirmative action has led to
minority students — that are just
as deserving of their admission
as others on campus — finding
themselves labeled as ‘diversity
admits.’
Even
when
explicit
discrimination does not take place,
imposter
syndrome
stemming
from this perception negatively
impacts many individuals.
When asked about his views
on affirmative action, Michigan
College Republicans Chairman
Matthew Zhou summarized a
viewpoint espoused by many on
the right. “Although affirmative
action was instituted with well
intent, the program serves as pure
theater today.” Zhou continued to
say that “most people who benefit
from
affirmative
action
are
wealthy, coming from relatively
privileged
backgrounds.
As
such, affirmative action doesn’t
actually even the playing field,
while holding back people who
don’t come from ‘minority’ races.”
This complex web of affirmative
action based on legacy status,
purported athletic performance
and race has caused an originally
well intentioned system to lose its
way.
This argument is premised on
the existence of a class divide that
some posit is deeper than the race
divide in this country, leading
many to argue for the expansion
of programs that bridge the
economic gap in the admissions
process.
Overall, while affirmative
action
has
tremendously
benefited
society
since
the
1960s
by
integrating
universities
and
providing
opportunities for millions of
underrepresented individuals.
That being said, we are a
much different nation than
we
were
in
the
1960s,
both
demographically
and
socioeconomically.
As
we
prepare for the nation to make
an abrupt transition away from
race-conscious
admissions,
it’s important to consider the
flaws of affirmative action
and how we can constructively
address them.
The University of Michigan
is in a unique position during
this pivotal moment, as the
school has operated without
affirmative action since 2006.
While programs like the Go
Blue Guarantee have been a
success, in order to improve
minority
representation,
the
University must do a better job
with outreach in disadvantaged
communities. Many qualified
potential admits are not accepted
to the University because of
the simple fact that they never
consider
applying,
thinking
that it would be too expensive
or that they would not get in.
By shifting its strategy from
increasing
diversity
through
changing admissions standards
to expanding the socioeconomic
demographics of its applicant
pool, the University can make
strides
toward
achieving
diversity while maintaining a
high caliber of students.
Finding a middle ground
on affirmative action
NIKHIL SHARMA
Opinion Columnist
Design by Sara Fang
Ambika Tripathi/Opinion Cartoonist
Design by Phoebe Unwin