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