I was raised to be a firm believer
in passion-fueled education and bold
aspirations. Coming from a family
full of dreamers, I was never told
who I could or could not be.
My
passions
have
certainly
evolved as the years have gone by,
but I have been tied to passion-
driven endeavors for as long as I
can remember. My young mind was
convinced that, no matter the field
of study, I would pursue a college
education rooted in my passions.
Unexpectedly, my view in favor
of spirited education leading to a
passionate career was challenged
when I recently stumbled upon
information
regarding
the
HarperCollins union strike. The
more I read about the strike, the
more I was driven to reevaluate
my fervent opinions regarding the
indispensable nature of passion.
When following one’s passion
for books and publishing results in
hungry nights, unfair wages and a
blatant disregard for basic human
needs, it becomes time to recognize
that, for most, passion isn’t enough.
Not only are underpaid employees
working overtime, many within
the publishing industry face overt
racism. This is a highly prejudiced
workplace for people who are just
as skilled as their more privileged
peers, but suffer as a result of factors
that lie outside of their control.
The
American
publishing
industry is largely dominated by a
set of publishing houses commonly
referred to as the “Big Five.”
Penguin Random House, Simon &
Schuster, HarperCollins, Hachette
Book Group and Macmillan have
a chokehold on the publishing
industry. Their domination of the
industry has led it to become an
oligopoly of sorts and, even if this
isn’t unique to publishing, these
giants have perpetuated a systemic
lack of diversity and employment
opportunities. Instead of lifting
up new and marginalized voices,
the industry remains in a vicious,
albeit comfortable, cycle. Publishing
companies avoid the risk of betting
their money on books they’re not
convinced will become bestsellers
and, in their place, invest in new
releases by established authors and
publications, leaving close to no
space for up-and-coming writers
and editors to find their place within
the industry.
It is not an unknown fact
that the publishing industry is
predominantly white. In a study
conducted by Lee & Low Books in
2015, it was revealed that 79% of
the industry identified as white.
Thus, it is undeniable that specific
groups of people in publishing get
an upper hand. Perhaps for some,
it’s easy to claim that following one’s
passions is the career path to follow.
Opportunities are made available
to them as a result of their inherent
privilege, and their reluctance to
admit this worsens the issue.
Best-selling American thriller
author James Patterson, for one,
once claimed that white men face
a form of racism within publishing,
making it hard for them to find
work. Claims like these seem
almost laughable when expressed
by a white man who has had more
than 200 novels published since
1976. His claims were rebutted by
other white male authors like John
Scalzi and Jeff VanderMeer, who
both admitted to facing minimal
difficulty when searching for book
deals. Roseanne A. Brown, a young
adult and science fiction author, also
opined on the situation, tweeting
in a sarcastic manner about how
she “(wishes) to struggle” as James
Patterson does.
Evidently, when it seems like
the industrial giants that dominate
the career path you desire to follow
will never give you the time of day,
working in writing and publishing
becomes a different story. The
aforementioned
author
Brown,
for
instance,
is
a
best-selling
HarperCollins author, but to get to
where she is now, she had to start
writing without the security of
having an agent or a book deal, as
she mentions in an interview with
WNDB. She had to believe that
her innate passion and talent were
enough. Luckily, she was able to
work her way up, but rags to riches
stories are extremely hard to come
by and, honestly, kind of disturbing
due to the conflicting values that
often accompany them.
Seeking to quantify the unequal
demographic
distribution
in
publishing,
McGill
University
professor Richard Jean So and
Gus Wezerek, a New York Times
graphics editor, published an opinion
column for the Times on “just how
white” the book industry is. After
compiling a data set of around 8,000
fiction books published by Big Five
American publishing houses and
identifying the race of the authors
of 7,124 books, it was revealed that
only 5% were written by non-white
people. To worsen the situation, only
two out of the five big publishing
houses have ever released author
diversity statistics, those being
Penguin
Random
House
and
Hachette Book Group.
Jobs in publishing are frequently
cited as highly enjoyable, both by
personal testament and public
claims. If you don’t want to or can’t
be an author but have a love for
words, editing is promoted as the
next best thing. What is hidden
behind this wall of seemingly
perfect employment is a shocking,
unknown truth for most.
From FaceTime and instant
messaging to the plethora of
social media platforms on the
internet, “interconnected” has
perhaps become the most fitting
term to describe contemporary
society. And indeed, with our
ability to communicate with
anyone at the click of a button,
we now have more opportunities
to connect than ever before. All
of this considered, one question
remains:
Why
do
so
many
Americans feel more lonely now
than ever?
The answer may be rooted
in
the
decline
of
genuine
and
authentic
relationships,
particularly
romantic
relationships. A study conducted
at the University of California,
Berkeley
revealed
that
the
number of Americans who do not
have a “steady romantic partner”
has increased by 50% since 1986.
Many experts are attributing
this statistic to the rise of social
media and casual dating apps,
with nearly half of young adults
in the U.S. reporting having used
an online dating platform. Apps
such as Tinder, Hinge, Bumble
and OkCupid are all marketed
with the promise to increase your
chances of finding love. However,
the numbers don’t seem to add
up: Despite the high volume of
individuals who use these dating
sites (about 53 million in 2022),
only 12% of these individuals
reported eventually forming a
committed relationship.
So, why is this the case? The
ultimate goal of online dating
apps should be to function as a
conduit in creating committed
relationships,
right?
Wrong.
The realm of online dating has
become a multi-billion dollar
industry — an industry that
profits primarily off of user
addiction, especially by keeping
its users single. The way that
the industry accomplishes this
is twofold, relying on qualities
of
gamification
and
what
psychologist
Barry
Schwartz
refers to as the “paradox of
choice.”
The presence of the choice
paradox in online dating is
perhaps best understood through
the analogy of online shopping.
Studies have shown that as
shoppers are exposed to more
options for potential purchases,
they
are
paradoxically
less
likely to be satisfied with their
ultimate decision. As our brains
become inundated with a variety
of choices, we often experience
choice paralysis: An anxiety-
induced
state
that
prevents
us from making a resounding
decision.
On
Tinder,
the
user’s
experience of choice overload has
become a frequent occurrence. In
the emergence of what some are
calling “serial swipers,” many
users can be seen displaying
strong hesitations to commit to
a singular option due to fears
of missing out on a potentially
better one.
The
infiltration
of
the
choice paradox into the realm
of relationships is especially
dangerous. Unlike the case of
online shopping, users aren’t
choosing
between
products,
they’re choosing between people.
The resulting world of online
dating has become a breeding
ground for objectification, sexual
harassment
and
insecurity,
as
choices
are
increasingly
influenced by abundance and
appearances rather than genuine
compatibility.
The
other
driving
factor
behind the addictive quality of
these dating apps is gamification.
Natasha Dow Schüll, author of
“Addiction by Design,” defines
gamification as when “developers
loosely apply game elements to
other aspects of life, to capture
attention, motivate engagement
and
drive
revenue.”
Schüll
explains that these dating apps
are indifferent to positive user
outcomes, such as committed
relationships or marriage.
Rather, they are driven by
the ultimate goal of increasing
revenue, and ensuring that their
users remain on these dating
apps is one of the best ways to do
so. Accordingly, these platforms
are engineered to be addictive,
utilizing the same game-like
qualities found in gambling and
slot machines to keep audiences
engaged.
The
most
tangible
example of this can be found
in the concept of the “infinite
scroll.”
The “infinite scroll” is a
feature used on most social
media
networks
and
dating
apps that allows users to scroll
continuously between posts and
profiles, rather than clicking
through various pages. Hinging
upon what psychologists have
termed as “unit bias,” the ability
to
endlessly
scroll
exploits
the natural desire of humans
to complete a defined unit of
something.
When
the
unit
becomes
undefined
(or
in
this
case,
infinite), the brain exhibits an
addictive response, urging us
to keep scrolling in hopes of
reaching a nonexistent point of
completion. It functions similarly
to a slot machine: The point at
which a user will receive their
theoretical reward is undefined,
so they continue to buy into the
system in the hopes that they’ll
hit the jackpot on their next term.
The ethical ramifications of
introducing this concept into the
world of romantic relationships
are appalling. As users continue
to
endlessly
swipe
through
apps like Tinder and Hinge, the
reward that they’re seeking isn’t
simply monetary: It is a real
person with a real life that they
are interacting with.
The
instant
gratification
offered by each ‘match’ causes
the idea of exclusivity to appear
unsettling, with many individuals
remaining addicted to these apps
even in committed relationships.
Specifically, 30% of Tinder users
are married, and another 12%
are in relationships. Because of
this, the online dating world has
become a hotbed for cheating
and noncommittal sex. Users
find themselves immersed in an
endless, twisted game, where
matches and hookups function as
points to keep score.
All
of
these
conditions
have combined to create an
online
dating
environment
that is less than ideal. And
unfortunately,
these
negative
impacts have been shown to
disproportionately affect women.
Studies have shown that women
are significantly more likely to
experience online abuse and
harassment on these platforms
than men. Specifically, in a study
of women who had used some
type of dating platform in the last
15 years, over one-third of them
reported that they were sexually
assaulted by someone they met
on one of these apps. Reports of
lowered self-esteem and feelings
of objectification are also not
uncommon. The ability of users
to create an idealized, “filtered”
version of themselves online can
promote
unhealthy
thinking:
Users are increasingly being
conditioned to think that this
“filtered” version of themselves is
the only one that is reasonable to
present to the outside world.
So, do these claims that the
“dating
apocalypse”
is
upon
us actually hold any validity?
The
answer
is
complicated.
While the rise of social media
and online dating apps have
perpetuated a strong hook-up
culture, a growing awareness of
the toxicity of these platforms
has also created an equally strong
counter-movement.
Mounting
pressure as a result of sexual
harassment and lack of corporate
oversight has spread awareness
about the issue, fostering further
research into how to correct the
faulty nature of these apps. For
the foreseeable future, however,
it seems as though these apps are
here to stay. Accordingly, users
have a choice to make: In a world
that is becoming increasingly
digitized, it is up to each of us to
decide whether we want our love
lives to fall into that category as
well.
Opinion
Wednesday, February 1, 2023 — 9
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Modern romance is dead, and
Tinder killed it
On Dec. 7, 2022, Central Student
Government
unanimously
passed a resolution encouraging
the University of Michigan to
include the cost of laundry in
room and board. Though well
intentioned, there are significant
climate, capacity and efficiency
issues posed by this proposal. By
untethering laundry from market
forces, students are incentivized
to use laundry for, say, a single
shirt, which would both be
extremely
wasteful
of
water
while simultaneously blocking
other students from using the
laundry machines. While CSG
raises important points about the
inability of students to offset the
cost of laundry with financial aid,
their proposed system is not the
way to achieve equity. We, instead,
suggest that the University could
include a certain number of
additional Blue Bucks in room
and board, and ensure those Blue
Bucks can be used for laundry.
Alternatively, they could adopt
a policy in the framework of the
printing stipend, wherein every
freshman is given some quantity
of free laundry.
CSG’s plan calls to increase
student housing costs by $100 (to
a number seemingly chosen based
on, among other sources, a 2014
article in The University Daily
Kansan) at a flat fee for every
student — allowing financial aid
to cover the cost of laundry for
eligible students. In return, the
University would make laundry
machines available free of charge
to
all
M-Housing
residents.
Both this Editorial Board and
CSG acknowledge that laundry
reform is necessary; there exists
compelling reasons for eligible
students to be able to use financial
aid to cover the cost of laundry,
alleviating some of the hidden
costs associated with college.
CSG’s proposed system would
create a laundry system similar
to the dining halls: Students
pay a large up-front cost at the
beginning of the year and are free
to use unlimited swipes through
the term. Yet the prospect of
giving students unlimited laundry
swipes raises several concerns.
Without the cost to limit student
laundry use, crowding in laundry
rooms would increase as well as
the amount of wasted water and
detergent.
Luckily, there are multiple
solutions to this problem that
allow students to: A) use financial
aid on laundry costs to utilize
market forces to prevent overuse,
and B) not be penalized for
frequenting the laundry rooms
less often. It’s a system we are all
familiar with: Blue Bucks — but
with an increased allowance to
account for laundry.
Raising the Blue Bucks limit
to be inclusive of laundry fees
supports the variability with
which students do laundry, and is
already used by other universities.
An additional, say, $50 raise in the
allotted Blue Bucks per semester
places more autonomy in students’
hands. Students would have the
power to delegate a portion of Blue
Bucks to spend on cleaning their
wardrobe and use the remaining
balance
on
other
University
amenities.
In
this
instance,
students wouldn’t feel compelled
to compensate for the flat fee they
already spent on laundry to “get
their money’s worth.” The Blue
Bucks alternative also teaches
freshmen important skills about
budgeting for what they need and
spending on what they want.
Because Blue Bucks is already
a campus-wide currency loaded
onto one’s Mcard, there would be
little-to-no extra transition costs
to add $50 to every student living
in campus housing’s accounts. The
financial and software systems
are already in place to support
laundry subsidization, and it is
clear that this alternative can be
easily adopted and trackable as
early as next semester.
Despite the merits of a Blue
Bucks increase, this solution is,
in part, fraught. By tying laundry
to meal plans via Blue Bucks,
you run the risk of a freshman
— completely new to the world
of budgeting — unloading their
entire laundry allotment on Panda
Express and Sweetwaters within
the first week of the semester.
Fortunately, another option, an
independent
stipend
solution,
could be to create a separate fund
for laundry, similar to the student
printing budget.
U-M students currently receive
a $24 printing budget per term that
can be utilized on any University
printer. Students are also able to
add more funds to their printing
budget if they reach their $24
limit. If the University determined
that each student could receive a
$50 laundry budget per semester,
for example, market forces would
still limit laundry room use and
congestion, and frequent washers
would still have the option to
add more funds to their laundry
budget throughout the semester.
Students
would
have
fewer
options to use excess laundry
funds, but by implementing a
stipend exclusively for laundry,
we eliminate the risk of spending
laundry money for other costs,
such as eating out.
The
new
CSG
proposal
does not address the cost of
additional resources needed on
the periphery of just one washing
and drying cycle, including dryer
sheets, detergent, bleach, fabric
softener and more. An increased
Blue Bucks allowance accounts
for these additional costs because
of its premise that students will
ultimately buy what they need
— including cleaning supplies. If
CSG hoped to minimize laundry
inequality on campus, they could
use some of their substantial
budget to subsidize detergent
costs.
There may be better solutions
to this issue than the stipend
or
Blue
Bucks
alternatives;
however, the CSG proposal for
complete laundry subsidization
lacks a deeper consideration of
student habits, transition costs
and sustainability. To promote a
more inclusive and cost-effective
mechanism for facilitating dorm
living, the University needs to
reconsider, in some way, the rising
cost of laundry services. And with
an endowment of over $10 billion
more than neighboring, free-
laundry institutions like Michigan
State University and the Ohio
State University, the University’s
time to come up with a solution
is up. As cleaner habits lead to
improved academic performance,
an effective plan to diminish
barriers
to
laundry
would
proliferate the success of students
in the classroom going forward.
TATE MOYER
Opinion Columnist
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.
SHANNON STOCKING
AND KATE WEILAND
Editors-in-Chief
QUIN ZAPOLI AND
JULIAN BARNARD
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
Ammar Ahmad
Julian Barnard
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino
Ben Davis
Shubhum Giroti
Devon Hesano
Sophia Lehrbaum
Olivia Mouradian
Siddharth Parmar
Rushabh Shah
Zhane Yamin
Nikhil Sharma
Lindsey Spencer
Evan Stern
Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky
Alex Yee
Quin Zapoli
JULIA VERKLAN
MALONEY AND ZOE
STORER
Managing Editors
From The Daily: CSG’s laundry
proposal is well-intentioned,
but wasteful
THE MICHIGAN DAILY
EDITORIAL BOARD
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Is passion enough? Reflections on the American publishing industry
GRACIELA BATLLE CESTERO
Opinion Columnist
Design by Samantha Sweig