There is no arguing the fact that society and 

moral thinking have undergone a transforma-
tion in recent years. The very concept of sub-
stantial human rights, those that rest upon a 
foundation of universality, was one that did 
not gain momentum until the latter half of the 
20th century. With the evolution of modern 
thinking, debate has been reinvigorated on 
many key issues, one of which has become piv-
otal: torture. But how is torture defined? 

Offering a definition is, in great part, a 

subjective matter and varies depending on 
changing cultural landscapes. What’s seen 
as gruesome and unjust in one region of the 
world may be seen as commonplace in anoth-
er. While discussion on the topic tends away 
from universality, there are some key aspects 
that can be agreed upon: the use of torture 
is done with intent to cause severe bodily or 
psychological harm, is typically carried out by 
authority figures and is undoubtedly a process 
that circumvents all bounds of human moral-
ity. Keeping such principles in mind, how 
can we expect the benefits of human rights 
advancements to take firm hold if such terrible 
acts endure? 

Many may point to the perceived benefits 

of such acts, saying that they are effective in 
extracting vital pieces of information in rela-
tion to issues such as criminal activity, or even 
terrorist plots in some instances. The latter 
notion gained great popularity after the events 
of September 11, in which alarm and emotional 
turmoil were at an all-time high. However, it’s 
important to note that everybody has a differ-
ent threshold for pain — a key component of 
torture practices — and once this threshold is 
crossed, a person is liable to say almost any-
thing to bring an end to their suffering. 

Not only is the quality of the informa-

tion inconsistent and marred, but someone 
who is innocent may confess to doing some-
thing with which they had no association. 
This is problematic on all fronts, and offers 
no true progress when it comes to obtain-
ing true intelligence. Mark Mazzetti of The 
New York Times stated in his piece, “C.I.A. 
Report Found Value of Brutal Interrogation 
Was Inflated,” that the agency conducted an 
internal review, coined the Panetta Review. 

The ensuing report was compiled in order to 
look into the day-to-day interactions between 
prison guards and detainees. 

Accordingly, it was revealed that the 

value of information obtained during “brutal 
interrogations” 
of 
these 
detainees 
was 

repeatedly overstated. How can torture 
continue to be a popular form of gaining 
information when the results often carry 
such little validity and accuracy? If the largest 
argument for torture is flawed at its core, there 
exists a major problem with how intelligence 
agencies and people of authority handle 
inmate interrogation. Henceforth, there’s no 
true practical justification for performing such 
actions, as the human rights violations amount 
to minimal gain — should these violations even 
be occurring in the first place. 

International human rights standards take 

clear stances against the use of torture. As 
stated in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration 
of Human Rights, “No one shall be subjected 
to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading 
treatment or punishment.” 

The term “torture” is used specifically 

in the text of the article. From this evidence 
alone, the use of such coercive action stands 
in direct violation of fundamental modern 
human rights goals. Even one such violation 
of a human being’s rights is grave enough to 
deserve reprimand. As Yousef Munayyer pro-
claimed, “Acknowledgment of torture is not 
accountability for it.” 

It’s not enough to simply recognize these 

inhuman practices are occurring; there 
must be an active effort led internationally 
to 
eradicate 
such 
practices 
from 
the 

governmental and penal systems. The public 
needs to be more critical of government and 
its practices, and we as a people must be 
guided by our morality in the elimination 
of such cruel punishment. Once everyone is 
educated about the true nature and violations 
torture carries with it —and this is true 
at every level of society — then the world 
will advance down a path of upheld rights, 
leaving such heinous aspects of past society 
suspended in memory. 

Tyler Charboneau is an LSA junior.

Opinion

JENNIFER CALFAS

EDITOR IN CHIEF

AARICA MARSH 

and DEREK WOLFE 

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

LEV FACHER

MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 

the University of Michigan since 1890.

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.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, February 5 , 2015

No place for torture

Paying attention to the overcorrections

TYLER CHARBONEAU | VIEWPOINT

S

hortly after the credibility of 
Rolling Stone’s article “A Rape 
on Campus” began unravel-

ing, Slate Maga-
zine published a 
similar long-form 
investigative 
piece. Emily Yof-
fe’s “The College 
Rape Overcorrec-
tion,” 
however, 

went 
generally 

unnoticed, 
par-

ticularly on this 
campus. 
Yoffe’s 

piece also con-
cerned rape accu-
sations dating back to 2012, but her 
piece focused on a male undergrad-
uate student named Drew Sterrett at 
the University of Michigan.

Though the incident in question 

happened in March of 2012, the vic-
tim’s accusation was not made until 
the following summer. Sterrett was 
home for the summer when he was 
contacted by a University official 
and told to make himself available 
for a Skype interview with adminis-
trators, though no reason was given 
to him. When he became concerned 
by the tenor of the interview and 
asked to consult a lawyer, Sterrett 
was told that if he ended the inter-
view in order to seek counsel, that 
fact would be reported to the Uni-
versity and the investigation would 
continue without his input.

In response to the accusations 

against him, Sterrett and his counsel 
compiled affidavits from classmates 
who attested that their words had 
been misconstrued and even falsi-
fied. Sterrett’s roommate, who had 
been in the room the night in ques-
tion, included a statement claim-
ing that the accuser was a willing 
participant and that he would have 
heard and intervened if he had 
heard the woman saying no.

Sterrett’s rebuttal also noted that 

the accuser’s documents failed to 
mention the role her mother played 
in bringing accusations against him 
after she found and read her daugh-
ter’s diary. The accuser’s roommate 
swore in an affidavit on Sterrett’s 
behalf, in which she said the accus-
er’s mother had called her repeat-
edly over the summer, warning her 
not to talk to Sterrett and to take 
her daughter’s side in all proceed-
ings. The accuser’s roommate stat-
ed that she never saw any change 
in the accuser’s behavior from the 
time of the alleged assault until the 
end of freshman year, but rather, 
her personality changed dramati-
cally after her mother found her 
diary and the fall semester began.

Given the compelling support 

Sterrett had responsibly compiled, 
it would seem unfounded for the 
University to take drastic measures. 
Nonetheless, despite his evidence, 
Sterrett was suspended from the 
University until July 2016 — after 
the accuser graduated — and in 
order for the University to consider 
reinstating him, he would have to 
agree that he engaged in sexual mis-
conduct. Regardless of whether or 
not he returned, the finding would 
stay on his permanent record. Ster-
rett has since filed a lawsuit again 
the University alleging that he had 
been deprived of his constitutional 
right to due process.

Sexual assault at colleges and 

universities is a serious problem, 
and the attention it is currently 
receiving is the direct result of the 
longstanding history of the callous 
and dismissive 
treatment 
of 

victims. 
Too 

often, victims 
who 
come 

forward 
are 

doubted 
or 

dismissed, and 
those respon-
sible are not 
held account-
able. 
While 

it 
is 
agreed 

upon that those who commit serious 
sexual crimes must be held respon-
sible, the methods through which to 
implement the necessary standards 
remain debated.

The Department of Education 

has begun developing new rules to 
address women’s safety on college 
campuses, some of which have been 
turned into law by Congress, with 
more legislation underway. Howev-
er, in the necessary effort to protect 
victims of sexual assault, the proce-
dures that are being put into place on 
college campuses across the United 
States automatically presume the 
guilt of the accused. With encour-
agement from federal officials, col-
leges have been quick to institute 
solutions to sexual violence against 
women that, in turn, abrogate the 
civil rights of men — the University 
of Michigan included.

As The New York Times’ Jed 

Rubenfeld wrote, in reference to a 
group of schools that includes the 
University of Michigan, “mistaken 
findings of guilt are a real possibil-
ity because the federal government 
is forcing schools to use a lowered 
evidentiary standard — the ‘more 
likely than not’ standard, which 
is much less exacting than crimi-
nal law’s ‘proof beyond a reason-

able doubt’ requirement — at their 
rape trials.” Because of this drastic 
reduction in burden of proof, 28 
Harvard Law School professors 
have come forward condemning the 
university’s new sexual assault pro-
cedure, claiming they lack the “most 
basic elements of fairness and due 
process” and for being “overwhelm-
ingly stacked against the accused.”

The 
University 
of 
Michigan 

should be urged to keep this in mind 
as it continues to review and reas-
sess the University’s own policies. 
Sexual assault on campus should be 
handled no differently than sexual 
assault in a court of law. As proposed 
by Rubenfeld in his opinion piece, 
the college hearing process should 
be integrated with law enforcement. 
While many college students choose 
to report incidents of sexual assault 
to their school, and not the police, 

universities alone 
should not deter-
mine the punish-
ment, 
and 
vice 

versa — in part 
because most vic-
tims are reluctant 
to report assault to 
the police.

Rubenfeld 

argued the impor-
tance of new train-
ing for the police 

and prosecutors, as well as the 
employment of special law enforce-
ment liaison officers who know how 
to respectfully receive and vigorous-
ly act on sexual assault complaints. 
Everything possible should be done 
to encourage victims to participate 
in a criminal investigation, includ-
ing colleges providing students with 
an attorney to accompany them to a 
meeting with the police to help them 
report the crime and ensure they are 
treated properly. The hearing pro-
cess should be put in the hands of 
trained investigatory personnel and 
people with criminal law experi-
ence, not University staff under the 
supervision of a Title IX coordinator.

While we need to adopt an effec-

tive system through which to prop-
erly represent the victims of sexual 
assault, it cannot be one that ignores 
the rights of the accused. The issue 
at hand has a long-standing history 
of imbalance, rife with injustice for 
victims of rape, but the solution is 
not to tip the scales in the opposite 
direction. Consideration and reeval-
uation should go into all pertinent 
university policies, as well as legis-
lation and federal laws.

— Lauren McCarthy can be 

reached at laurmc@umich.edu. 

LAUREN 
MCCARTHY

Sexual assault 
at college and 
universities is a 
serious problem.

I

t’s a Thursday night at Good 
Time Charley’s. Well, tech-
nically, it’s Friday morning, 

but my table is 
too busy catch-
ing up to notice 
the time. We’re 
a strange group 
by 
Ann 
Arbor 

standards, 
tied 

together not by a 
shared freshman 
dorm or major or 
fraternity, but by a 
collective love for 
Washington, D.C.

Last January, we left our friends 

in Ann Arbor to live with 24 rela-
tively random strangers in the 
nation’s capital, started interning 
across the District and learned our 
way around the city. This January, 
the Michigan in Washington Win-
ter 2014 cohort is back at Michigan, 
substituting fishbowls for the $8 
Whale Pails we grew to love at our 
favorite Thursday-night spot, Sign 
of the Whale. Our last get-together 
was a poster session and post-D.C. 
dinner in September coordinated by 
the program; our group’s Facebook 
discussions have revolved around 
organizing a reunion ever since. 
Finally, this past Thursday night at 
Charley’s emerged as the winner for 
our anticipated reunion.

Seeing these people again brings 

back memories of running around 
the monuments, going to Wizards 
and Caps games, reliving freshman 
year through weekly dorm parties 
and inevitably ending up at Madhat-
ter every Friday and Saturday night. 
In D.C., we spent Saturday after-
noons checking out the cherry blos-
soms and watching the giant panda 
cub at the zoo. We all tried sneaking 
out of the Monday-night speaker 
series after grabbing free dinner, 

with mixed success. We spent week-
nights sharing stories about our 
internships while making dinner. 
Getting stopped on your way to class 
because the President was headed 
home and the roads needed to be 
cleared was normal while living 
four blocks from the White House.

Seeing this crew also reminds me 

of what is to come this fall: squish-
ing into the train on early-morning 
commutes, buying only as many gro-
ceries as two reusable bags will hold 
because six blocks stand between 
Whole Foods and the refrigera-
tor, 
and 
coordinating 
weekend 

plans because in a big city every-
one doesn’t 
live 
within 

a 20-minute 
walk. 
Col-

lege is end-
ing soon, and 
no 
matter 

how excited 
I am to head 
back to D.C., 
I still wish I 
could freeze 
time 
and 

keep everything the way it is, with a 
blank planner providing a lot of time 
to meet up with friends outside of 
the few random natural science and 
humanities credits I took in order to 
get my diploma.

The conversation turns to what 

we plan on doing once we gradu-
ate, because it’s second semester of 
senior year and it is impossible not 
to get asked this at least once a day. 
For some, it’s law school. It’s back to 
D.C. for others. A few are headed to 
jobs across the United States. In a few 
months, when we’ve settled into our 
new roles, the conversation will focus 
on how we plan to meet back up.

I can’t help but think about this 

reunion at Charley’s as a trial run 

for what happens after gradua-
tion, when we all leave the Big 
House together one last time. We’ve 
struggled to meet up on campus for 
months, and most of us still live in 
Ann Arbor — imagine how much 
more difficult it will be to see each 
other once we graduate.

This isn’t the only circle of friends 

I’ll be missing after graduation, 
either. I have my Ford School friends 
too, my sorority sisters and my cur-
rent roommates who I’ve known 
since freshman year. Each of these 
groups will try to make it back to Ann 
Arbor for a football game this fall, 
but how many people won’t be able 

to make it because 
of a work obligation, 
a pre-planned vaca-
tion or a grad-school 
paper? What happens 
when I’m the one who 
won’t be able to go?

A 
lot 
of 
the 

memories we laughed 
about 
at 
Charley’s 

on Thursday haven’t 
surfaced in a while. 
I 
don’t 
see 
these 

people every day in class or at work 
or at home, so I forget about the 
stupid stuff we did until we start 
to reminisce. I wonder what other 
things I don’t remember – what other 
memories from living in my sorority 
house or in South Quad I don’t think 
about until I see my friends and we 
start chatting. After graduation, 
when I don’t see these people for 
months on end, will the memories 
still come back to me as vividly when 
we finally get together? These are 
the moments that make college more 
than just a collection of classes and 
clubs. I don’t want to forget them.

— Katie Koziara can be reached 

at kkoziara@umich.edu.

Reunions — A trial run

KATIE 
KOZIARA

Liberal thought police

TO THE DAILY:

There is now a red poster outside the 

Michigan Union touting a supposed smiley 
face whose lips are silenced (literally) and 
underneath are the words, “Liberal Thought 
Police.”

Well, talk about the need for a trigger 

warning. This poster mentions some lecture 
next week by a man named Jonah Goldberg. 
After Googling him, it turns out he’s a conser-
vative editor for National Review Online and 
wrote a book called “Liberal Fascism.”

And these people, the oxymoronic Young 

Americans for Freedom, have the white het-
eronormative privilege to feature this kind 

of speaker — a reactionary, free-market fun-
damentalist — and then condescendingly say 
that there are “liberal thought police” among 
us.

The fact that this University now has stu-

dents who will feature this speaker seems to 
strain far from what social justice demands 
— protecting oppressed identity groups from 
what they deem offensive.

I say that all decent liberals should go to 

Rackham Amphitheater, Feb. 12 at 7 p.m. to 
listen to Goldberg’s right-wing gobbledygook 
and then confront him in the Q&A and 
unmask the intellectual fascist this man and 
the people who support him really are.

Ryan Shinkel
LSA Senior

Send letterS to: tothedaily@michigandaily.com
LETTER TO THE EDITOR 

I can’t help but think 

about this reunion 
at Charley’s as a trial 
run for what happens 

after graduation. 

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and viewpoints. 

Letters should be fewer than 300 words while viewpoints should be 550-850 words. 

Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation. to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Devin Eggert, David Harris, 
Jordyn Kay, Aarica Marsh, Victoria Noble, Michael Paul, 

Allison Raeck, Melissa Scholke, Michael Schramm, Matthew 

Seligman, Linh Vu, Mary Kate Winn, Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

 
 

— Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum in a statement on Feb. 4 after 

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder announced he would not appeal the court’s decision to 

recognize the nearly 300 same-sex couples who were married in March 2014.
“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

Love has won today for the 300 

same-sex marriages that took place 
last spring, affording these couples 

the rights they deserve, like all 
other families under the law.”

