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.”