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.”