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 — Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller, Payton Luokkala, 

Aarica Marsh, Victoria Noble, Michael Paul, Anna Polumbo-Levy, 

Allison Raeck, Melissa Scholke, Michael Schramm, Matthew 

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

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

A

fter reading the Daily’s spe-
cial report and editorial on 
University procedures for 

responding 
to 

reports of sexual 
assault last week, 
I 
was 
enraged 

and disheartened. 
My 
countenance 

hardened into a 
piercing glare as 
I walked around 
campus 
last 

Wednesday morn-
ing. 
Immense 

aggravation 
and 

embarrassment consumed me as I 
realized the University would, yet 
again, add to the prevalent narrative 
of sexual assault permeating college 
campuses. I was dismayed at hearing 
the University associated with sex-
ual assault and inaction. I was tired 
of feeling as if the threat of sexual 
assault continuously looms on college 
campuses nationwide — especially 
when definitions of consent remain 
immersed in misinterpretations.

I tossed around a multitude of 

heated musings: Why can’t we settle 
on an explicit definition to protect 
every individual? Why — as a popula-
tion of highly educated young adults 
— is establishing consent shrouded in 
uncertainty? Why is this knowledge 
gap so apparent as students enter 
college? Shouldn’t these issues have 
been discussed earlier in our lives?

The last question prompted me 

to consider my own experiences. 
I asked friends to describe what 
definition of consent they were 
exposed to and when that exposure 
occurred. However, when they redi-
rected the question to me, I was at a 
loss. I couldn’t even remember how 
old I was when I learned anything 
remotely resembling the recently 
disputed definitions of consent.

I knew I had learned about prac-

ticing safe sex. I remembered numer-
ous lectures about waiting until 
marriage. I vividly remembered 
learning biological processes respon-
sible for pregnancy. I recalled discus-
sions about “saying no,” but knowing 
a clear definition of what actually 
constitutes consent wasn’t apparent 
until I came to college — which is 
extremely problematic.

The issue of consent needs to be 

addressed far before students cross 
the threshold into their first dorm 
room on move-in day. Universities 
must be held responsible for ensur-
ing the continual education and 
safety of their students. In fact, Holly 
Rider-Milkovich, the director of the 
Sexual Assault and Prevention and 
Awareness Center, recently demon-
strated an excellent example of this 
by responding to an appeal from the 
Daily’s Editorial Board.

Arguing that the phrase “ ‘mutu-

ally understandable words or actions’ 
is too ambiguous” and that “the cur-
rent policy sets a dangerously low 

threshold for consent that can be 
misconstrued and misunderstood,” 
the editorial called for the elimi-
nation of inconsistency between 
SAPAC’s definition and the defini-
tion offered by the University’s Sex-
ual Misconduct Policy, and for more 
specificity in each definition. Rider-
Milkovich, responding to the request 
in a recent op-ed piece, notified both 
the Daily and campus at large of 
SAPAC’s actions to revise its defini-
tion to diminish the discrepancies.

However, despite the admirable 

receptiveness of institutions such as 
SAPAC, the knowledge offered by 
universities should act as a supple-
ment, rather than the foundation of a 
student’s knowledge.

The editorial also acknowledged 

the inadequacies of the University’s 
sex education programs. While cur-
rent initiatives may be beneficial 
and enlightening in some respects, 
assuming one or two programs during 
the first year or so of a student’s aca-
demic career is sufficient is a highly 
flawed preparation method. It’s like 
saying one doctor’s appointment is 
sufficient to ensure one’s health for a 
period of four years. Yet, college pro-
grams and initiatives aren’t meant to 
act as substitutes for information stu-
dents should have received when we 
were younger. They should be effec-
tive, continual enhancements to a 
knowledge base 
fostered early in 
our lives.

Just as dis-

crepancies exist 
between 
the 

University’s 
definitions 
of 

consent, 
incon-

sistencies within 
sexual education 
programs across 
the nation may 
further knowledge gaps and risk 
leaving students in precarious situa-
tions. A recent survey by the Public 
Religion Research Institute stated 
that “four in 10 millennials report 
that the sex education they received 
was not helpful.” To further illus-
trate the ineffectiveness of these pro-
grams, 37 percent of those surveyed 
claimed that “their education was 
‘not helpful’ in navigating decisions 
about sex and relationships.”

In an effort to explain why mil-

lennials feel underprepared, Debra 
Hauser, president of Advocates for 
Youth, highlights the variation of 
content taught in programs across 
the country. She stated: “Many 
were in school during a time when 
schools taught only abstinence. Oth-
ers may have received clinical infor-
mation about disease or pregnancy 
prevention, but few were provided 
the information young people truly 
need to traverse puberty, understand 
the difference between healthy and 
unhealthy relationships, develop a 
positive body image, make informed 

decisions, communicate effectively 
or navigate the health care system.”

Another critique was offered by 

Adam Tenner, executive director of 
Metro TeenAIDS, an AIDS-oriented 
community health organization, as 
he urged the idea school sex educa-
tion programs are far too delayed 
to be truly effective. In fact, a study 
conducted by the American Acad-
emy of Pediatrics found 71 percent 
of Americans have sex before the age 
of 19 — suggesting that a majority of 
students may need to know about 
obtaining clear consent before even 
coming to college.

Rather, to ensure future genera-

tions — along with our own — fully 
understand the tenets of consent 
for sex as “sober, verbal and enthu-
siastic,” comprehensive sex educa-
tion must not remain confined to 
college or even high school class-
rooms. Age-appropriate education 
regarding consent should be taught 
throughout our lifetimes, beginning 
at childhood.

Our relationships — sexual or not 

— evolve over time and so too must 
our understanding of demonstrating 
respect for our friends, peers, class-
mates and our potential sexual part-
ners (especially considering these 
individuals may come from one of 
the previously mentioned groups). 
While I certainly don’t advocate 

exposing 
chil-

dren 
to 
inap-

propriate 
material, 
steps 

can be taken to 
shape children’s 
mindsets about 
consent in non-
explicit 
man-

ners, 
such 
as 

avoiding touch-
ing or hugging a 
friend 
without 

their permission, developing empa-
thy toward one another, stressing 
the importance of listening and 
respecting someone’s decision to say 
no, straying away from talking about 
individuals in an objectifying man-
ner or simply waiting to hear some-
one verbally and enthusiastically say 
“yes” before partaking in any poten-
tially uncomfortable activity.

We need to treat sexual encoun-

ters like any other interaction with 
those around us — with mutual 
respect, understanding, empathy 
and agreement. Consent must not 
remain an issue we solely view in 
hindsight. We need to correct the 
current state of consent education 
and extend it to younger generations 
who can assist in breaking the cycle 
of sexual assaults. These problem-
atic attitudes and behaviors must 
be corrected before they become an 
issue that can cause future emotion-
al and psychological harm.

— Melissa Scholke can be 

reached at melikaye@umich.edu.

Between the sheets

Continually teaching consent

MELISSA 
SCHOLKE

W

hen I was in high school, 
we all were required to 
take a health class that 

informed us of our 
changing 
bodies 

and what dangers 
lurked 
between 

the sheets when 
sleeping with oth-
ers. They threw 
some numbers at 
us, and all I can 
remember 
was 

thinking, 
“Wow, 

those odds of get-
ting ____ are so 
small!” That likelihood was never 
something I needed to worry about.

At that point, I was a naïve, young 

girl who didn’t know much about 
sex — let alone anyone who was 
“doing it.” The dangers seemed like 
some far-off mythical creature that 
could never be in my life, but it was 
at college that I realized just how 
often sex-related infections and life-
changing experiences could occur.

That was all people would talk 

about: sex and hookups. The whole 
“hook-up culture” consumed the 
lives of a bunch of horny freshmen 
who were glad that alcohol could 
make a lot of bad decisions happen 
very quickly. We knew about the 
basic dangers: sexually transmit-
ted infections, pregnancy and the 
emotional damage that came with 
getting busy with a lot of different 
people. But did that resonate with all 
people? No. And that’s why there are 
so many instances of STIs, especially 
on college campuses.

I have had the opportunity to meet 

people who have experienced STIs 

— those that are curable, and those 
that are not. For some people, it was 
something that had been a part of 
their lives for many years; for others, 
it was friends that had just recently 
found out. And from what I have seen 
and heard from those people, the 
stigma is the worst part.

There’s such a bad reputation 

that accompanies STIs — that you 
are some slut who played the num-
bers game, and of course you got a 
disease. It’s the look of disappoint-
ment in others’ eyes that solidifies 
the shame. Sex is something that 
every damn living organism does 
in some form, and somehow, we are 
constrained by the societal stan-
dards of when we should open our 
legs and for whom, and humiliated 
when we go outside of those lines. If 
we manage to get a disease? Well, of 
course it’s our fault.

Have you ever considered that 

there are other 
ways to contract 
STIs outside of 
having sex? Did 
you know you 
could have her-
pes your entire 
life due to it just 
being 
in 
your 

body? You could 
have contracted 
it in a sandbox 
when you were a child when some 
other kid with a cold sore touched 
the same Tonka truck that you did, 
and still never know to this day. What 
about a partner who lied? Say, a one-
night stand that would rather get it 
in than admit some dark truth. For 
some diseases, it’s a crime to know-

ingly have sex with someone if you 
have a contagious STI and do not 
inform them. What about if you get 
it from your partner, but you knew 
about it going into the relationship? 
Can you be OK with that decision 
down the road if you get the disease, 
or if you give it?

To the naïve girl back in high 

school who thought that her chances 
were pretty low, think again. It’s all 
around you. Because we are so scared 
to tell the world that we have a dis-
ease, it’s likely you’ll never actually 
know who has what. The person sit-
ting next to you could have just con-
quered chlamydia, or the guy behind 
you in line at a coffee shop could have 
just found out he has herpes. You 
never know. But we need to get rid 
of this notion of the blame game that 
comes with STIs. It isn’t necessarily 
the person’s fault, and we must be 
more sensitive to the issues.

The 
disap-

pointment 
in 

self; 
the 
fear 

of telling fam-
ily, friends and 
partners; 
and 

the worry about 
the future are 
things to which 
only those going 
through it can 
relate. By put-

ting extra societal blame on those 
who are either just finding out or are 
living with a sexually transmitted 
infection, it only makes the process 
of living that much more difficult.

— Sara Shamaskin can be 

reached at scsham@umich.edu.

SARA 
SHAMASKIN

Where is hoMe?

O

n April 7, the University’s Center for 
Campus Involvement announced it 
would cancel the screening of “Ameri-

can Sniper,” following a 
letter started by LSA sopho-
more 
Lamees 
Mekkaoui, 

raising concerns about the 
movie being shown at UMix. 
The CCI planned to resched-
ule the movie to a different 
location, followed by a panel 
and discussion.

The letter of concern 

regarding the movie has 
been framed as an initia-
tive from Middle Eastern 
and North African and Muslim students when 
more non-MENAS and non-Muslim students 
signed on than the former. Mekkaoui said, 
“This is the first time that I have personally 
seen a letter where it had students from Cen-
tral Student Government, students from Stu-
dents for Choice, Sikh Student Association, 
Muslim Student Association and Hillel all 
signed up to the same letter.”

Law student Rachel Jankowski created a 

petition calling for the movie to be played at 
UMix again, which stated, “If the University 
prevents a movie like this from being shown, it 
promotes intolerance and stifles dialogue and 
debate on the subject and goes directly against 
the atmosphere UMix purports to provide.”

UMix is a program that hosts events from 

10 p.m. to 2 a.m. on Friday nights for students 
who want somewhere to have alcohol-free 
fun. Considering that the movie was resched-
uled to a different venue with a panel and a 
discussion provided, it opened the way for 
more intellectual dialogue on the movie than 
in the UMix environment.

University spokesman Rick Fitzgerald com-

mented on the situation after the movie was 
rescheduled to be shown last Friday night at 
UMix. “I think ‘American Sniper’ didn’t quite 
fit this venue and this event,” Fitzgerald said. 
“But, having said that, we made the commit-
ment, we made that decision, and in the final 
analysis we needed to honor that decision that 
was made to show, and so tonight we have two 
movies.”

I question whether the 

University’s decision to 
honor this decision should 
take precedence over con-
cern for the safety of its 
own students.

When 
the 
University 

made the initial decision 
to remove the movie show-
ing from UMix, Mekkaoui 
was interviewed by mul-
tiple media outlets on what happened. How-
ever after the University changed its decision 
to show the movie at UMix, they did not per-
sonally inform Mekkaoui of the change. “If we 
had just written the letter and they said no that 
would be one thing,” Mekkaoui said, “but they 
made the decision and then pulled out the rug 
from under us.”

Despite the countless bias incident reports 

— reports to the University from community 
members about hate crimes — from Muslim 
and MENA students, the University has done 
little to address the effects of its decisions 
on the Muslim and MENA community. The 
only response to these bias incident reports 
was the e-mail sent out for students to give 
and expect respect, which was originally only 
going to include a general statement that stu-
dents should give and expect respect. It was 
only after MENA and Muslim students asked 

that they be mentioned was it stated explic-
itly. The University acted as if threats to 
students was not grounds for issuing a state-
ment. They acted as if it was not enough that 
DPSS made a student wait over an hour and 
a half for a response to verbal harassment. 
They acted as if it was not enough that there 
is clear evidence that Muslim and MENA stu-
dents are facing hate speech and threats to 
their physical safety.

Despite these incidents, the University 

has not addressed the fact that students 
have been accused of being anti-free speech, 
when the movie showing was moved to a dif-
ferent venue with a panel and a discussion 
after being cancelled from UMix. This forced 
these students to defend themselves. Mekka-
oui said, “They left it to one individual stu-
dent to deal with the media bombarding her 
and harassing her, and allowed her to get her 
name slandered in the media because they 
just didn’t issue a clarifying statement.”

This University has fostered a climate that 

is unsafe for Muslim and MENA students. On 
Friday night, the room screening “Padding-
ton” was mostly empty, and there was no pro-
test from students at the “American Sniper” 
showing. Amidst the verbal harassment and 
threats of violence, Muslim and MENA stu-
dents collectively decided that going to this 
movie showing would not be in the best inter-
ests of their safety. Allowing the students the 
opportunity to watch “Paddington” in a room 
where they could easily be found and targeted 
was clearly not in the best interests of these 
students. We have had to create methods to 
protect ourselves like creating safe spaces 
and a texting group for people that do not feel 
safe walking alone. Unlike for other students, 
the University is not protecting Muslim and 
MENA students.

As a Muslim student and columnist for The 

Michigan Daily, I have emphasized time and 
time again that I am writing from a perspec-
tive of an American Muslim in order to validate 
my claims. Today, I am writing both from the 
perspective of an American Muslim and as a 
Wolverine to validate that these communities 
are a part of my identity. I am just as much of an 

American as anyone who is 
a fan of the movie “Ameri-
can Sniper;” and I am just 
as much of a Wolverine as 
anyone else who is a part 
of this University. I have 
no other country to go to 
and no other University to 
call my own. I am tired of 
having to validate my feel-
ings and my identity, like 
after the three American-

Muslims — Deah, Yusor and Razan were killed. 
I related to their stories because they looked so 
much like me, and since this movie controversy, 
these feelings hit even closer to home.

I have to live with the repercussions of the 

University’s decision, as I do not have the lux-
ury of parting myself from this identity that 
holds so many stereotypes. They get to brush 
off the decision that they made as a “mistake” 
and move on while I have to live with an 
unsafe campus climate. I have to live with the 
media backlash. All because I am a Muslim.

I am asking the University to do the right 

thing and protect its students instead of shying 
away from its responsibilities. I am asking stu-
dents at this University to recognize that your 
fellow Wolverines are hurting.

I am a Wolverine, and this is my hoMe.

— Rabab Jafri can be reached at rfjafri@umich.edu.

RABAB 
JAFRI

It isn’t necessarily 
the person’s fault, 

and we need to 

be more sensitive to 

the issues. 

The issue of 

consent needs to 
be addressed far 
before students 
enter college. 

I have no other 
country to go 

to, and no other 
University to call 

my own.

Rabab Jafri/Daily

Love giving your perspective to others? Apply to be a summer opinion columnist! 

For more information, e-mail Melissa Scholke at melikaye@umich.edu.

