Opinion
SHOHAM GEVA
EDITOR IN CHIEF
CLAIRE BRYAN
AND REGAN DETWILER
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
LAURA SCHINAGLE
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, April 7, 2016
Whenever my sister and I visit
my uncle, we can always be sure
to hear him say “So how is Snobby-
ville?” By “Snobby-ville,” my uncle
is referring to Ann Arbor, and,
more specifically, the University of
Michigan campus.
My sister and I, being the first
people in my family to attend this
institution, are often subjected to
this kind of anti-U of M talk. For
the most part, it’s because of sports
— my cousins who went to MSU
will tease us whenever Michigan
loses a game. It’s not anything that
any student with family members
from opposing universities hasn’t
gone through, but for some reason,
I can’t help but to see some depth
to
my
uncles
“Snobby-ville”
jokes. Of course it’s not the most
sophisticated of quips (my uncle is
not a comedian) but it highlights
some of the underlying opinions
that many people hold towards
the
University
of
Michigan.
Mainly, that the students here are
mostly conceited and annoyingly
privileged.
I grew up in a town where
attending this university is a big deal.
To the average citizen of a rural town
in northern Michigan, where the
biggest industries are agriculture and
tourism, somehow managing to go to
the same institution that a former
president attended is monumental.
Out of my graduating class of about
90 students, a whole five students
attend this University — a number
to celebrate in my hometown.
Suddenly, it’s like we were a part
of this elite, privileged class made
up of the people who were lucky
enough to attend the University of
Michigan.
My experience on this campus has
been quite different. The feelings of
exclusivity and specialness ended
almost immediately after arriving
on campus. It’s not that anyone
explicitly tried to make me feel
left out, but hearing my classmates
talk about the connections their
family had and the experiences
and opportunities they had been
afforded made me realize that, for
the first time in my life, I was part of
a lower, less wealthy class. I started
to see myself as some redneck from
a hick town who, only managed to
get here on a fluke.
Incidents like the taping of
University student Jake Croman
yelling at an Uber driver and the
destruction of the Treetops resort
last winter have only further
increased my feeling of loneliness.
As someone who has worked in
the service industry I could easily
identify with the Uber driver or
the workers at the resort, but to
the rest of the world I was a part of
the elites who often harassed the
working staff. The fact that I was
here partly on a scholarship and
partly on my dad’s life insurance
exacerbated
this
feeling
of
loneliness and unworthiness.
I’m not the only one who feels
this way. Other students I’ve
met from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds have spoken about
feeling like an outsider here.
Part of it might be that students
from similar backgrounds like
mine are so few and far between
here on campus that I get excited
whenever I meet one. I don’t see
this
necessarily
changing,
as
the 2010 University of Michigan
Student
Profile
reported
that
nearly half of in state freshmen
come from families that earn more
than $150,000 a year. This isn’t
necessarily a bad thing if it weren’t
paired with the fact that tuition
to universities is skyrocketing.
Attending
high-profile,
major
universities is becoming more and
more inaccessible to students from
poorer backgrounds.
Getting a good education is key
to social mobility, but without
access to this education, social
mobility stops. I firmly believe
that
universities
should
be
affordable in order for a society to
function. Making the University
of
Michigan
more
affordable
wouldn’t make it any less snobby-
we’re the leaders and the best,
after all. But making education at
this university more affordable
might help this campus lose its
overly respected reputation as a
place for the elite, and gain the
reputation as a place where voices
from all backgrounds are heard
and respected.
— Elena Hubbell is an
LSA sophomore.
My conflicted relationship with class
ELENA HUBBELL | OP-ED
Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Gracie Dunn, Caitlin Heenan,
Jeremy Kaplan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala,
Kit Maher, Madeline Nowicki, Anna Polumbo-Levy,
Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, Melissa Scholke,
Kevin Sweitzer, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung,
Stephanie Trierweiler, Hunter Zhao
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
“Caring for myself is not self-
indulgence, it is self-preservation, and
that is an act of political warfare.”
–Audre Lorde
This month, I have taken up
drawing. I spend hours sketching
bodies, all of which resemble myself
in one way or another. I have a
process:
Sketch,
erase.
Breathe.
Sketch, erase. Breathe. Outline soft
lead with silky black gel. Breathe.
Pastels, purple on top of green.
Smudge. Breathe. Smudge in white
to make it lighter. Breathe. Smudge
until rainbows envy the colors dyed
upon my fingertips. Keep smudging
until I forget to count my breaths.
When we talk about unhealthy
relationships at the Sexual Assault
Prevention and Awareness Center,
we tend to solely speak about
abuse in intimate relationships.
Abuse is an all-encompassing word
because it can define a variety
of actions. At SAPAC, we define
abuse in a multitude of ways.
Abuse can be physical, sexual,
emotional or financial, to name
a few. An action is seen as abuse
when a perpetrator instills tactics
to gain disproportionate power or
control over their victim — I have
used the word victim here because
not all survive from instances of
intimate partner violence. Power
dynamics and abuse within IPV
are specific to each partnership.
Abusive relationships are complex
and reflect the perpetrator’s and
victim’s social identities.
Presently, society still has a
difficult time identifying IPV and
its complexities. However, we are
beginning to make progress labelling
IPV, defining the nuances and
identifying the signs. Identifying
abusive romantic relationships is
difficult, but the conversation is
in motion. That said, something
we rarely ever talk about, even at
SAPAC, is abuse in non-romantic
relationships. When abuse happens
in
non-romantic
relationships,
society rarely defines a perpetrator’s
actions as abuse. Instead, these
relationships may be seen as toxic
or time-consuming. It is time we
change the discourse around abuse
in non-romantic relationships.
Oftentimes,
society
views
abusive
relationships
between
friends or families as “conflicts”
rather than violence. The word
“violence” implies the survivor
has a loss of control. The word
“violence” implies the survivor
cannot escape. The word “violence”
implies urgency. Yet, when a non-
romantic partner takes violent or
abusive actions against a survivor,
society often tells the survivor to
work it out, apologize, let it go.
I am aware that people have off-
days. Sometimes a comment can
be snide or an intended joke can be
stated too harshly. I do not consider
these actions abusive. Rather, I am
speaking to tactics that a family
member or friend constantly inflicts
on survivors to gain control in a
relationship. I am speaking about
abusive behaviors that manifest into
survivors’ daily lives. I am speaking
about constant language survivors
cannot escape, barriers that create
isolation, threats that make them
chain-lock their doors, physical
attacks that bruises their skin or
instances of sexualized violence
that are not deemed serious. We
need to start analyzing and defining
these harmful tactics as abusive in
both romantic and non-romantic
relationships. We need to legitimize
the helpless, distraught or fearful
feelings that survivors may have in
all forms of abusive relationships.
It is important to acknowledge that
people have a variety of reasons for
staying in unhealthy relationships. If
people do not want to end unhealthy
relationships, this is their choice.
As a friend and ally, there are some
important ways you can support
a survivor of both IPV and non-
romantic relationship abuse:
1. Demonstrate to your friend
what a healthy relationship looks
like by providing unconditional love
and support.
2.
Listen
and
believe
them.
Validate their experiences.
3. If they ask for resources
or alternate options for their
situation, brainstorm some. Create
lists together.
4. You can tell them, “I’ll be here for
you if/when you are ready to leave this
relationship,” but do not argue with
them about what they need to do. This
is their life. As their ally and friend,
respect their ability to make choices.
Most
importantly,
we
must
understand that all relationships
are complex, and we must navigate
them accordingly.
Recently, I have finally come to
terms with identifying as being a
target in an unhealthy relationship.
As previously mentioned, this past
semester I have taken up sketching.
I do it on the days when her mental
health controls my daily life. I do not
blame her, but rather, I blame her
unhealthy psychological state. For the
past decade, I have spent much of my
life trying to navigate an illness that
doctors have yet to find treatment for.
In the past, I let her severe episodes
control me. In the present, I am slowly
learning how to take care of myself.
I have come to terms with the fact
that though this behavior is not her
fault, it is also not my responsibility to
constantly endure the attacks, threats
and manipulation brought on by her
psychological disorder.
Now, when an episode begins and
a flood of texts pour in, instead of
falling into a pit of despair as I used
to, I have begun to sketch:
Pencil tracing paper, soft lead
fading into coarse sheets.
You are worthless.
Black ink seeping into cracks of
paper.
You don’t deserve happiness.
My breasts take on earthly hues,
contrasted against my pink belly.
I don’t love you.
I am a goddess — strong and
brilliant— if only on paper.
No one loves you.
Smudge the colors.
LEAVE ME ALONE.
Smudge them until my fingers bare
vibrant, Aurora Borealis calluses.
YOU ARE WORTHLESS.
Keep smudging until her insults
start to sound meaningless.
Through
sharing
my
experience, I hope to convey
the idea that we need to begin
dialogues surrounding unhealthy,
non-romantic
relationships
while
expanding
on
dialogues
surrounding
abusive
romantic
relationships. The way I handle
the relationship with her is unique
to my personal circumstance. I do
not think this should be everyone’s
solution; however, I do think self-
care is an important practice for
everyone to indulge in. Self-care
allows us to avoid burn-out from
our daily stressors.
When I first began my journey of
self-care, I felt guilty about diverting
my attention from someone I loved
dearly, but I have recently begun to
accept that, to sustain my being, I
must take care of myself. I need to
brush off the words, bandage the
emotional wounds and practice
constant forgiveness.
Sketching, along with talking to
my family unit, is the best way I have
learned how to handle the situation,
if only for a moment.
For anyone who is struggling in
an unhealthy relationship, whether
it is intimate or non-romantic, please
know that you are worthy.
— Alexis Barkin is a SAPAC
network publicity activism student
volunteer co-coordinator.
Self-care is not an indulgence
ALEXIS BARKIN | OP-ED
FROM THE DAILY
Standards significantly raised
T
The University of Michigan’s new sexual misconduct policy,
now called the University of Michigan Policy and Procedures
on Student Sexual and Gender-Based Misconduct and Other
Forms of Interpersonal Violence, is drastically more expansive than its
2013 predecessor, and even its pre-released September 2015 draft. The
policy gives the University more precise tools for determining what
exactly sexual misconduct is in questionable circumstances, investigators
the tools to convict perpetrators who may have slid by under the old
policy and the campus community at large the tools to understand the
intricacies of consent and incapacitation in nuanced situations. This new
policy favors the claimant in numerous ways and will likely increase the
number of assaults punished, thereby raising the standards around sexual
activity and changing the culture around sexual assault on our campus. It
also represents significant steps forward in several areas, but will require
noticeable efforts by the University to align the rightfully strict standards
in the policy with societal standards about gender and sex.
In contrast to the previous policy, the
new one clearly outlines the full process of
reporting a sexual misconduct case to the
University, uses gender-inclusive language
and expands the scope of its definitions of
consent and incapacitation. It also changes
the role of witnesses and of the review panel
and appeals process, as well as brings intimate
partner violence and stalking underneath the
scope of this singular policy and process.
The new policy is also vastly more
transparent and organized about the process
a student will embark on when they report
a case of sexual misconduct. Significantly,
it notes the distinction between the two
different justice systems a student can report
a case to: the University and/or the police.
Though under the old policy, students were
advised to report to the University’s Police
Department in addition to filing a report
to the University, the new policy explains
that reporting to the police is a completely
separate process than the one students will
undergo at the University. Additionally, the
policy offers resources — including specific
phone numbers — for students to use to
contact of variety of police forces.
While the Department of Education — which
is currently investigating several Title IX
complaints — and countless student activists
believe the University has a responsibility to
investigate and punish students for sexual
misconduct, there is a national debate over
whether universities are not equipped to
investigate
cases
of
sexual
misconduct.
Regardless of whether one believes the
University should legislate these cases, the fact
that the two processes are explained in a clear
and detailed manner helps better educate our
student body and aids in making options for
students more clear.
Last April, the Daily brought to light the
University’s inadequate definition of consent,
noting it did not specify that silence and
inaction did not equate to consent. The new
policy specifically states, “Consent is not to
be inferred from silence, passivity, or a lack
of resistance,” also adding that “non-verbal
communication” is not consent. This crucial
change will raise the standard for consent.
A respondent can no longer claim they had
consent because the other party didn’t
actively resist. Along similar lines, this new
policy explicitly defines what constitutes
coercion and force, both of which would
render one unable to give consent.
Another
significant
change
to
the
definition of consent is the clarification
of who is held responsible for obtaining
consent. Unlike the old policy, this new policy
places direct responsibility on the party who
“initiates a specific sexual activity” to obtain
consent. This creates a distinction between
respondent, initiator and claimant. This
wording makes it explicitly clear that if the
respondent, assuming they are the initiator,
has failed to obtain consent, then that party
will be found responsible. This seems likely
to increase the number of respondents found
responsible for misconduct.
The new policy also goes further to stress
that a past sexual or dating relationship does
not mean a person has automatic consent for
current or future sexual activity, and that
consent must be granted “each time (sexual
activity occurs).” This is an important
addition, as sexual assault in dating and
romantic relationships does occur, and a
previous relationship should not indicate
that someone has consented for future sexual
activity. To take this an additional step
forward, the new policy unequivocally states
that if a person withdraws consent (which
can happen at any time) “sexual activity must
cease immediately.” These additions protect
the rights of all students engaging in sexual
activity at all levels of engagement.
Rightly
linked
to
the
definition
of
consent in the new policy is the definition
of
“incapacitation,”
which
has
been
dramatically expanded upon. According to
the new policy, a person is incapacitated if
they are in “a state beyond drunkenness or
intoxication” and cannot make “informed,
rational
judgements.”
The
policy
also
acknowledges
that
intoxication
varies
from person to person, depending on a
multitude of factors including body weight,
tolerance level and food consumption. By
recognizing that each individual’s level of
intoxication is unique and can fluctuate
based on these reasons, the University is
taking a commendable step to broaden the
definition of intoxication so more claimants
can correctly posit their incapacitation,
and so all parties can accurately gauge of
when someone is incapacitated. On that
note, the new policy also explicitly reminds
students of state amnesty laws on drinking
and extends protection against University
disciplinary actions to underage students
who report instances of sexual misconduct
while intoxicated.
The depth at which the new policy
discusses how evidence is evaluated in the
University’s response process is appreciated
and will also have a measurable impact on
the frequency that sexual misconduct is
reported. Potential complainants now have
the ability to review exactly how evidence
gathered during the process will be collected
and evaluated, as well as by whom, and all
sides have the opportunity to understand
how their conduct will be evaluated by an
investigation. In addition, the appeals process
now includes a review by an external party,
preferably one with legal expertise. Given
how much discussion currently goes into
making the process fair for both sides, the
option of the opinion of an external reviewer
on both the evaluated facts, and the process
should resolve most procedural inequities.
Adding greater cross-campus equity, a
student appointed by the Central Student
Government will now sit on the board that
will determine sanctions for students found
guilty, adding to the process the student voice
on these important issues.
Despite the heavy lifting this new policy
does to raise the standards of sexual activity,
there are steps in the process that are still
questionable. Witnesses will now be required
to be named to all parties in an investigation.
While this new addition strives to make the
process more equitable, we can’t help but be
concerned that witnesses will be less likely
to come forward if they know they must be
named given that witnesses frequently have
strong relationships with either side. The
detailed processes in the new policy mostly
balance the rights of the complainant and
the rights of the respondent; however, we
feel that there is more that could be done to
protect witnesses, given the sensitivity of
the issues at hand and the likely personal
connection between witnesses and the
students in question.
In many ways, this policy is the change
students, student groups, administrators and
a national public eye has been looking for. But
it is also a double-edged sword. The standards
this policy enforces will likely cause an
increase in the number of respondents found
responsible for misconduct, and that may
cause students to experience a disconnect
between the sexual standards they are
taught in society versus the standards they
are held to on our campus. However, though
the disconnect may be large now, with the
awareness this policy raises and educational
opportunities posed, through enforcing this
policy the University will be participating
in one of many steps toward a better campus
climate.