Opinion
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
5A — Saturday, April 30, 2016
T
hough the anti-Islam words
that appeared on the Diag
earlier this week could be
easily
erased
by
a
group
of
students
with
rags
and
buckets
of water, the
same
cannot
be said for the
sentiments
behind
the
statements,
which
are
systemic
and
unfortunately
long-lived.
We cannot dismiss those hostile
messages with a shrug and an
invocation of the importance of
“free speech.” We cannot let the
broader debate over “safe spaces”
on college campuses obscure the
fact that, whatever the motivation
or intention, whoever wrote the
messages gave a voice to hatred
and hostility toward the religion
of Islam and those who follow
it. And we cannot deny that this
Islamophobia dehumanizes and
marginalizes millions of Muslims
who are guilty of nothing more
than being Muslims, laying the
groundwork for persecution and
violence toward them.
Unfortunately, this is precisely
what
the
vast
majority
of
comments
on
The
Michigan
Daily’s coverage of the anti-
Islam chalk do. They attempt to
dilute the maliciousness behind
the statements and attribute the
outrage that the words sparked
to yet another round of the debate
surrounding
“safe
spaces”
on
university campuses. “Look what
we have here,” they seem to say,
“another episode of anguish for
those goddamn, cry-baby liberal
students, so coddled that they
simply can’t handle discomfort, let
alone honest disagreement.”
Forget paraphrasing. By way
of
example,
here’s
what
one
commenter actually wrote: “To
the darling precious snowflakes
who melt into a shimmering
puddle
when
they
see
chalk
drawings
they
don’t
approve
of — do you EVER hope to get a
job?? You understand that ALL
workplaces (even university labs)
are filled with a variety of people
some of whom may have different
perspectives and even different
values than you.” Four other
commenters nodded in agreement
with a “like.”
Though the chalk writings were
expressing a “perspective” that’s
(thankfully) “different” than that
of many, that’s only the beginning
of the discussion we need to be
having. At a university where
respect,
civility
and
equality
are supposed to be at the core,
we cannot tolerate a “different
perspective” that’s grounded in
ignorance and hatred of people
because of their religion. This
is a “perspective” that exposes
Muslims to the risk of physical
harm and hurts them in other
ways that are just as real and
equally as offensive.
It
doesn’t
matter
whether
the inflammatory words were
written in chalk on the Diag or
burned into the side of Angell Hall
with a blowtorch. They must be
understood as a virulent attack
on our community’s obligation
to be more inclusive. To dismiss
the statements as harmless, let
alone to defend them as protected
by concepts of “free speech,”
aids those who would divide the
University
community.
These
words cannot go unchallenged.
If, instead of the anti-Islam
statements,
there
had
been
swastikas, I strongly doubt that
so many of the comments on
the Daily’s article would’ve told
offended Jews to “cry me a river.”
That’s
because
generally,
we
understand and reject anti-Semitic
remarks as harmful hate speech
that alienates an entire population.
In most quarters, malicious Jewish
conspiracy theories aren’t accepted
as merely expressing a “different
perspective,” and Jewish slurs
aren’t excused as simply an exercise
of “free speech.” In this regard,
Islamophobia is no different than
anti-Semitism.
To be sure, freedom of speech
should
be
broadly
defined,
particularly
in
an
academic
setting, where open expression
of different ideologies, thoughts,
beliefs,
analyses,
viewpoints
— you name it — is essential to
generating meaningful discussion
of important but difficult issues.
But the motivation behind the
speech matters, and to pretend
that the words on the Diag were
inspired by anything other than
hatred and bigotry is absurd. That
doesn’t mean that those words
can’t be uttered or written, even
in the way they were. It just means
that the statements, and whoever
wrote them, deserve nothing more
than to be swiftly condemned by
both the administration and our
community as a whole. It’s that
simple.
—Anne Katz can be reached
at amkatz@umich.edu.
I
t’s almost impossible not to think
of Steubenville, Ohio when hear-
ing about the recent case in
Maryville,
Mis-
souri. For those
who
haven’t
yet heard of the
Maryville case —
or the Steubenville
case, for that mat-
ter — both involve
the alleged rape
of an intoxicated
teenaged girl by
hot-shot
football
players, and both
involve the community rising to the
defense of the alleged rapists.
The Maryville story is a long,
horrifying ordeal that’s been, for the
most part, buried from the eyes of the
public until recently. To summarize:
In
January
2012,
14-year-old
cheerleader Daisy Coleman sneaked
out with a friend to meet up with
17-year-old football player Matthew
Barnett. She was encouraged to drink
excessively out of the “bitch cup,”
and was allegedly raped by Barnett
while his buddy filmed it with an
iPhone. Her friend, Paige Parkhurst,
just 13 at the time — under the age of
consent in Missouri, by the way — was
also allegedly sexually assaulted by
another football player. After all of
this, Coleman was left on a front lawn
in below freezing weather for her
mother to find in the morning. This
was more than a year ago, and most
people are just hearing about it now.
I encourage you to read more on it if
you’re interested in educating yourself
further and ruining your day.
But today, those football buddies are
off at college, free from all charges of
sexual assault — or anything, for that
matter. Even with all of the evidence
against the alleged rapists — even
after Sheriff Darren White reportedly
stated that this would “absolutely”
result in a conviction — the boys still
were able to walk free. Sheriff White’s
advice to the Colemans? “I guess
they’re just going to have to get over
it.”
Rape cases are already hugely
underreported, so when something
as heinous as the Maryville case gets
utterly brushed to the side, what kind
of message does that send?
It sends a message that says
Maryville supports its football players,
supports masculinity and “boys will
be boys” — but ladies who get mixed
up with these boys are “skanks” and
“crazy bitches.” In short, Maryville
supports rape culture.
So who were the victims of the
Maryville incident? Well, there were
of course the boys, whose reputations
and football careers were at stake. A
parent of one of the teens at Barnett’s
house is actually reported as saying,
“Our boys deserve an apology, and
they haven’t gotten it yet.” There were
the poor coworkers at Mrs. Coleman’s
old workplace, who had to deal with
her “stress.” There was even Barnett’s
daddy, a GOP politician in Missouri
who decided to stay out of the case
because it “would have been bad for
me.” As far as the girls who were
allegedly raped? “F--- yea. That’s what
you get for bein a skank : ),” reads one
tweet in response to the dismissed
charges.
Victim-blaming is nothing new;
we’ve heard it all before. She drank too
much; she was asking for it; she should
have known better; she shouldn’t
have worn that outfit; she shouldn’t
have been hanging around boys that
age; she was out too late at night; why
didn’t she take a cab? Why did she
take a cab? She should have called the
police sooner — it goes on and on and
on.
There’s the flip side of victim-
blaming, and that’s rape apology, but
I’m thinking even more specifically
of a bizarre form of rape sympathy
that I’ve been noticing. The focus, in
the case of rape sympathy, is taken
off the victim, and placed on the
repercussions that the rapist will or
would have to potentially face.
I’m thinking of those photographs
in The New York Times — of those
poor Steubenville boys who could
have had it all, dressed in neat button-
downs, rendered weeping into their
palms in the courtroom because
of some stupid girl who ruined
everything for them. I’m thinking
of CNN anchor Candy Crowley’s
response to the Steubenville rapists’
sentencing — “I cannot imagine how
emotional the sentencing must have
been.” I’m thinking of endless hateful
tweets aimed at “sluts” and “skanks”
of all ages all over the world. I’m
thinking of the incident in Torrington,
Connecticut — another rape case
involving football players.
This case involved two 18-year-old
football players, Edgar Gonzalez and
Joan Toribio, who were convicted
of rape after they had sex with two
13-year-old girls, with the age of
consent in Connecticut being 16.
What happened next was a slew of
online harassment targeted toward,
of course, these girls — these girls who
were still in middle school. “What was
a 13 year old girl doing hanging around
with 18 year old guys…” one girl posted
on Twitter. I’d ask the question in
response, what were 18-year-old boys
doing have sex with girls who weren’t
even out of middle school? “You
destroyed two people’s lives” another
tweet reads, referring, of course, to
the boys’ lives. This is past the point of
rape apology — it’s sympathy.
One
of
the
football
players,
Gonzalez, won the title of MVP for his
team, and in response to the charges,
Torrington High School’s Athletic
Director Mike McKenna stated, “If
you think there’s some wild band of
athletes that are wandering around
then I think you’re mistaken … These
things happen everywhere and we’re
not any different than any other
community.” And he’s right.
I think it’s worth stopping and
considering how this all-American,
sports-centric model that exists in so
many high schools — and colleges —
affects how people view masculinity
and sexual assault. I’m not saying
football is to blame for rape, just like
too many shots at a party, a short skirt,
not having a boyfriend, letting him
pay for you at the bar … is not to blame
for rape. Rapists are to blame for rape.
It’s been said so many times and yet it
still hasn’t quite seem to have gotten
through to everyone.
So
what
happens
when
the
University has its very own sexual
assault scandal involving a football
player? We sweep it under the rug,
pretend it never happened and
head to the game to lose our voices
cheering on our beloved Wolverines.
In 2009, current University senior and
placekicker on the University football
team Brendan Gibbons was arrested
for allegedly raping an 18-year-
old woman at a fraternity party.
Washtenaw Watchdogs has a detailed
synopsis of the allegations, and Daily
blogger Emma Maniere wrote about
Gibbons fairly recently, but for the
most part, it’s been willfully ignored
by the University. Many University
students and Wolverine fans still
don’t know about the allegations,
and even after they do find out about
them — well, the thought of there
being a potential rapist on the field
while we sing the fight song is kind of
uncomfortable, so we dismiss those
thoughts.
In the Gibbons police reports, it’s
written, “(Gibbons) stated his whole
life will probably get ruined, and that
the girl always wins.” Let’s make
one thing clear: The girl does not
always win. According to RAINN, as
many as 97 percent of rapists are not
charged. The girl very rarely “wins.”
And anyway, sex should not have a
“winner.” A woman you want to take
to bed is not your opponent. Sex is
not just another sport — another way
to reaffirm your masculinity and
machismo.
Rape culture is real, and it’s impor-
tant to be mindful of how we’re par-
ticipating, even if it’s just as spectators.
—Katie Steen can be reached
at katheliz@umich.edu.
Rape culture is real
An attack on inclusivity
FROM THE DAILY
Too little too late
Saturday afternoon, sophomore quarterback Shane Morris took a helmet-to-
helmet hit during the fourth quarter of the Michigan football team’s game
against Minnesota. Morris remained in the game after exhibiting concussion-
like symptoms, obvious even to the untrained eye. After further assessment of
an ankle injury sustained earlier in the game by the head athletic trainer, Morris
was cleared and allowed into the game in blatant disregard for concussion
protocol and player safety. In the days that followed, Michigan coach Brady
Hoke, Athletic Director David Brandon and University President Mark Schlissel
respectively released official statements about Saturday’s mishap. However, the
lack of a timely and forceful response from the University Athletic Department,
the University’s Board of Regents and Schlissel and the rising discontent among
students and alumni propelled the story toward a national discussion about
Michigan athletics and the way it treats its students on and off the field. Moving
forward, the University and the Athletic Department must be transparent in
their actions and make students their first priority.
9/30/14
10/18/13
The Athletic Department’s handling of the
situation after the game and its response, or lack
thereof, was a total failure. Hoke’s postgame
press conference indicated his total ignorance
regarding the incident, and his official statement,
released Sunday afternoon, didn’t address
Morris’ head injury. By Sunday night, the failure
of the Athletic Department to address the
situation and admit shortcomings allowed the
story to hit all the major news outlets, even taking
a segment on ABC’s “World News” and “Good
Morning America.”
In his weekly Monday press conference,
Hoke remained blatantly unprepared, did not
know key information and repeatedly answered
questions by asking reporters to refer to a
forthcoming statement from the medical staff.
At 12:52 a.m. Tuesday morning, that statement
did not come from the medical staff, rather it
came from Brandon, who addressed the situation
on behalf of the Athletic Department. The
statement contradicted many of Hoke’s half-
answers during his earlier press conference.
Most notably, Brandon confirmed Morris had
suffered a “probable, mild concussion,” when
previously Hoke stated there had been no signs
of head trauma.
According to Brandon, the oversight occurred
because medical personnel and the coaching
staff did not see the hit. A general failure of
communication further prevented the proper
and timely handling of Morris’ head injury.
Though this statement and statements from
Hoke don’t suggest intentionality, there is no
acceptable excuse for compromising player
safety, as negligence is equally as deplorable. The
players on the field are entwined in a culture of
toughness and playing through injury without
much regard to the potential hazards of doing so.
The decision to play cannot be left to the students.
ESPN
Broadcaster
Ed
Cunningham
lambasted the team for its lack of concern for
Morris’ safety for multiple minutes on air during
the game, both before the hit to the head while
Morris was limping around with an ankle injury
and after the hit. The crowd booed loudly when
Morris was left in and subsequently when he
reentered the game. Because the hit on Morris
occurred after the ball left his hands, the coaches
were no longer watching the quarterback when
the incident happened, and therefore, sideline
staff assumed his post-hit stumbling was due
to his ankle injury. The lack of communication
between coaching staff, athletic trainers and
the team neurologist prevented Morris from
receiving a full examination and allowed for his
reinsertion into the game. Brandon’s statement
early Tuesday morning outlines a plan to have
a medical professional in the press box or video
booth to ensure that this situation will not
happen again due to a failure to see the entirety
of the play, and also says the team is examining its
sideline communications with regard to player
injuries. These proposed changes, supported
by Schlissel in his statement, and by the NCAA,
must be implemented immediately.
This incident was just the tipping point
for public opinion of the University Athletic
Department. Students feel a large disconnect
with the Athletic Department, especially in
light of the failed implementation of a general
admission seating policy at football games and
the switch to a claims-based system for basketball
tickets. Furthermore, students and non-students
alike are fed up with historically high ticket
prices, especially for a season with one of the
weakest home schedules in recent memory and
an increasingly over commercialized stadium
culture. Many fans feel loyalty is no longer
rewarded, as exemplified earlier in the week
with the two Coke products for two tickets
marketing ploy. In addition, the mishandling
of former kicker Brendan Gibbons’ permanent
separation from the University after being found
responsible for violating the school’s sexual
misconduct policy contributed to the simmering
discontent of many students.
Overall, the Athletic Department’s public
relations has failed to positively engage students,
alumni and fans, leading to Tuesday’s protest
and petition through the CSG website calling
for Dave Brandon’s resignation that has amassed
over 10,000 signatures. In order to rectify the
situation, the University administration and
the Athletic Department must restructure their
priorities to include the safety and well-being of
student athletes while also keeping the input of
all students in mind.
4/5/16
ANNE
KATZ
Congratulations Class of 2016!
Diveristy initiatives might fail
1/6/16
JAMIE TAM AND VELMA LOPEZ | MICHIGAN IN COLOR
KATIE
STEEN
Editor’s Note: As commencement is upon
us, Michigan in Color thought it would be
important for the larger University community
to reflect on the initiatives we experienced as
students. This piece was a phenomenal critique
of the current plans for Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion. This piece reflects the necessity of
continuing conversations that impact beyond
the brief time we spent on campus. The plans
for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are meant
to impact the students who are on campus
now, but they are also supposed to impact
generations of Wolverines to come. Michigan in
Color encourages everyone, whether moving on,
continuing, or just beginning your time here, to
remember that we should work to create changes
that outlive our moments here at the University.
We are a part of a legacy. Why should our social
impact be any different?
While University President Mark Schlissel’s
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion strategic planning
initiative is admirable, its prospects for success
are questionable. The President’s charge calls on
each campus unit to develop a five-year strategic
plan to promote Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
We are excited to see this new momentum in the
wake of the #BBUM campaign, and to see this
effort come from top University leadership. The
current dialogue is absolutely necessary for us
to continue to foster awareness of historical and
ongoing institutional biases at the University, and
to move beyond a purely academic understanding
of structural racism. Unfortunately, the initiative
falls short in a profoundly important way.
To date, there has been no explicit allocation
of resources to make diversity happen at the
University.
Other
educational
institutions
have recently funded large-scale diversity
programs: Brown University announced plans
to spend $100 million to promote diversity on
its campus, and Yale University launched a $50
million initiative to increase faculty diversity.
These financial pledges are a testament to their
commitment to social equity. We are waiting
to see whether efforts at the University will be
supported by funds commensurate with their
degree of importance.
Funding for the President’s charge remains
ambiguous, even as two mechanisms for
diversity funding opportunities have been
described in disseminated documents. First,
departments are encouraged to submit “requests
for funding for innovative initiatives … through
the annual budget process,” according to a
frequently asked questions document distributed
to campus groups in November. However, there
is little transparency surrounding how much
will be made available within the annual budget,
or how competitive it will be to secure these
funds. Secondly, the campus-wide initiative is
being overseen by an executive leadership team
that “will allocate resources throughout the
planning process and ensure that the effort is
appropriately supported and staffed.” Again, the
level of support and direct provision of tangible
funds remains vague. In order to address climate
and bias issues effectively, allocated budgetary
line items are needed to develop, implement and
sustain strategic plans.
Read more at MichiganDaily.com