Recently, the University has made a
show of support for survivors of sexual
assault. Michigan is one of 200 colleges
in the United States taking part in the
“It’s on Us” campaign — launched by
the White House in September 2014
in an effort to end sexual violence on
college campuses — and, this past
winter semester, it rolled out a newer
and more thorough sexual misconduct
policy.
Unfortunately
for
the
University, these steps forward might
be forgotten in the face of its current
situation, as the student body is once
again reminded of how the University
has repeatedly failed survivors of
sexual assault. Take, for instance,
the case of Brandon Gibbons, whose
punishment for sexual misconduct
came nearly four years after the
incident occurred. Or the case of Drew
Sterrett, who was able to bring forth a
lawsuit and have his charges dropped
because his case was botched by the
University. If a few campaigns and an
updated policy are all the University
has to offer to negate a slew of failures
toward the student body, the campus
is forced to view any new mistake as
business as usual.
A
seriously
concerning
point
revealed by the Detroit Free Press’
investigation is the fact that the
University is requesting fewer cases to
be reviewed. When this investigation
began, the federal government initially
focused on only three cases, but the
OCR is now requesting to view about
180 cases, a relatively standard practice
as
these
investigations
proceed.
Though this request for all 180 cases
was only sent in October 2015, it is
disappointing that the University
is continuing with this pattern of
uncooperative delays, even after the
situation became more serious. In an
email disclosed in the Detroit Free
Press report summarizing a conference
call on the issue in December 2015,
Patricia Petrowski, Associate Vice
President
and
Deputy
General
Counsel, wrote: “We then asked again
why it is necessary for OCR to have all
documentation regarding 180 different
complaints, as opposed to 100, 90, 75,
50, or some lower number in order
to determine whether the University
is apporpriately handling student
sexual misconduct allegations.” One
would think that a university that
acknowledges the seriousness of this
situation, as this institution claims,
would
appreciate
the
additional
insight a large sample size provides
to investigations, but this seemingly
simple principle of statistics remains
moot in this case. Though these
documents may be damning towards
the University’s reputation, for the
sake of its students, this institution
should hand over all of the documents
that have been requested in a timely
fashion.
One problem with the nature of this
investigation is that repercussions for
the University are unlikely. The only
punishment that the OCR can inflict
on the University is the restriction
of federal financial aid funds for
programs, such as Pell Grants and
federal
student
loans
—
which
would make it nearly impossible for
students on financial aid to attend
the University. Such a threat is widely
regarded as ineffective, as the impact of
such a decision would be so devestating
that the Department of Education
would only use it in the most extreme
circumstances. In other words, nobody
thinks this is a threat the Department
of Education would reallistically
follow through on. This has therefore
seemingly
given
the
University
freedom to respond in a timeline it sees
fit, a responsibility that it has not used
in its students’ best interest.
By continuing to kick the can down
the road, the University is failing to
protect its student body. The University
is certainly concerned that negative
practices may become public during
the course of such an investigation,
which would no doubt harm the
reputation of this institution. In the
long run, however, transparency in
this serious investigation should be
prioritized over all else — including
reputation. The campus climate and
Association of American Universities
studies released last year confirmed
to students that the University has
a large-scale problem with sexual
misconduct. Continuing to delay
the OCR’s investigation process only
continues to affirm fears that the
University does not have a legitimate
interest in solving the campus sexual
misconduct crisis. This issue impacts
everyone and, as such, it deserves
urgent transparency.
4
Thursday, June 9, 2016
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION
LARA MOEHLMAN
EDITOR IN CHIEF
JEREMY KAPLAN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
BRADLEY WHIPPLE
MANAGING EDITOR
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
For the past two years, the University of Michigan has been under investigation
by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights for its handling of
allegations of sexual violence. Documents released in the Detroit Free Press
this weekend indicate that the OCR initially asked for documents pertaining to
the investigations of sexual misconduct on campus in February 2014, and the
University has repeatedly requested extensions on the deadline to deliver those
documents. While it is reasonable that the University would need additional time
to comply with added document requests, we are concerned about the University’s
lack of transparency in this investigation process given these delays.
Eliminating ‘basic’
T
here is something to be said
for proclaiming loud and
proud that you’re “basic.”
It shows the world that you like
things
people
may judge you
for,
but
you
don’t care. And
you
shouldn’t.
According
to
Urban Dictionary, the relatively
recent definition of the term
“basic” has become an adjective
used to describe something that is
“obscenely obvious,” whether it be
the way someone dresses, acts or
an activity someone participates
in. This, in turn, has become a term
used to judge one’s preference for a
Starbucks pumpkin spice latte or a
tattoo of a sun and moon.
Scrolling through Facebook a
while back, I came across an article
from a page that a friend had liked
titled “20 tattoos you’ll always
find on basic girls.” Interested and
procrastinating, I clicked on the
link. As I scrolled through, I saw
numerous tattoos that I could even
see myself getting. Feeling a bit
ashamed that I might fall among
the category of “basic,” I clicked
off.
But a few weeks later, again
procrastinating on Facebook, I
saw a profile picture of a girl who
went to my elementary school: a
selfie of her and her friend holding
Starbucks to-go cups. The caption
read: “Basic, but on purpose.” At
first, I thought to myself, why
would she do that? “Basic” isn’t
a term that she should want to
associate herself with. She knew
what people might say. So she beat
them to it. She wears the label loud
and proud.
This
immediately
got
me
thinking about a Michigan Daily
column I had read by Aarica Marsh
titled “My tattoos are for me.”
In her piece, she asserted these
tattoos are for her, and she should
not have to explain or justify them
to anyone. They mean something to
her, and she isn’t looking for them
to mean something to someone
else. Then she very aptly asks us if
we sometimes keep our comments
to ourselves. After seeing this
girl’s profile picture, remembering
Marsh’s column, I reflected on an
important fact of life we don’t often
accept: People like what they like
and shouldn’t be judged for it.
Marsh’s comments hit home for
me as I began to ponder thoughts
I had in the past but never really
thought deeply about until now.
Can’t people just enjoy things?
So what if they are sugary drinks
from Starbucks, or tattoos of a sun
and moon on their ankles? People
can’t help what they like and they
shouldn’t be judged for it. Putting
a label on something and judging
someone by calling them “basic”
can only make someone feel bad
about their choices — make them
think that there is something wrong
with them for liking these things.
We shouldn’t be shaming people
for a food, product or design they
like. People enjoy these products
because there is something that
they like about them.
For years, I’ve been told that
my taste in music isn’t the most
refined. Admittedly, you can find
me jamming out to songs you
probably heard at every middle
school dance or on a 15-year-old’s
iPod playlist. In fact, I rarely talked
about my favorite songs because
I’ve been overly cautious of what
others might think. Many times, I
have found myself trying to justify
my taste in music to others. “It’s got
a good beat.” “It’s easy to dance to.”
For a while, it was even hard for
me to accept my music preferences
and not be completely embarrassed
if someone were to catch a glimpse
of my music library. And the time
it took me to accept myself and
the things that I liked was very
much a result of being judged by
others who raised an eyebrow at
the songs I played on repeat, the
clothes I wore or the movies I
enjoyed. I’m not asking everyone to
stay silent about their preferences.
But disliking something, whether
it’s a Starbucks drink, a seemingly
simple tattoo or an old Taylor
Swift song, is not the same thing
as making someone feel bad about
liking these things.
If “basic” didn’t have such a
negative connotation, I wouldn’t
have such a problem with using
it. But more often than not, the
term is used to judge someone
for their choices; there should
be no place for such a term in
our everyday language. Though
people have begun to embrace
the term, as my former classmate
did, to wear it loud and proud, she
was forced to do so because of the
overwhelmingly judgmental use
of the word. Don’t throw a label at
someone for the things they enjoy.
In fact, while I specifically talk
about the term “basic,” there is a
larger culture of judgement that
is important to recognize. No one
is the same, and we’d do well to
embrace our differences.
—Anna Polumbo-Levy can be
reached at annapl@umich.edu.
ANNA
POLUMBO -
LEVY
Inquiry deserves a timely response
FROM THE DAILY