The controversial six-month
sentencing for Stanford swimmer
Brock Turner and the language
used
by
the
defendant
and the judge
have revealed
the
societal
indifference toward rape. In this
case, and in current culture in
general, there is a dismissal of
the credibility of the survivor
by
questioning
whether
the
survivor’s
actions
may
have
provoked or enabled the attack.
While
these
questions
are
common, they are part of a
cultural indifference toward rape
that fails to hold perpetrators
accountable and subsequently
invalidates the suffering of the
survivor.
After reading the survivor’s
letter to Turner, which was
read aloud in court, we can see
that the initial report attempts
to minimize the severity of
Turner’s actions by listing his
swimming lap times and his
numerous extracurriculars. This,
more than anything, seems like
an attempt to evoke sympathy for
Turner. In reality, the individual
in need of support is the survivor,
not Turner. As the survivor
indicates, these statistics were
listed
immediately
after
the
description of the rape. By doing
this, the author of the article
tried to avoid painting him as a
criminal. He may have raped an
unconscious woman, but other
than that, he is really just a
successful student-athlete.
What’s more alarming are the
questions the survivor was asked
in court. As her letter indicates,
she was asked how much she
drank and what she was wearing.
In reality, these questions are
irrelevant. They play on the idea
that perhaps she was partially
responsible for his actions. The
mentality is that since she was
drinking, she was letting her
guard down. The defense was
trying to push the notion that
if she didn’t drink so much, she
could have easily resisted and
prevented the situation. To add to
that, the question of her clothing
works with the idea that dressing
provocatively or promiscuously
is asking for sex and that she
shouldn’t have dressed in a
manner that may attract a man.
Let me be clear: Clothing and
alcohol consumption are never
responsible for sexual assault.
No lack of clothing indicates
consent. Consent is not a style
of dress or style of dance. The
Universitiy’s sexual misconduct
policy says “consent is a clear
and
unambiguous
agreement,
expressed
outwardly
through
mutually
understandable
words or actions, to engage in
a particular activity,” must be
“voluntarily given” and “cannot
be obtained through coercion or
force.” Consent is not kissing or
a mere back rub, which, as the
survivor’s letter indicates, was
precisely what Turner cited in
his initial defense.
Turner’s father released a
statement on social media that
further
epitomizes
cultural
indifferences to rape. First, he
describes the rape carried out
by his son as “20 minutes of
action.” This treats the events
as perhaps a typical one-night
stand or a casual hookup. He
goes on to say that his son’s
actions were not violent, but
I would argue that rape is
inherently violent. There is
nothing peaceful about people
thrusting
themselves
on
defenseless
individuals
who
haven’t expressed consent. The
survivor in Turner’s case even
noted scratches and abrasions
across her body.
Finally, in his justification
for the six-month sentence,
the judge indicated he feared
“a prison sentence would have
a severe impact on him,” and
“there is less moral culpability
attached
to
the
defendant,
who is … intoxicated.” This
frustrates
me
the
most.
Once again referring to the
University’s Sexual Misconduct
Policy, it is the responsibility of
the initiator of each individual
sexual activity to obtain the
consent of the other individual.
If Turner was too intoxicated
to
attempt
to
obtain
his
survivor’s consent, let alone to
notice that she was incapable of
consenting, then he should not
have been pursuing sex.
Given that Turner admitted
5
OPINION
Thursday, June 9, 2016
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
INTERESTED IN CAMPUS ISSUES?
Every Monday at 7 pm, the Daily’s opinion staff meets to discuss both University
and national affairs and write editorials.
E-mail opinioneditors@michigandaily.com to join in the conversation.
We need to change our
attitudes toward rape
Roland Davidson, Caitlin Heenan, Elena Hubbell, Jeremy Kaplan,
Madeline Nowicki, Kevin Sweitzer, Brooke White.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
RYAN
ROOSE
E-mail aaron at asandEl@umich.Edu
AARON SANDEL
to
wanting
to
hook
up
with
someone,
it
was
his
responsibility then to ensure
that
his
judgment
wasn’t
severely impaired by alcohol
and that his potential partner
was capable of consenting. He
failed to do that. I cannot fault
an individual for wanting to
have sex — it’s human nature.
But most individuals seeking
sex have no problem taking the
necessary precautions to avoid
putting themselves in situations
like Turner’s. Regardless of
whether he intended to rape
someone, he failed to perform
the simple task of obtaining
consent
because
he
was
intoxicated.
Ultimately, the Brock Turner
case has become a reflection
of
a
societal
indifference
toward rape. The language
of
the
defendant
and
the
judge mirrors a tendency to
invalidate the suffering of rape
survivors while simultaneously
removing
accountability
from the rapist and placing
the
responsibility
on
the
shoulders of the survivor. If
an individual drinks too much,
the consequence should be
the natural punishment of a
hangover: vomiting, blackouts,
a visit to the hospital or a
citation — not rape. If an
individual chooses to dress
promiscuously, the individual
is
not
offering
themselves
up for sex. We need to make
tremendous progress in our
attitudes toward rape, and that
involves recognizing that the
survivor is never responsible.
Instead of making excuses for
the perpetrators, we need to
hold them accountable and
ensure that they understand
their actions are inexcusable.
—Ryan Roose can be reached
at rooserj@umich.edu.