My throat was as dry as my feet 

were sore. I wedged my way upstairs 
through 
sweaty 
dancing 
bodies 

and walked into the room of a guy I 
considered a friend. I was just going to 
grab water and that’s when he grabbed 
me. He clasped his arm tightly around 
my waist and pulled me toward his bed, 
attempting to lock the door behind me. 
I was close enough to smell the alcohol 
on his breath and hear his soft slurred 
plea, “Come on.” That’s when I got the 
hell out of there.

The following morning I woke up 

in the comfort of my own bed, but I 
wondered what would have happened 
if I weren’t in a position to defend 
myself. I wondered if the height of my 
shoes or fit of my jeans would have 
made a difference. I wondered if what 
I ate, what I drank or how I danced 
would have mattered. I wondered if 
the exposed skin on my chest and arms 
would have exposed me as someone 
other than a victim if I were sexually 
assaulted that night.

Fortunately, wondering was the 

extent of my worry. I moved on from 
that night and eventually forgot it as 
easily as I forget my keys on the way to 
class. When news broke about Brock 
Turner, the former Stanford swimmer 
charged with sexual assault of an 
unconscious woman, I was reminded. 
A nauseating thought crossed my mind 
as I read the horrifying details — that 
woman could have been me.

People bear a certain amount of 

responsibility to protect themselves, 
but a girl’s vulnerability doesn’t signal 
a free shot at some “action.” The public 
outrage over Turner’s six-month 
sentence is proof that a large amount 
of people agree. USA Swimming even 
banned the 20-year-old athlete from 
membership for life. However, in this 
case, the U.S. legal system took a highly 
scrutinized stance toward crimes 
involving sexual assaults on college 
campuses: if you are rich, if you are 
white and if you are athletically gifted, 
then you are in luck.

Part of the reason the decision in 

this case is infuriating is because it 
sympathizes with the wrong person. 
Honestly, who cares if Turner had a 
bright future? We’re talking about a 
guy who was found guilty for three 
counts of sexual assault. The fact that 
six months is even a possibility for 
a sentence to this crime minimizes 
the damaging effects on the victim 
and unveils systematic inequalities 
embedded in our legal system.

Last April, Corey Batey, an African 

American male and former Vanderbilt 
football player, was found guilty for 
aggravated rape and two counts of 
aggravated sexual battery against an 
unconscious woman. Just like Turner, 
Batey was a successful 19-year-old 
student athlete and had been drinking 
when he committed the crime. 
However, Batey’s punishment was 
vastly different. About three years after 
his initial arrest, he was sentenced with 
a minimum of 15 to 25 years in prison.

A consistent agreement about 

the role a person’s past plays in the 
courtroom doesn’t exist, but in the case 
of sexual assault, the law should not be 
subjective, especially not by race.

Paul Wallin, California criminal 

defense attorney and founding partner 
of Wallin & Klarich said, “(Turner’s) 
punishment is he’s lost his college 
education, he’s going to have to register 
as a sex offender, which is basically 
going to ruin his life. He can’t even 
apply to get off registration for about 13 
years from now.”

Urinating in public lands a person 

a spot on the sex offenders list. It’s not 
a punishment. It’s a result of certain 
behavior, and hearing the sympathy 
that exists for Turner is disheartening. 
Batey also lost his scholarship and 
college education, but he was not 
shown leniency in the courtroom, nor 
should he have been. Race, class or 
socioeconomic status shouldn’t dictate 
a person’s punishment, but Turner 
was able to use those factors to his 
advantage.

According to California law, he 

should be serving a minimum of three 

years in prison. Turner was found 
guilty. Even worse, he prolonged the 
process by denying his guilt and taking 
the woman he sexually assaulted to 
trial. It’s true Turner had no prior 
convictions, but that doesn’t lessen the 
impact of his crime. A denial of guilt 
doesn’t show remorse or cooperation. 
It shows a coward. He ran away from 
an unconscious girl, just like he ran 
away from responsibility.

What disturbs me the most is 

how Turner claimed the victim was 
enjoying herself beside the dumpster. 
What a sad effort to save himself. 
Anyone who sexually assaults a 
woman and claims she enjoyed it 
deserves to rot in prison, no matter 
how fast he glides through water.

Ironically, Turner exhibited a 

complete lack of accountability, while 
the victim was held accountable for 
her decision to drink. In her letter to 
Turner, she wrote, “Alcohol is not an 
excuse. Is it a factor? Yes. But alcohol 
was not the one who stripped me, 
fingered me, had my head dragging 
against the ground, with me almost 
fully naked. Having too much to drink 
was an amateur mistake that I admit 
to, but it is not criminal.”

Drinking is not the cause of sexual 

assault. 
Though 
alcohol 
impairs 

judgment, being drunk doesn’t excuse 
crime. If it did, there’d be a whole lot 
less DUIs administered.

But unlike a DUI, drinking isn’t the 

root of the problem. Plenty of college 
students 
drink 
without 
sexually 

assaulting others. The problem is that 
drinking has turned into a means 
of deflecting blame away from the 
attacker and toward the victim. If a 
woman victim was drunk, she has to 
defend herself against the blurred lines 
of consent. Maybe she said yes. Maybe 
she wanted it to happen. Oh, she was 
wearing a skirt? She must have been 
asking for it.

“She put herself in the position 

to be found next to a dumpster,” 
Wallin said. “She drank to three 
times the legal limit. People at that 

4

Thursday, June 16, 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.

Donor discrimination

In the wake of the tragedy that 

occurred at the Pulse nightclub in 
Orlando over the weekend, many of 
the 53 injured are in need of blood 
from local hospitals, whether this 
be for a loss of blood during the 
shooting or to complete lifesaving 
surgeries. With the extent of 
injuries 
requiring 
blood 
from 

donations, local hospitals called 
out for volunteers to donate blood. 
However, not everyone who wants 
to help save those lives is allowed 
to do so.

As a volunteer for the American 

Red Cross and a frequent blood 
donor, I am not unaccustomed to 
the policies of the Red Cross during 
blood donation. There are many 
restrictions. Donors cannot have 
been to areas where Malaria has 
been found in the last 12 months. 
Donors cannot have gotten a new 
tattoo in the last 12 months. Donors 
cannot have had sex for money 
since 1977. Donors cannot be male 
and have had sex with another male 
in the last 12 months, among many 
other eligibility requirements. This 
last requirement greatly limits the 
potential for people to be helped 
in the wake of a tragedy when the 
community that the victims belong 
to are barred from aiding in the 
process of saving lives.

In December 2015, the FDA 

revised 
the 
blood 
donation 

eligibility requirement from not 
allowing males who have had 
sexual contact with another male 
since 1977 to donate within the 
last year. The FDA guideline for 
blood donation now requires that 
individuals, “Defer for 12 months 
from the most recent contact a man 
who has had sex with another man 
during the past 12 months. Defer 
for 12 months from the most recent 

contact a female who has had sex 
during the past 12 months with a 
man who has had sex with another 
man in the past 12 months.” Males 
who chose to have sex with other 
males should not automatically be 
assumed to have been in contact 
with HIV. This may have been a 
major concern when HIV was first 
encountered, but it is not a proper 
indicator of HIV status and should 
not be included in modern policies.

So many people are affected by 

a shortage in blood nationwide. 
We should be actively looking 
for ways to increase the supply 
we have, and that should involve 
making a more inclusive donation 
requirement procedure. The type 
of sex a person choses to have 
should not dictate whether a 
person is eligible to save three lives, 
especially when the need is urgent, 
such as when local hospitals and 
donation centers are calling out 
for residents to participate after 
a tragedy. Everyone who has sex 
is susceptible to contracting HIV, 
but not all people who have sex 
are banned from donating blood. 
All blood is screened before being 
given 
to 
another 
individual, 

making the current regulations 
unnecessary and discriminatory.

While the Red Cross suggests 

those who are unable to make a 
donation of blood instead make a 
monetary donation, discriminatory 
policies cannot and should not 
be tolerated. Such policies only 
encourage homophobia in a society 
that needs to change in the wake 
of a national event victimizing 
a 
targeted 
and 
stereotyped 

community.

—Caitlin Heenan is a Summer 

Senior Editorial Page Editor.

Replacing silence with strength

KIT MAHER | OP-ED

level sometimes die.”

People who share this opinion 

are part of the reason sexual assault 
cases remain largely underreported. 
However, the nationwide support the 
victim continues to receive is a clear 
sign that not all people feel this way.

Even if the efforts to recall Judge 

Persky fail, the voice of a brave victim 

has already spoken out and sparked a 
conversation. She has replaced silence 
with strength for every girl who has 
experienced a close call, every girl 
who has shared a similar suffering 
and every girl who has feared facing 
further victimization.

—Kit Maher is an LSA senior. 

CAITLIN HEENAN | OP-ED

Roland Davidson, Caitlin Heenan, Elena Hubbell, 

Jeremy Kaplan, Madeline Nowicki, 

Kevin Sweitzer, Brooke White.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

