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