T
wo years ago, I joined
ROTC on campus as a
sophomore. That March,
in 2015, the boy I considered to
be one of my closest friends both
in the program and in the school
decided to take advantage of me
one night after I had been drinking
at the bars. I didn’t know what to
think the next few days; I passed
the night off as something that had
happened before: I got too drunk,
and mistakes were made. It wasn’t
until I came back to school my
junior year after a summer away
from everything University of
Michigan-related that I realized I
wasn’t OK, and what had happened
to me wasn’t OK.
I spent the first few months of
my junior year feeling targeted
and isolated every time I had to
sit in uniform among my ROTC
peers, and experienced panic
attacks continuously. I felt unsafe,
paranoid and scared of the other
cadets. The military is built
on trust, but mine had been so
violated that I didn’t really know
who in that entire room I could
trust. I went to the Sexual Assault
Prevention and Awareness Center
soon after school began, asked for
help and started seeing a therapist
who I still see today. She later told
me I had been diagnosed with
PTSD, something that at the time I
only associated with war veterans
and people who had been nearly
murdered in an alley behind a bar.
When I first went to my
therapist, I refused to think of
myself as a victim. I had been
living a lifestyle of partying and
drunken nights at boys’ places in
college that hadn’t been a problem,
until the boy was a friend and I
had said no. Before, it had only
been the assholes, my interactions
with whom I could shrug off,
convincing myself that I was using
them as well.
But actually accepting that
I hadn’t had control over what
happened that night in March was
very difficult, because if I was a
victim, then I was weak. It took me
many long months of therapy to
start appreciating the word victim
for what it is. It has absolutely no
bearing on me or my decisions,
and is only a word to describe a
person that someone else thought
they could use. The label of victim
does not define me, and it in no way
means “weak.”
Toward the end of winter
semester, just when I thought I
might be able to move past the
event and keep living my life how I
choose, the same boy who assaulted
me allegedly assaulted someone
else. I felt terrible. When it’s just
me enduring the pain, that’s OK,
but if I had said something back in
the spring, this other girl might not
be having to go through the same
thing I was.
She chose to file a university
report against him, and I spent a
month debating whether or not I
should say something. I was still
healing and didn’t think I’d be
prepared to talk about him, and I
honestly didn’t want to get him in
trouble. I felt bad that I might be
the one to end his military career.
It wasn’t until another girl in the
ROTC program came up to me
and told me that she was scared
of him that I concluded someone
like him will only continue to
hurt women, and he has no place
having authority over people in
the military.
So I spoke with a professor I
trusted in the ROTC program, and
things started to move very quickly.
I was told nothing would happen
unless I filed a report with the
police and with the school, though
I felt there was nearly no chance
of that leading anywhere — it had
happened almost a year ago, and
was now only a he said, she said
scenario. I decided to move forward
and file a case with both the police
and the University.
The investigation led by the
University took about four months.
The school had set up measures the
last month or so, keeping him away
from ROTC and places we’d both
be. But this year, my senior year,
I’ve had to return to the program
with him back in it.
I don’t hear of this situation
happening too often, where a victim
of sexual assault has to see and
interact with their attacker after
the fact, and is expected to work on
the same team as them. Yes, it does
suck. People in the program don’t
bring it up anymore because he is
back and, so I’ve heard, preaches
his innocence. But I have a strong
support system around me this year
consisting of people who’ve heard
of what he has been accused of and
agree that it’s despicable, especially
for a future military officer. They
hear my side of the story without
just assuming the guy who’s back
with us in class must be innocent.
It’s very difficult having to share
the space with him once again, but
I’ve progressed so far this past year
and I am really proud of myself. I
have my moments where I have
to leave the room in tears instead
of continuing to sit in a SAPAC
briefing and be told “sex without
consent is not OK,” but for the most
part, I’ve been so much happier.
For the first time in years, I can
focus on my schoolwork, and I don’t
feel like I have to drink four times
a week to get rid of my thoughts.
I have an amazing boyfriend just
a few years after I thought that I
was broken and incapable of letting
someone grow close to me. I want to
use my experiences to help prevent
similar things from happening to
others. That way, he does not win
— I do.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, October 24, 2016
Redefining victim: I say who wins
The promise of tomorrow
DAVID SCHAFER AND MICAH GRIGGS | OP-ED
F
rom campaigns for gender
equality to expressions of
discontent over past athletic
policies, student activism is very
much at the core of our university’s
history. By uniting to advance
positive
change,
University
of
Michigan students drive discovery
and shape innovation.
As students, our ability to
mobilize, both on this campus and
beyond, speaks to the ethos of our
student body — an ethos that John
F. Kennedy recognized when he
proclaimed from the steps of the
Michigan Union that this University
is endowed with a greater purpose.
We’re at our best when we embrace
the higher calling of our education
and use our knowledge as a vehicle
to drive progress. When we
engage in critical issues, we blaze
trails and set examples that are
recognized by individuals around
the world — University presidents
and citizens alike.
Guided by this belief, we believe
the time is right to announce
the creation of the Leadership
Engagement
Scholarship.
This
scholarship, the first of its kind
at the University, will provide
financial awards to a group of
emerging and established student
leaders — undergraduate, graduate
and professional — in any avenue
of campus life with demonstrated
financial need.
Our reason for launching this
scholarship is simple: The ability of
University students to write their
personal stories is increasingly
restricted by financial barriers.
There are obstacles that exist
in the way of extracurricular
involvement: Some organizations
require their members to contribute
financially, while all necessitate that
leaders dedicate large amounts of
time without the pay. Owing to this
opportunity cost, which is more
pronounced against the backdrop
of rising tuition and housing prices,
students are often forced to forgo
experiences outside of the classroom
for paid work. On a national level, it
is estimated that the average college
student works about 19 hours per
week. When students are pressed
for time and money, extracurricular
involvement is often the first sacrifice
that students make.
There are students who are
currently unable to participate
in the rich extracurricular life of
the
University.
These
affected
individuals lose out on invaluable
opportunities to which they should
be afforded — opportunities that
otherwise might very well come to
define their University experience.
We know and embrace the unique
and elevated significance of this
type of involvement because we’ve
lived it. We’ve developed as leaders,
grown as people, and forged
lasting friendships through our
extracurricular membership, just
as have many Wolverines before
us. It’s worth noting, for example,
that Gerald R. Ford was a member
of student government, Lucy
Liu was in a sorority and Adam
Schefter wrote for The Michigan
Daily when he was a student.
The Leadership Engagement
Scholarship is very much aligned
with the mission, vision and
purpose of the Diversity, Equity
and Inclusion strategic plan. This
fund will function as a “tool of
equity” by helping to better level
the playing field for lower-income
students in the extracurricular
world. It’s also important to
recognize that on-campus student
leadership elevates our prospects.
Extracurricular
involvement
provides students with a natural
networking
base
and
the
opportunity
to
enhance
their
resumes — both of which often prove
to be invaluable when students look
for jobs and internships.
The
scholarship
is
also
appropriate as we prepare to
celebrate Michigan’s Bicentennial.
It builds off the nearly 200-year
story of “this Michigan of Ours,”
which, as we touched on earlier,
has been told through countless
examples of student leadership. As
we begin to shape the University’s
third century, we must embrace
the belief that participation in our
“uncommon education” should be
open to all students.
Through this scholarship, we
hope to realize a more diverse,
equitable and inclusive tomorrow.
We can’t, however, do this alone.
While a small number of generous
donors have pledged $100,000 to
this fund, we need your help to
achieve our goal of raising a total of
$500,000 to make this scholarship a
reality. This amount of money would
provide annual awards to a group
of 10 to 15 students. Pay it forward
by sharing your story, advancing
our student outreach efforts and
engaging in our fundraising drives.
Every donation is meaningful — no
matter its size.
Among our favorite aspects of
the University is the fact that here,
at one of the finest universities in
the world, we have always been
about tomorrow. This is the essence
of the Leadership Engagement
Scholarship. It’s about creating
opportunities for all, and expecting
engagement from all — now and for
the life of the University. Together,
let’s marry thoughtful vision with
concrete action. Let’s work to
provide students with possibilities
that are worthy of their promise.
To learn more about the
Leadership
Engagement
Scholarship, or how to volunteer
or donate, visit studentlife.umich.
edu/leadership-engagement-
scholarship. If you have any
questions, please reach out to
leadershipscholarship@umich.
LAURA SCHINAGLE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
SHOHAM GEVA
Editor in Chief
CLAIRE BRYAN
and REGAN DETWILER
Editorial Page Editors
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.
Carolyn Ayaub
Claire Bryan
Regan Detwiler
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Ben Keller
Minsoo Kim
Payton Luokkala
Kit Maher
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Lauren Schandevel
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Ashley Tjhung
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
W
hen
it
comes
to
the
future
of
our
country,
few
issues are as critical as our
education system. An educated
population is fundamental for
everything, from our economy
to our democracy.
Yet, education policy
has been a second-
tier
issue
in
this
year’s
presidential
campaign, and was
not addressed at any
of the three debates.
Ask
the
general
public,
and
an
unfortunately large
number
of
people
won’t know where
either candidate stands on the
issue. Clinton’s policies are
more fleshed out and her track
record is more impressive,
but in this case, what she has
proposed to do once in office
is ambiguous. While education
policy is unlikely to change
votes at this point, it’s time for
our candidates to take a stand
on education. One of them will
be president, and they must
be held accountable when it
comes to the direction of our
education system.
Let’s start by breaking down
higher education plans. Bernie
Sanders made student debt
a big issue, and for the most
part,
Hillary
Clinton
took
his position. She is in favor
of “debt-free” public colleges
with free tuition for any family
making less than $125,000 per
year. At half a trillion dollars,
this plan will be paid for, she
claims, by raising taxes on
the richest Americans. She
also believes students should
spend about 10 hours per week
working in order to help pay
for their tuition. As a senator,
Clinton introduced legislation
to increase Pell Grant funding.
While it is a good idea, it is
unclear how she will pay for
it, and that is where her policy
must get more specific. In fact,
Trump’s
team
has
jumped
on this and said her plan is
impossible.
Trump’s
policy
adviser, Sam Clovis, says that
government itself should not
be involved in providing loans
to students and that it should
be banks doing so; this would
be a disaster. Besides this
point, contrasted with Clinton’s
more
specific
plan,
Trump
has said very little. Trump’s
policy positions get even more
confusing when we go to another
important topic in education.
Charter schools are a very
contentious
issue.
Clinton
has changed her opinion on
charter schools throughout the
years. As first lady in 1999 she
told the National Education
Association to “stand behind
the
charter
school
public
school movement.” In 2008, as
a candidate for president, she
had a more qualified support
of charter schools, as she was
in favor Public School Choice
programs
and
experimenting with
different
options,
but
said
charter
schools
can’t
be
allowed
to
drain
resources
from
public
schools.
While
she
has
been in favor of
charter schools in
the past, today she
seems much more
reserved. Last November, she
said charter schools do not help
those who need them the most,
and by investing more in the
public education system, we
can create better public schools
from which parents can choose.
Call it evolving over decades in
public service or call it appeasing
the two biggest teacher unions
— both of which have endorsed
her — but one thing is for sure:
Clinton has changed her rhetoric
on school choice. Where she
would stand is unclear and
dependent on her selection of
secretary of education.
On the flipside, aligning
with
most
conservative
policymakers, Donald Trump
has been steadily in favor
of more school choice. He
believes the education system
needs
more
competition:
“If you forced schools to
get better or close because
parents didn’t want to enroll
their kids there, they would
get
better.”
To
increase
enrollment at charter schools,
he would move $20 billion
in existing federal dollars to
promote a voucher program
that would enable kids in
poverty
to
attend
charter
schools. This, according to
many Democrats, would take
funds away from current public
schools and would deprive
the schools of much-needed
resources. Trump is staunchly
pro-charter school and pro-
voucher programs. And while
it seems like Clinton is in favor
of a qualified and experimental
charter school program, she is
vehemently against the voucher
program, as she thinks it will
take funds away from public
schools that need it most.
A third issue that both
candidates could be clearer on
is pre-kindergarten education.
Clinton wants to make pre-K
universal and double the Head
Start program, which helps
low-income students in their
early years in school. The plan
would likely cost $75 billion.
If there’s one primary issue
for Clinton, it’s here. She
started in law school, where
she worked for the Children’s
Defense Fund and continued
as first lady of Arkansas, where
she started home visiting for
new mothers in poverty. She
made a huge difference as
first lady of the United States,
where she pushed for the 1997
State Child Health Insurance
Program and the Early Head
Start
program,
which
help
more than 8 million children.
Additionally, her first book, “It
Takes A Village,” concerns early
childhood investment. As The
Atlantic puts it: “For the first
time in U.S. history, Americans
may be about to elect a president
whose signature issue is early
childhood.” On the contrary, it
seems that Trump is severely
lacking in a history of education
initiatives. In fact, an article in
U.S. News and World Report
reported, “As for Donald Trump,
his primary track record on
early
childhood
education
seems to be the number of times
other people have compared
him to a preschooler.”
Our
education
system
determines
our
country’s
future, and it’s been ignored.
While
neither
candidate
has
talked
enough
about
education to hammer down
all their plans, we can look at
history for an idea of where
the two candidates stand.
Clinton has spent her entire
life advocating for childhood
education, while Trump has
spent the entire campaign
defending his only experience
in
education:
Trump
University. We have outlines
of plans, but when it comes
to how they will change our
education system, we have very
few specifics. This is not OK;
we must prioritize education
policy and the discussion of
such policy if we want to make
any improvements.
Prioritize education policy
ANNIE TURPIN | CONTACT ANNIE AT ASTURPIN@UMICH.EDU
Readers are encouraged to submit letters
to the editor and op-eds. Letters should be
fewer than 300 words while op-eds should
be 550 to 850 words. Send the writer’s
full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
This is the third piece in the
Survivors Speak series, which
seeks to share the varied,
first-person experiences of survivors
of sexual assault. If you are a
survivor and would like to submit
to the series, please visit
michigandaily.com/section/opinion
for more information.
EMILY BUTTE
CJ MAYER | COLUMN
CJ Mayer can be reached at
mayercj@umich.edu
CJ
MAYER
Our education
system
determines our
country’s future,
and it’s been
ignored.
Emily Butte is an LSA senior.
For a complete list of signees, visit
michigandaily.com.