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.