M
e:
*Reading
off
a
30-page script in high-
pitched, infantilizing
voice even though I’m only one
year older than you*
“Hey everyone, welcome to
Relationship
Remix!
I’m your Sexperteam
facilitator, Clarissa!”
*10
minutes
and
one obviously forced
and uncomfortable ice
breaker later*
“OK!
Now
let’s
talk about our values
and how we act in
accordance with those
values. Can anyone
give me an example?”
Student 1: “Well I
value timeliness, so I
make sure I’m on time to stuff.”
Student 2: “And I value family,
so I make sure to call my family
once a week.”
Me:
“Wow,
great!
Thanks
so much for sharing, everyone!
Has anyone ever not acted in
accordance with their values?
What about when drugs or alcohol
are involved?”
And so on.
As you might’ve guessed, I
was a facilitator for Relationship
Remix. This year, though, I
quit. When I started facilitating
Remix three years ago I thought
I’d be having really honest and
exciting
conversations
about
sexual health with incoming
freshpeople. Instead, I ended up
babying 18 and 19 year olds — I’m
only 21 — forcing them to chat
with me, another facilitator and
40 others about their “values”
and “choices” for 90 minutes.
The goal of Remix is sexual
health education and sexual
violence prevention, which I
agree with a bajillion percent.
What I disagree with is the
way Remix is framed. Remix
simplifies sexual and romantic
relationships
to
be
about
identifying
your
values
and
acting
in
accordance
with
those values. It individualizes
the sexual roles we’ve been
socialized into and it takes the
sexuality out of sex.
Remix is an hour-and-a-half
program, and during the entire
first hour you don’t talk about sex.
There’s one part where you think
about
potential
relationships
(both romantic and not) and
consider these potential-people-
you-might-be-in-a-relationship-
with’s traits. You then place these
traits in their respective boxes:
necessary, bonus, deal breaker,
OK. The goal of this I think is
twofold: for the activity to be
applicable to people
who don’t experience
sexual or romantic
attraction,
and
to
make people who are
uncomfortable talking
explicitly about sex feel
more comfortable.
Realizing that people
come
from
different
places
and
different
levels of comfort is
totally legitimate and
necessary for this kind
of work, but the extent
to which Remix doesn’t talk about
sex during a workshop about sex is
weird. While many people may feel
awkward talking about sex or may
not want to talk about sex at all, a lot
of people really do want to talk about
sex and the workshop is literally here
so we can talk about sex.
Given the current state of
both sex-negative culture and
the policies governing sex ed in
K-12 schools, a lot of people have
never been given space to talk
openly about sex. Many students
are disappointed by Remix when
they realize the extent of the sex
discussion is learning the 879
steps to putting a condom on a
wooden penis and how to use
a dental dam (a what?). People
have questions about sex. People
want to learn about sex. Let’s
encourage this conversation; let’s
give people information. Let’s
talk about pleasure and orgasms
rather than timeliness.
The sex part of Remix has
approximately
three
parts:
talking about consent, a condom
demonstration and a monologue
about
sexual
violence.
A
conversation about consent is
needed, given the dismal amount
of sexual violence in the world
and on college campuses, but we
do ourselves a disservice when
we frame consent as merely
saying and receiving a “yes” or
“no.” The consent conversation
that happens in Remix discusses
interpersonal
coercion
and
manipulation — both of which are
necessary to acknowledge — but
what this conversation neglects
is our social existence during sex.
Simply saying “yes” or “no” to
sex can only be the qualification
for consensual sex within a
hyper-individualist context; it
does nothing to acknowledge
the sexual roles we often find
ourselves trapped within during
sexual
experiences.
Lots
of
people say yes to sex even when
they don’t mean it, even when
there’s no obvious interpersonal
coercion or manipulation, and
even when there are no alcohol
or other drugs involved. This
reality is something we have to
acknowledge and think critically
about if we want to eliminate it.
The way Remix tries to
acknowledge this saying-yes-to-
sex-even-when-you-don’t-mean-
it issue is through a role-playing
exercise. The facilitators tell the
participants to role play with the
person sitting next to them and
give them a couple situations to
act out. I’ll give you two:
Situation 1: “Someone you
want to hook up with asks you
to go up to their room. Practice
having this conversation.”
Person 1: “Do you want to go
hook up in my room?”
Person 2: “Sure, let’s go.”
Situation 2: “Someone you don’t
want to hook up with asks you
to go up to their room. Practice
having this conversation.”
Person 1: “Do you want to go
hook up in my room?”
Person 2: “No.”
No,
the
participants
I’ve
constructed
for
my
example
aren’t particularly enthusiastic
or engaged, but I think this is the
reality for a lot of participants in
Remix. I remember when I was a
participant these were my answers
to the “role play” scenarios.
These role play “experiences”
fail for a number of reasons, the
first of which is they’re painfully
fake, and the second of which
deals with the dynamic in the
room. Remix workshops are
made up of dorm halls and Remix
takes place in the fall. What this
means is that for Remix, people
are in rooms of 40 strangers with
whom they’re asked to pretend
to have conversations about
hooking up.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Ilitch stands out for voting
against tuition increases six times
during her past eight years as
regent. She has called both on
the state of Michigan to increase
education funding and for the
creation of a campus commission
to explore alternative sources of
revenue for the University aside
from state funding. Her extensive
background in business also adds
important fiscal experience to the
board. She wants to “get a lid on
tuition” as the best way to address
issues of campus diversity.
In addition to her passionate
advocacy
for
an
affordable
college education, Ilitch has
worked throughout her career
to address critical social issues
that affect students on campus.
She has been on the Board
of Directors of the NAACP’s
Detroit Branch and serves as
an advisory board member for
the American Civil Liberties
Union. As a regent, she has
been an advocate for increasing
awareness about campus sexual
assault
and
was
supportive
of
University
initiatives
strengthening the University’s
sexual misconduct policy. This is
especially important in context
of the Department of Education’s
Office of Civil Rights 2014
investigation into the University
violating Title IX. Furthermore,
she has expressed an interest
in
growing
regent-student
contact, which is critical for
regents
to
make
informed
decisions about what is best for
the University community.
Many of the benefits of having
Ilitch remain on the Board
of Regents are echoed in the
career history and past policy
initiatives
of
co-incumbent,
Laurence Deitch.
Deitch is currently the longest-
serving regent, and though we
understand why there may be
the assumption that he is out of
touch with student life — as he
has now served longer than many
students have been alive — we
believe he remains aware of the
campus environment and issues
that are important for students.
Like Ilitch, Deitch has students’
financial
interests
in
mind,
having focused on increasing
financial aid for students and
looking for alternative funding
options for the University. During
his tenure, tuition increases of
3.9 percent for in-state students
and 4.4 percent for out-of-
state students were matched
with a 10.8-percent increase
in
undergraduate
financial
aid, in part because of Deitch’s
advocacy. Even though increases
in financial aid do not completely
counteract
tuition
increases,
Deitch has continuously searched
for alternative solutions, such as
boosting summer- and spring-
term enrollment, to keep tuition
as low as possible. Because of his
past efforts, we have faith that
he will continue work like this in
the future.
In addition to being financially
minded,
Deitch
prioritizes
social issues on campus. A self-
claimed advocate for students’
right to free speech, Deitch has
also consistently advocated for
diversity within the University,
first through his co-leadership
of the 1993 effort to add sexual
orientation to the University’s anti-
discrimination policy, and most
recently through his support for
the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
Strategic Plan, with reference to
the postings of fliers targeting
minority students on campus as
evidence for the need to call the
campus together.
Ilitch and Deitch face eight
challengers this year. The two
Republican
challengers,
Ron
Weiser and Carl Meyers, might
have been the only viable other
options among the eight because
of
their
finance-mindedness
and their emphasis on increased
interaction
between
regents
and students. However, both
candidates’ stances on improving
the campus climate for students
with
marginalized
identities
— critical for a member of the
governing board for the University
— leave something to be desired.
Weiser, a generous donor
to the University, has run on a
platform of lowering tuition,
increasing
transparency
of
the Board of Regents, creating
regent office hours and investing
more in the Dearborn and Flint
campuses. He has also voiced
support for the creation of a
student regent position and was
critical of President Schlissel’s
recent pay raise. While these
efforts are commendable, past
comments and parts of his
platform are causes for concern.
In 2012, Weiser faced criticism
for
using
racist
stereotypes
degrading Detroit voters, which
reflects negatively on his ability
to represent the student body. In
addition, he says in his platform
he wants to run the University
“like a business,” which reflects
a mentality that contradicts the
role of the University as a public
educational institution.
Meyers
has
also
focused
his
platform
on
exercising
fiscal discipline, transparency
and student involvement, as
well as advocating increasing
accessibility for students of all
socioeconomic
backgrounds
— all of which are admirable
efforts. In his platform, Meyers
even
promises
to
propose
freezing
tuition
for
in-state
students and seeks to limit
enrollment of out-of-state and
international students. While
increasing accessibility to higher
education for Michigan residents
of low socioeconomic status is
vitally important, much of the
rhetoric in Meyers’ platform
is exclusionary to out-of-state
and
international
students
whose tuition and pursuits at
the University play a crucial
role in keeping the University
financially afloat.
With
both
finance
and
community in mind, the Daily’s
Editorial
Board
confidently
endorses
incumbent
Regents
Denise
Ilitch
and
Laurence
Deitch for re-election to the
University of Michigan Board
of Regents. Both candidates
are aware of University and
student needs, and have fought
for affordability while regularly
showing an active involvement
in social issues pertinent to
creating an inclusive campus
climate.
Their
Republican
challengers
are
formidable,
but neither Weiser nor Meyers
accurately represent the values
present on our campus. Ilitch
and Deitch should be re-elected
to continue their dedication to
the University as regents for the
next eight years.
CLARISSA
DONELLY-
DEROVEN
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
Brett Graham
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
I
f you have been watching the
news, scrolling through your
Twitter feed, sifting through
your
Facebook
timeline or simply
not living under a
rock over the past
few weeks, you know
that
Republican
presidential nominee
Donald Trump has
dug himself an even
deeper
hole
this
election, and I’m not
sure he’ll be able to
climb out.
The leaked video of Trump
degrading women a few weeks
back proved the sexist nature of the
Republican nominee and created
a vacuum of anti-Trump rhetoric
from both sides of the political
spectrum. In fact, GOP members
began to denounce Donald Trump
as the face of the party in this
election, scorning the nominee’s
very unpresidential actions. To
that, all I can say to Republicans
who backed Trump in the first
place is: Are you really surprised?
This
election
has
seen
Donald Trump insult numerous
demographics numerous times.
The leaked video was tangible and
vivid evidence of an already sound
fact: Donald Trump is a sexist.
Yet, even with this disgusting
video circulating on the internet
and being talked about on every
news media outlet, the question of
Democratic presidential nominee
Hillary Clinton’s email controversy
still is being talked about as an
equivalent offense to Trump’s
actions. The danger in this is
that one concerns the faults of a
politician, and the other concerns
the faults of a human being.
As many of us know, this has
been
a
media-driven,
policy-
lacking election. Events in the
candidates’ pasts have been talked
about in debates more than pivotal
policy issues. It has become an
entertaining
and
provocative
election,
but
for
the
wrong
reasons. It’s true: The past actions
of presidential nominees do hold
a great amount of relevance when
voters go to the polls
in November. We are
voting for the leader of
our country, the face
of our country and the
person who is going to
change our country. A
nominee’s past speaks
to their character: What
they have done speaks
to what they will do, so
it’s rational and right to
give sure weight to the
past of both Donald Trump and
Hillary Clinton.
However,
the
histories
of
Clinton and Trump have become
too relevant in the way we are
discussing
them.
They
have
become points of entertaining
news cycles and political debate.
The U.S. public is caught up in
the intriguing “he said, she said”
stories, weighing these tabloid-
worthy, scandal-clad events on par
with proposed policy. Both sides of
the political spectrum scrutinize
the opposing candidate’s past —
a back-and-forth that has been
going on for the past two months.
Regardless, we cannot weigh the
past of Hillary Clinton against that
of Donald Trump, especially now
with the Access Hollywood video
as the icing on the cake of Donald
Trump’s failed crusade to winning
the presidency.
Every
politician
makes
mistakes. If you look back through
history, no president has gotten
through
his
term
perfectly
unscathed. However, these same
presidents have owned up to their
mistakes, to their political faults
and to their missteps in judgment.
They have done the right thing
by admitting they did the wrong
thing. Hillary Clinton’s political
past is tainted with both scandal
and mistakes. This is true, but that
doesn’t mean she is somehow even
with Donald Trump, an argument
we seem to be making by applying
“choosing the lesser of two evils”
to this election. Talk from the
Conservative right uses Clinton’s
political mistakes to lessen the
damage of Trump’s recent and
past human failings.
The email controversy still
being talked about now, while a
mistake on Clinton’s part, does
not match the degree of Trump’s
long and historic slew of insults
and disregard for human beings.
Trump’s grotesque and sexist
remarks are ones that target
human
beings
and
human
rights. A woman’s right to be
respected by the men in her life,
and the men in the world, is a
human right — a right Trump so
blatantly ignored. Any woman
— of any party, race, religion,
background, level of education —
has been insulted by that video.
The clear difference between
the two is the fact that only one
has taken true responsibility for
her mistakes while the other has
defensively protested them, even
in the face of clear evidence. In
fact, last week, Donald Trump
threatened to sue all women who
have accused him of sexual assault.
This defensive act and pure
disregard for what his own words
truly meant is the difference
between the human being Donald
Trump is and the human being
Hillary Clinton is. Clinton has
admitted to the mistakes of her
past. She hasn’t gone on the
defensive and argued that the
media, the Liberals and the world
are against her. No, she has taken
responsibility for her wrongdoings,
admitting to her own flaws.
Hillary Clinton and Donald
Trump are two flawed candidates,
possibly
the
most
flawed
candidates a U.S. election has seen,
but measuring their flaws against
each other isn’t fair. Those political
mistakes of Clinton are no match
for the human faults of Trump.
Personal vs. political mistakes
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY | COLUMN
Clarissa Donnelly-Deroven can be
reached at cedon@umich.edu.
FROM THE DAILY
Ilitch, Deitch for Regents
N
ext week, the residents of the state of Michigan, including any
student registered to vote in the state, will be voting on two
open positions on the University of Michigan Board of Regents.
According to Michigan’s State Constitution, the Board of Regents
maintains a “general supervision” of the University and directs the funds
and expenditures for each year. For their focus on an increasingly inclusive
campus climate and on sensible finances for the University, which we
believe best exemplifies the responsibility the Constitution requires of
regents, we endorse the two incumbents, Denise Ilitch (D–Bingham
Farms) and Laurence Deitch (D–Bloomfield Hills) for the two positions on
the University’s Board of Regents up for election on Nov. 8.
Desexualizing sex
CLARISSA DONNELLY-DEROVEN | COLUMN
Anu Roy-Chaudhury can be
reached at anuroy@umich.edu.
ANU ROY-
CHAUDHURY
IN CHAN LEE | CONTACT IN CHAN AT TOKG@UMICH.EDU
Read more at MichiganDaily.com