T

his piece is for those of 
you not directly affected 
by sexual assault. It has 

to do with my own life experience 
and in no way is a mold for 
how others experience events 
or emotions. I feel inclined to 
write a trigger warning, for this 
contains some tough shit — so 
this is it: trigger warning.

I’m sure you’ve heard of the 

recent news surrounding Harvey 
Weinstein. If you haven’t, he’s a 
famous director and producer 
who’s been accused of rape, 
sexual 
assault 
and 
sexual 

harassment by at least 40 women, 
as The New York Times reported. 
It’s been such a big story because 
of the wide network of people in 
Hollywood who were affected 
or 
knew 
about 
Weinstein’s 

abhorrent acts. Weinstein has 
been engaging in this behavior 
for over three decades — longer 
than I’ve even been alive.

To the naïve shock of some, I 

don’t feel surprised when I read 
these reports. This culture, rape 
culture, is one that I know well. 
As some prefer to eloquently put 
it, I’m a survivor of sexual assault. 
To me, that feels too fancy. In my 
head, it feels more right to call 
it what it was — a brutal rape. I 
do understand why people cling 
to the word survivor, though, 
because 
making 
it 
through 

each day since then has been an 
indescribable struggle.

The first few months following 

were full of visceral flashbacks, 
it was as if he was on my skin 
again. I wanted so badly to peel 
it off and start anew. Can you 
imagine that? Feeling like you 
have so little control of your own 
body, being so disgusted with 
what’s happened to you that the 
only way you can fathom living 
in this body any longer is if you 
could peel bits of it away?

I couldn’t sleep, either. And 

when I did, I was awoken by 
nightmares that replayed the 

trauma over and over and over. 
Sometimes I would be walking 
down the sidewalk or hallway 
and all of the sudden he was 
there, biting me and tackling 
me to the concrete. I would 
dissociate for what feels like 
eternity. Eventually someone 
would bring me back to reality. 
Maybe it’s my mom asking 
again what I want for dinner. 
Sometimes it’s my professor 

repeating an exam review. Either 
way, it felt and still feels like I 
can’t escape.

It’s been years and I still don’t, 

or rather can’t, comfortably let 
people touch me without being 
almost in a state of panic. Even 
the slight brush of my forearm 
sends shivers up my spine and 
adrenaline through my veins. 
Seeing distant family members 
over holiday breaks is a scene out 
of my worst nightmare — hugging 
and kissing multitudes of people, 
unable to say no comfortably. 
Some see my aversion to touch as 
an overreaction, but to me it’s a 
survival mechanism.

Every day is a different challenge, 

a different barrier in overcoming 
the trauma. Constantly repeating 
to myself that I’m not worthless 
or undeserving of my humanity 
or just a body for someone else’s 
pleasure. Constantly shouting in 
my own head that it’s not my fault, 
that I didn’t make up my memories, 
that I belong on this Earth.

I think this is why they use the 

word survivor.

I want to tell you this because 

I want you to understand why I 

can’t fight this battle by myself 
— or rather, why the victims of 
sexual assault and harassment 
can’t fight this by themselves. 
You might justify my request 
and your lack of action by saying 
that others don’t bear this level 
of pain, but does it matter? They 
probably wouldn’t tell you if they 
did, because the pain in you not 
believing us is almost like it’s 
happening over again; that we’re 
not worth our humanity, again.

I want you to understand 

why we can’t fight this battle 
ourselves. We fight our own 
internal battles every day, and we 
need allies to take to the streets 
and help. We need others to stand 
up and say something when they 
hear comments implying acts 
without consent or even just 
sexualizing other beings. We 
need to know that you are here 
for us, that you will defend us and 
that you believe us.

The silence that you allow 

is the violence that plagues 
my skin.

When you hear “locker room 

talk,” stop it. Let them know 
that’s not accepted here. You 
may face resistance. People may 
ask why you care about their 
conversation or state that it 
has nothing to do with you, but 
please continue fighting this 
with us. Please know that you are 
fighting one of the noblest battles 
in existence. You are the voice for 
those whose have been robbed, 
silenced and doubted. And from 
the bottom of my heart, I will 
always be grateful for that.

S

tudents in high school dream 
and breathe every waking 
moment about going away 

to college. In high school, students 
can feel stuck in a rut: same friends, 
same teachers, same homework, 
same pressure from peers to get 
good grades and from parents to ace 
the ACT or SAT, same competition 
from seemingly every student to 
get into the top schools. But in 
the distance, there is that exciting 
college scene, where we can go out, 
hang out, hook up, experiment with 
drugs and alcohol — all without 
any supervision, no parents to be 
accountable to. 

For freshman, the world is wide 

open: We can take classes we think 
we will enjoy, focus on studies and a 
possible major we think will fit, find 
relief from the pressure to ace the 
ACT or SAT and are excited about 
participating in a social scene on 
steroids, especially in the fall. It is 
heaven on Earth! Of course, students 
soon realize that the course load 
of “only” four classes is four times 
more than their eight classes in high 
school, and homework can bury 
us. College provides students with 
an immersive experience by living 
at the place we learn, but with that 
comes many challenges between 
balancing school, extracurriculars 
and social lives.

And after game day and studying 

24/7 for weeks on end, it happens: 
We get sick. Our parents are not here 
to tell us to get extra rest. We think 
we can push through what seems 
like a minor cold and ride it out if we 
just get a little extra sleep and leave 
the Thursday party at 11 p.m. instead 
of 2 a.m. Sometimes that works. 
Other times it doesn’t. As students at 
a top public university, the pressure 
of making a grade, making it to the 
game and making great friends often 
compromises our ability to focus 
on the most important factor of our 
existence: our health.

Important practices that were 

second nature to us when we lived 
with our parents can often seem like 
things of the past when it comes to 
coping with stress. We often think 
that if we stay up to finish the essay, 
we will be less stressed because we 
will get it done. But what if getting it 
done that night meant getting even 
sicker? At home, maybe our parents 
will remind us to get that extra sleep. 
But in college? All bets are off.

Studies show that sleep has a 

tremendous impact on learning. 
When we do not get enough 
sleep, we are drowsy in lecture 
the next day and we don’t retain 
the full capacity of information 
that we could when getting the 
recommended amount of rest. This 
lack of sleep affects our immune 
system, which is essential in college. 
Think about all the doorknobs, 
tables, elevator buttons and water 
fountain handles we press in a day. 
And a weaker immune system 
makes one even more susceptible to 
getting sick.

Lots of times, I forget to eat. 

Though it is not clear how many 
meals diet experts recommend, 
unless we take proper measures 
to eat healthy foods and satisfy our 
hunger, there are clear health risks 
down the line. But when our days 
are packed with classes, interviews, 
talks, meet-ups and office hours, it 
can be hard to remember that we 
need to sit down and eat a full meal, 
not just a venti iced coffee. It is 
common for students to joke about 
how little they have eaten in a day, 
how few hours of sleep they got the 
night before and how many cups 
of coffee they’ve had in the last 
hour. While it might seem comical 
on the surface, these subtle habits 
of placing academic and social 
activities before our health are the 
reasons we get sick.

In many big lecture classes 

at the University of Michigan, 
iClicker 
points 
count 
as 

participation in class and can have 

a large impact in students’ final 
grades. The competitiveness on 
campus accompanied by the rigor 
of the University makes students 
think that feeling unwell isn’t 
a valid excuse to miss lecture. 
Additionally, many upper level 
classes are smaller in size, which 
makes it obvious if someone is 
not there. Students place so much 
pressure on their commitment 
to the course that they neglect 
their body and their classmates by 
coming to class contagious.

Transitioning from high school 

life to a college campus is stressful 
for almost every student. Figuring 
out which school to attend, where 
to do homework, who to hang out 
with and go out with seem like trivial 
things for someone to worry about, 
but are legitimate problems lots of 
first year students face. Successfully 
juggling all the social and academic 
elements of college students need 
to succeed can be hard, and this 
excessive stress can lead to not 
focusing on other important factors, 
like our health.

As students, we need to realize 

that the only body we have in this 
life is the one that we are currently 
living in. Taking care of ourselves 
and our bodies are much more 
important than cramming all night 
for a midterm to try to get that extra 
grade boost; one that you may not 
even see and won’t matter much in 
the long run if we haven’t taken care 
of ourselves. The choices we make in 
response to stress hinder our ability 
to take care of ourselves physically, 
and we end up paying the price with 
a stuffy nose or a scratchy throat. 
Learning to take full responsibility 
for the decisions we make as students 
at the University that will affect our 
mind, body and health is essential to 
being successful and making it out of 
here alive.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Friday, October 20, 2017

REBECCA LERNER

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

EMMA KINERY

Editor in Chief

ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY 

and REBECCA TARNOPOL 

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.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Prioritize your health

MICHELLE PHILLIPS | COLUMN

Me too

Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns

Samantha Goldstein

Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Anurima Kumar

Max Lubell

Lucas Maiman

Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Ali Safawi

Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Stephanie Trierweiler

Ashley Zhang

Meaghan Wheat is an LSA junior.

Contextualize the Constitution

NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN

I

n the wake of the tragic mass 
shooting in Las Vegas, which 
claimed 58 innocent lives, 

political 
activists 
renewed 
the 

ongoing debate over gun control. 
In this iteration, the focus has been 
on “bump stocks,” the device that 
enabled the shooter to effectively 
convert his arsenal of firearms into 
automatic weapons. Invariably, this 
debate evolved into an impassioned 
reexamination 
of 
the 
Second 

Amendment, particularly over the 
extent to which it permits possession 
of modern weaponry.

If anything, the tense divide over 

gun rights underscores the lack of 
political consensus when it comes 
to interpreting the Constitution. 
Furthermore, it represents a larger 
trend where modernization and 
technological advancement clouds 
the meaning of the Constitution and 
serves as a reminder that in order 
for the Constitution to retain its 
relevance and reverence, we must 
continually contextualize it.

The 
text 
of 
the 
Second 

Amendment 
presents 
a 
more 

nuanced outlook than the oft-
repeated right to bear arms: “A well 
regulated Militia, being necessary to 
the security of a free State, the right 
of the people to keep and bear Arms, 
shall not be infringed.”

As the first clause indicates, the 

intention of the amendment was 
to arm those serving in a citizen 
militia. Though some liberals have 
argued this clause invalidates the 
right of non-militia members to bear 
arms, the Supreme Court has ruled 
otherwise. In the 2008 decision in the 
case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 
which struck down Washington, 
D.C.’s ban on handguns, the high 
court ruled that the amendment’s 
opening clause does not restrict 
the scope of the second clause. In 
other words, Americans have a 
constitutional right to bear arms 
regardless of whether they are 
members of a militia.

A secondary matter is the 

meaning of “arms,” which, taken 
out of context, seems to suggest a 
constitutional right to possess all 
weapons. However, in United States 
v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled 
that the Second Amendment does not 
ensure the right to possess weapons 
unrelated to the preservation of a 
well-regulated militia. This decision, 
which upheld a law that requires 
firearms to be registered, seemingly 
verified a constitutional basis for gun 
control legislation.

Though these two cases seem to 

establish a functional interpretation 
that ensures a fundamental right 
to bear arms, while simultaneously 

empowering 
Congress 
to 

appropriately regulate guns, the 
debate is far from settled. Just last 
February, a federal appeals court 
rebuffed a challenge to Maryland’s 
assault rifle ban, ruling that these 
weapons are not covered by the 
Second Amendment. Wherever this 
debate leads, it is crucial that our 
modern application of the Second 
Amendment balances the ideal of 
self-protection 
while 
effectively 

regulating weapons that can take the 
lives of many in a matter of minutes.

The 
Second 
Amendment 
is 

just one of several sections of the 
Constitution 
requiring 
greater 

contextualization 
in 
response 

to 
technological 
advancement. 

Another is the Fourth Amendment, 
which ensures “the right of the 
people to be secure in their persons, 
houses, 
papers, 
and 
effects, 

against unreasonable searches and 
seizures,” and also requires probable 
cause-backed warrants for searches.

Drafted long before the age 

of 
electronic 
communication 

and 
surveillance, 
the 
Fourth 

Amendment now finds itself at the 
center of debates over the merits 
and constitutionality of surveillance 
measures designed to promote 
security, exemplified best by the 
PATRIOT Act.

Though 
passed 
with 

overwhelming bipartisan support, 
the PATRIOT Act quickly attracted 
controversy 
for 
its 
perceived 

infringements on civil liberties. 
Several sections of the law were 
ruled unconstitutional, and after the 
act expired in 2014, its replacement, 
the Freedom Act, added some 
judicial oversight.

A final area in need of examination 

is our electoral system. While 
democracy is arguably our nation’s 
most cherished value today, the 
Constitution was originally not very 
democratic. Many of the Founding 
Fathers feared the reactionary 
impulses of the people and restricted 
democratic access accordingly.

As our nation’s ideals have 

shifted to become increasingly 
democratic, the Constitution has 
required many revisions, namely 
the 12th, 15th, 17th, 19th and 26th 
Amendments, which collectively 
extended voting rights, established 
the direct election of senators and 
reformed presidential elections.

Today, we face new challenges 

in our attempts to ensure the 
Constitution 
aligns 
with 
our 

democratic 
values, 
including 

partisan 
gerrymandering 
and 

renewed scrutiny of the Electoral 
College. According to a Gallup poll, 
a narrow plurality of Americans 

favor replacing the Electoral College 
with the popular vote. Interestingly, 
before the issue became heavily 
politicized 
following 
the 
2016 

election, an overwhelming majority 
of Americans favored a switch to 
the popular vote, which could be 
accomplished via a constitutional 
amendment or through a pact 
between states to award their 
electoral votes to the winner of the 
popular vote.

The debate over the Electoral 

College is complicated by the fact that 
it was designed to select, rather than 
democratically elect, the president. 
It was only after state legislatures 
delegated the process of choosing 
electors to the people that ordinary 
citizens began to participate in the 
election of presidents.

With regards to gerrymandering, 

the Supreme Court heard oral 
arguments 
earlier 
this 
month 

on 
Wisconsin’s 
Congressional 

districts, which were systematically 
gerrymandered 
using 
advanced 

computer algorithms to benefit the 
Republican Party. While the Supreme 
Court has struck down race-based 
redistricting before, it has rarely 
addressed partisan gerrymandering. 
The Constitution says little about 
the redistricting process, and Chief 
Justice John Roberts warned in 
oral arguments that intervening in 
partisan 
gerrymandering 
would 

threaten 
the 
Supreme 
Court’s 

“status and integrity.” However, the 
court’s liberal wing was receptive 
to arguments against Wisconsin’s 
skewed 
districts, 
with 
several 

justices suggesting that partisan 
gerrymandering 
devalues 
the 

“precious right to vote.”

Partisan 
gerrymandering 
is 

a clear case where a contextual 
interpretation is needed to preserve 
the Constitution’s relevance. The 
Founding Fathers understandably 
failed to foresee the proliferation 
of 
partisan, 
technology-aided 

gerrymandering, but this should 
not invalidate their intention for our 
elections to be fair.

The late Supreme Court Justice 

Antonin Scalia once exclaimed, 
“the Constitution I interpret is not 
living but dead.” Scalia’s originalism 
is a respectable judicial philosophy, 
but pragmatically speaking, taking 
this approach risks diminishing 
the 
Constitution’s 
applicability 

to modern issues. Simply put, the 
Constitution is an 18th century 
document, and failure to recognize 
this runs contrary to the modern 
needs of the country.

This is the first 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 

https://tinyurl.com/survivespeak 

for more information.

MEAGHAN WHEAT

STUDENTS FOR CHOICE | OP-ED

Humanizing women

P

eople don’t like to talk 
about women. Yet, from 
the 
slow 
emergence 

of mainstream feminism to 
the backlash and outrage in 
regard to the Harvey Weinstein 
allegations, 
discussions 

surrounding 
women 
and 

women’s rights have taken on 
a larger role in the media. As 
conversations turn to women, 
it’s easy to refer to women as a 
commodity. The term “women” 
starts to refer to a generalized 
object and not to nearly half of 
the world’s population. With 
this 
generalization 
comes 

an 
emotional 
distance 
that 

permeates the conversation. 

Politically, women’s bodies 

are under attack. A woman’s 
right to personal autonomy over 
her sexual and reproductive 
health is constantly threatened. 
At state levels, legislators are 
restricting access to abortion 
clinics and providers. At the 
federal level, elected officials 
aim to criminalize abortions by 
punishing abortion providers 
who perform the procedure 
after 20 weeks, as indicated by 
a majority vote in the House 
passed Oct. 3.

Abortion has been a taboo 

subject for as long as it has existed. 
The first United States law 
restricting abortions was passed 
in 1821. Since then, legislators 
have worked tirelessly to control 
and criminalize women’s bodies. 
From religious zealots citing 
bible verses to pseudo-science 
wielding misogynists, anti-choice 
advocates have employed any 
number of tactics to vilify abortion 
and the women who undergo 
them. Whether it be for fear of 
backlash or judgment, people who 
have had abortions often find it 
hard to tell their stories.

When we talk about abortion, 

we tend to use statistics and 
macro-level 
statements. 

It 
becomes 
easy 
to 
forget 

that 
despite 
its 
prevalence, 

individuals’ stories tend not to be 
told. To decide whether to have 
an abortion is a subjective and 
personal choice often riddled 
with anxiety and fear. However, 
the extraneous circumstances 
that factor into this decision are 
often ignored or downplayed. 
An essential aspect of the 
pro-choice movement is the 
emphasis on individual choice, 
something so many women are 

already without.

At 6 p.m. on Saturday, Students 

for Choice will be hosting their 
fifth annual Abortion Speak 
Out in the Hussey Room of 
the Michigan League. This is 
an opportunity and space for 
members of the community to 
come together and share their 
experiences without fear of 
judgment or anger.

Please bring your MCard 

with you to the event, and keep 
in mind that to maintain the 
privacy and safety of community 
members, Students for Choice 
asks that you refrain from using 
photography, videography or 
recording materials during the 
event. This year, Students for 
Choice will also be screening 
a new documentary directed 
by Tracy Droz Tragos titled 
“Abortion: Stories Women Tell.”

If 
you 
have 
personal 

experience 
with 
abortion, 

consider sharing your story here 
confidentially and anonymously 
or at the Speak Out. If you 
haven’t had personal experience 
with 
abortion, 
Student 
for 

Choice still encourages you 
to attend in demonstration of 
support and solidarity.

“The silence that 
you allow is the 

violence that 

plagues my skin.”

Noah Harrison can be reached at 

noahharr@umich.edu.

Michelle Phillips can be reached at 

mphi@umich.edu.

