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.