T
his past week, White
House Staff Secretary
Rob
Porter
resigned
after
a
scandal
emerged
regarding allegations of domestic
abuse from his two ex-wives. An
article by The New York Times
reported Chief of Staff John F.
Kelly and Joe Hagin, deputy
chief of staff for operations,
knew about the accusations
in late fall. In response to the
resignation, President Donald
Trump tweeted, “Peoples (sic)
lives are being shattered and
destroyed by a mere allegation.
Some are true and some are false.
Some are old and some are new.
There is no recovery for someone
falsely accused - life and career
are gone. Is there no such thing
any longer as Due Process?”
Amid the sentencing of
Larry Nassar, former USA
Gymnastics and Michigan State
University doctor, there will
be an investigation regarding
“reports
and
accusations
that Michigan State officials
and coaches were told of
Dr. Nassar’s behavior years
before it became public, yet
did nothing to stop him from
treating athletes.” According
to an article by The New York
Times, multiple victims shared
their experiences with trusted
university officials but were
ignored or not taken seriously.
Nassar’s reputation protected
him from facing accusations
for years.
If you Google the question
“who
knew
about
Harvey
Weinstein?” you will find a few
pages worth of headlines and
articles reiterating the claim that
everyone in the industry knew
about Weinstein’s behavior, even
before The New York Times
broke the story, even before The
New Yorker published their
investigation with accounts from
multiple women. Women in the
industry used whisper networks
—
informal
communication
channels used to share stories —
to warn each other of predators
who might run in the same
circles. Actress Jessica Chastain
tweeted, “I was warned from
the beginning. The stories were
everywhere. To deny that is to
create an environment for it to
happen again.”
I know that one of these
things is not like the other. Nassar
has been sentenced, Weinstein
resigned from his company’s
board and has been pushed out of
the industry. Porter is just facing
allegations and no investigations
have been done; we only have the
word of the women.
There
is
an
interesting
pattern here. These are just three
examples of numerous instances
in which people knew about the
wrongdoing of reputable men and
failed to speak out or step up. The
careers and lives of Weinstein
and Nassar were prioritized over
the harm they continued to cause
while they were left unchecked.
Porter was given a privileged
position in the White House
despite the FBI’s report on his
abusive background.
From vulnerable young men
and women in the film industry
to children hoping for treatment
for their athletic injuries, the
victims were supposed to be
protected, whether by agents,
coaches or other authorities.
None
of
these
men
were
operating in total secrecy. But
those who had the knowledge
and power to intervene did
nothing; they didn’t even seek
to impose consequences until
the accusations became widely
known. Maybe it was a desire
to not rock the boat, or denial
that someone they knew could
behave in such a way. Maybe it
was belittling the trauma of the
survivors of harassment, assault
and abuse.
Due process hasn’t gone
anywhere. I don’t intend to
advocate for the abandonment
of due process or the notion of
innocent until proven guilty. But
I think it’s important to keep in
mind that the people who are
victimized by the justice system,
the ones whose lives and careers
truly are ruined by falsehoods,
are not the people the president
is talking about in his tweet. A
powerful, white man who held
a position in the White House
would not lose everything should
it come out that the accusations
are false.
Some people will leap to
defend men who have been
accused. But we often don’t
extend the same benefit of the
doubt to the victims, often
(though not always, by any means)
women, who are speaking up.
The individual accomplishments
of the man are considered — his
job, his success, his charm, etc. —
are often presented as some sort
of evidence for why he couldn’t
possibly have committed the
crime of which he was accused.
But while this is happening, the
accusers are being grouped into
a cruel category: women who are
lying, who are exacting revenge,
who are just looking for attention.
Speaking up often brings a slew
of hate. Not speaking up right
away comes, too, with its own
problems. If they didn’t come
forward right away, that’s cause
for suspicion.
There is no right way to be
a victim. Accusers are othered;
speculations are made regarding
what might motivate someone to
ruin a man’s life, and the notion
that they are simply telling the
truth, hoping for justice or to
prevent further action, can be
found near the bottom of the
list. Who are victims supposed
to trust, if they are not protected
by a system put in place to care
for them, or if they can’t count
on someone with power and
knowledge to stand up against
what is obviously wrong? What
are victims supposed to do,
when their names and lives and
dragged through the mud while
their abuser is defended in the
name of due process?
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Friday, February 16, 2018
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
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
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Tara Jayaram
Ashley Zhang
In case of emergency
I
grew up the son of a
single mother who put
herself through college
while raising two kids. I
vividly remember days as a kid
when my mother would take
me with her to college. She
expected my sister and I to go
to college when the time came.
We also knew, however, that
there wouldn’t be much in the
way of savings to pay for it. My
attendance at the University of
Michigan is, in many ways, made
possible by a stroke of luck.
From my first days on
campus as a freshman serving
on Hall Council, to my time as
a recruiter for the University
and the College of Engineering,
to my work on Central Student
Government, I get up every
day with the goal of trying to
pay forward the many gifts
I’ve been given in my short
time here. CSG has built a lot
of momentum toward a more
equitable campus for all. This
coming school year, we must
pick up the mantle and carry
on that work. I’ll be fighting
to earn your vote to become
the next CSG president so that
we can continue the important
mission of promoting justice
and facilitating success for
students of all backgrounds.
I’ve seen firsthand both
CSG’s great potential and its
shortcomings. When students
committed to service come
together
on
this
campus,
amazing things can happen.
But a culture of self-interest
and
division
fractures
the
fundamental
trust
between
CSG
and
students.
Many
students confess to me that
CSG is a non-factor in their
University experience. While
some get by just fine without
it, many others find themselves
in great need of the advocacy
and assistance that CSG can
provide. Our leadership must
be united to have an impact.
That’s why I’m running with
LSA
Representative
Charlie
Bingham, a junior majoring in
political science and my good
friend.
Charlie and I are of the
same mind when it comes to
the responsibility CSG has
toward the people it serves.
My faith in him is ironclad,
not
just
because
we
are
like-minded
on
that
most
fundamental
responsibility,
but because he’s not afraid to
disagree with me when the
course of action isn’t clear.
The course of action on
the issues facing our campus
is rarely clear. What our
campaign
seeks
to
do
is
foster a discussion about the
policies we believe are most
important — a robust, process-
oriented agenda with justice
for students as our North Star.
On our campaign’s website
you can see our platform in its
entirety. As our school makes
plans to increase enrollment,
we must be ready to adapt. Our
team is ready to get to work
for the student body, with the
intent of increasing resources
for mental and physical well-
being,
tackling
academic
affairs
such
as
textbook
affordability,
adopting
successful Big Ten measures
to promote student success,
improving
government
relations—including
expanding voting and housing
rights—and
addressing
issues of sustainability and
representation that can make
the campus a better place down
the road. In the coming weeks,
we intend to publish several
policy memos so as to prove
the talk about our governance
goes beyond conjecture.
There are some battles
that will seem unwinnable.
But for our prosperity and
for the sake of students yet
to attend, we are obligated to
rise to the challenge, to meet
the problems head-on with a
mind toward one day solving
them. It is fruitless to identify
a problem without attempting
to tackle it.
When it comes to securing
justice for all students, we
have our work cut out for
us. We also have a great
deal
of
momentum
on
which to capitalize. Student
government has always been
the clearest way for me to
promote justice. As your CSG
president and vice president,
we will endeavor to serve
with honor and dedication to
build new programs that help
people feel more at home here
and reshape their relationship
with
the
University,
tear
down barriers that have led
to negative experiences for
so many on our campus, and
tackle the issues that affect us
today and in the future. The
strides we collectively take
will determine our progress.
This is our moment to define
that progress.
Why I’m running
What if we stood up for women
DANIELLE COLBURN | COLUMN
Danielle Colburn can be reached at
decol@umich.edu
A.J Ashman is an Engineering
Junior
L
ast
week,
in
an
unfortunate
and
thankfully
brief
sequence of events, I found
myself in the emergency room
of the Ohio State University
Wexner Medical Center.
A progressively concerning
headache brought a halt to my
weekend visiting a friend, but
my short and eventful stay
in the ER that night revealed
much about the flaws and
dangers of the current United
States health care system.
Apart from the anxiety
caused by my subpar health
and the surrounding chaos
of doctors and nurses, I was
taken aback by an understated
consequence of the ER—the
financial burden. Sitting with
an IV in my arm, a man came up
to inform me that in addition
to the hundreds of dollars in
medical costs my insurance
plan would cover, I had to pay
a $150 copay out of pocket for
my visit.
Fortunate enough to be
able to cover this expense, I
did so while keeping in mind
the
prospect
of
someone
unable to pay this cost for
the treatment of the critical
medical problem they might be
experiencing. Because of the
steep costs, emergency rooms
deter
countless
low-income
patients
seeking
immediate
medical treatment, and those
who come and cannot pay
place an additional burden on
the hospital. Until emergency
rooms
and
hospitals
make
health care more affordable,
they will continue to impose
stresses on their patients as
well as the medical service
providers themselves.
In a 2014 study conducted
by the Healthcare Cost and
Utilization
Project,
results
highlighted that low-income
patients comprised only 34.4
percent of total ER visits,
despite the fact that adults who
fall under the federal poverty
line are five times more likely
to report being in fair or
poor health than those with
incomes four times higher than
the poverty line.
This statistic illustrates the
dangers that high-cost health
care can have on the well-being
of those who cannot afford it.
Poor adults, some of whom
live in areas without adequate
nutritional
and
medical
resources, are at a preexisting
disadvantage when it comes to
bearing the burden of hospital
costs. Without the means to
sustain a healthy lifestyle,
ER visits would seem more
prevalent within this group,
yet the data reveals a general
inability to pay for these
medical services.
According
to
the
1986
Emergency Medical Treatment
and Active Labor Act, in the
case of an emergency, neither
private nor public hospitals
are allowed to deny care to any
patient. This presents a moral
dilemma to any patient who
does not have health insurance
to cover the costs: Either
find another, less effective
treatment
to
a
potential
emergency or go to the hospital
knowing a collection agency
will hunt you down should you
not pay.
While the data reveals
the majority of low-income
patients choose not to go to
the ER at all, the hospital
also bears a large burden
from those who do come
and cannot pay, a cost for
“uncompensated care.”
In fact, even when President
Barack
Obama
passed
the
Affordable Care Act in 2010
to
provide
health
care
for
more
Americans,
hospitals
incurred about $40 billion in
uncompensated
care
costs.
With President Donald Trump’s
constant attempts to weaken
the ACA, it follows that the
uncompensated care costs for
hospitals will increase as fewer
people own health insurance.
Ultimately, the consequences
of a low-income, uninsured
patient visiting the ER fall across
a number of parties.
The patient endures the
stress
of
receiving
medical
care that is necessary, yet at
the same time medical care
that they know will cause long-
term
financial
consequences.
A 2016 study showed that an
uninsured patient who visits
the ER doubles their chances of
filing for bankruptcy in the next
four years, highlighting that the
burden on the patient is financial
as much as it is emotional.
For
the
hospital,
uncompensated care costs can
lead to pay cuts for employees,
layoffs and the cutting of
certain services. But not all of
these costs fall on the hospital
—taxpayer money is used to
support the debt accrued due
to poor patients, and some
government
spending
is
allocated
toward
financing
this deficit (per the ACA).
Thus, it is evident the
consequences of high health
care
costs
for
low-income
patients who need immediate
medical care are wide ranging
and effect more than the
patients themselves.
And while most hospitals
cannot turn a patient away
at the door, most low-income
patients make their decision
not to visit the ER far before
this would present an issue. If
hospitals continue to charge
high
premiums
for
basic,
necessary
emergency
care,
the proportion of low-income
patients with ill health and
the burden on hospitals and
taxpayers will all rise.
Given
that
Trump
wants to dismantle the ACA
altogether,
it
will
take
a
strong and animated defense
of Obamacare principles to
ensure that the health care
system continues to advocate
for the needs of the poor.
Ben Charlson can be reached at
bencharl@umich.edu
BEN CHARLSON | COLUMN
CARLY BEHRENDT | CAN BE REACHED AT CARBEHR@UMICH.EDU
A.J ASHMAN | OP-ED
Those who had
the knowledge
and power to
intervene did
nothing.
Student
government has
always been the
clearest way for
me to promote
justice.
I was taken
aback by the
understated
consequence of
the ER.