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.