T
he White House was
rocked
last
week
following
The
New
York
Times’s
publication
of a critical Op-Ed from an
anonymous senior official in
President
Donald
Trump’s
administration,
eliciting
a
far-reaching
array
of
reactions from all sides of
the political spectrum. The
Op-Ed,
which
praised
the
president’s
conservative
legislative achievements while
condemning
the
president’s
“anti-democratic”
impulses
and
“amoral”
disposition,
publicly
embarrassed
the White House and left
prominent
administration
officials scrambling to deny
any role in the editorial’s
authorship.
Arguably the most extreme
reaction
was
from
Steve
Bannon, former White House
chief
strategist
and
“alt-
right” leader, who declared
the Op-Ed a “coup” and part
of
a
“broader
conspiracy”
against Trump, likening the
author to George McClellan,
the Civil War general who
was punished for ignoring
Abraham
Lincoln’s
orders.
Bannon’s
comments
are
characteristically hyperbolic
and only loosely based in
reality,
but,
ironically,
he
draws attention to one of the
greatest dangers of the Trump
presidency: the damage to our
nation’s political system and
institutions that could linger
long after Trump leaves office.
Trump
came
to
Washington,
D.C.,
with
a
pledge to “drain the swamp,”
but that vow has manifested
itself as a bitter assault against
anyone and any institution
that resist Trump’s political
narrative
and
proposed
policies. Rather than root out
corruption
or
inefficiency,
the
president
has
merely
normalized the reckless and
childish rhetoric that defined
his campaign. At times it feels
redundant, or even tiresome,
to evaluate the president’s
leadership and temperament,
but
let’s
examine
his
interaction with the various
actors and institutions in our
political system.
Trump’s most acrimonious
relationship is the combative
rivalry
he
has
cultivated
with
the
media.
Trump’s
relationship
with
the
mainstream media has been
strained since his campaign
began over three years ago.
Trump’s penchant for lying
led to countless news articles
and hours of media coverage
devoted to fact-checking his
various tweets and speeches.
Trump responded by deriding
mainstream media outlets like
The Washington Post, The
New York Times and CNN as
“fake news.”
One
hoped
Trump’s
animosity toward the press
would subside once he took
office, but rather the president
has attempted to use the office
to legitimize his contempt of
the media. From lying about
the size of his inauguration
crowd to euphemizing these
false claims as “alternative
facts,” to comically distorting
his own statements at a summit
with
Russian
President
Vladimir Putin, frequent lies
and attacks on the media have
become a defining staple of the
Trump White House.
The president’s assault on
the press has worked, at least
among his base. Over half of
Republicans believe the press
is the “enemy of the people” and
43 percent say Trump should
be allowed to shut down news
organizations. These numbers
are incredibly disconcerting,
and
symptomatic
of
an
administration
that
has
legitimized the notion that
facts are subjective. When
the facts don’t align with
your beliefs, the appropriate
response
is
to
reevaluate
your beliefs, not to get new
“facts.” Unfortunately, Trump
has normalized the baseless
rejection of opposing evidence,
exacerbating political divisions
and impeding efforts to govern
effectively. Furthermore, the
deluge of falsehoods from the
West Wing has degraded the
credibility of the executive
branch and created a mindset
that White House statements
are to be scrutinized rather
than respected.
Another one of Trump’s
favorite
targets
is
the
legal
system.
Trump
has
routinely disparaged special
prosecutor Robert Mueller’s
investigation
into
alleged
Russian interference during
the presidential election and
publicly blasted judges whose
decisions
he
disapproved.
He either fails to understand
or fails to appreciate the
virtues of an independent
justice
system,
evidenced
by
his
frequent
criticism
of
Attorney
General
Jeff
Sessions’s decision to recuse
himself
from
the
Russia
investigation and his firing
of FBI Director James Comey
— a decision Trump himself
said was partly due to the way
Comey handled the Russia
investigation.
In a way, Steve Bannon
is right — our ideal world is
not one where the president
is undermined by his own
aides and allies. But our ideal
world is also not one where the
president starts trade wars,
threatens to shut down news
agencies,
withdraws
from
multiple international treaties
and muses about assassinating
foreign rulers — often on a
whim.
The reality is that our
political institutions are under
attack — not by whistleblowers
or the Op-Ed’s author, but by
the president. This is not to say
that our political system cannot
recover.
Our
Constitution
is strong, the separation of
powers
is
well-established
and as The New York Times’s
Op-Ed
demonstrates,
even
many of those within the
administration will resist the
president’s worst ideas and
impulses. Still, we must guard
the health and integrity of
our democratic institutions. A
vibrant free press and strong,
independent judicial system
are both central pillars of
democracy,
which
is
why
Trump’s incessant attacks on
them are so irresponsible.
The
fallout
from
these
attacks threaten to remain
long after he leaves office.
Bad policies can be reversed,
but it is far harder to repair
a political system that has
been
continuously
attacked
by the most powerful man
in
the
country.
Likewise,
the true threat of the Trump
presidency lies not in his
legislative agenda, but in his
shameless disparagement of
our democratic institutions.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, September 17, 2018
Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
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
REBECCA BROWN | WOLVERINES ABROAD
New hemisphere, new perspective
A
t the 5,000-foot summit
of a mountain in Wanaka,
New Zealand, I cried. I
was sitting on the ground eating a
peanut butter and jelly sandwich
after having trekked up the nearly
four miles of straight incline trail.
There was salt on my face from the
sweat, chilling against my skin in
the breeze. As I looked out on the
water and mountains surrounding
me, I felt a sense of calm I had never
known — so much so that I was
overwhelmed and, before I knew
it, I was actually, embarrassingly,
crying.
Next to the sleepy town of
Wanaka on the South Island of
New Zealand lies Roy’s Peak, which
offers a full-day zigzagging hike
up the side of Mount Roy through
grass and packed gravel, littered
with sheep and the presents they
leave behind. It was a difficult hike
for a novice like me, especially
considering I was ill-equipped with
a pair of worn-in running sneakers
and the same Jansport backpack
that I use to carry my books to class.
Once I reached the summit, I was
forced to forget the pain in my legs
and reckon with the panoramic,
seemingly endless views across and
beyond Lake Wanaka.
There are some places and
moments that defy description. It’s
cliché, trite and frankly groan-
inducing of me to say, but this was
one of those moments. Not in terms
of physical description — I could
wax poetic about the rolling hills
and cascading mountains, about the
bluest blue of the water, about the
eerie and comforting sound of only
the wind and the footsteps of fellow
hikers — but in terms of the feelings
it inspired.
I traveled to New Zealand for
10 days during my semester abroad
in Sydney, Australia. The decision
to study in Sydney was spurred
by a desire to go to Australia for
as long as I could remember. It’s
where I was born and my family
lived for five years in the mid-’90s
before returning home to Boston. I
spent four months in the Southern
Hemisphere, kicked off with a trip
to Southeast Asia and bookended
by nearly two whole days sitting
on a plane. To say I experienced
more natural beauty abroad than I
had seen in the last 21 years of my
life would be a given. To say I saw
the smallest and rarest dolphins
in the world, had what is likely an
increasingly rare chance to see the
Great Barrier Reef and tasted the
Australian delicacy that is a Tim
Tam would be bragging. To say I
experienced a change within me
that can only come with travel
would be more accurate, albeit
nauseatingly cheesy.
On the other side of the world,
in a place that I barely knew, I felt
surer of myself than ever before.
I felt more grounded and less
anxious. I felt less worried about
how I was being perceived and more
concerned about the next item on
my bucket list. I’m almost positive I
blinked less, keeping my eyes open
wide as much as possible to soak up
everything around me. I watched
more, I noticed more, I learned
more.
A trip like this is few and far
between. One where you focus
on what is directly in front of you
rather than the noise inside your
head. One where you wake up and
go to sleep when the sun does, rather
than when your phone alarm tells
you. One where you are overcome
with emotion — on more than one
occasion — from contemplating
just how much bigger and more
important the world is than you.
If you are young, have the
physical ability and the financial
means and are eager to be better,
you should travel — as frequently
and as widely as possible. Hop in a
car, on a plane, on a bus. Plan, but not
too much. Eat whatever you think
you can stomach, even if it’s a bird
embryo in Vietnam. Talk to people.
Learn. Be open.
The more places I see and
experience, the smaller I feel. The
world is impossibly vast, and the
more I explore it, the more I realize
how little I know, how many places
I have yet to go, how much more I
have to learn. Traveling makes you
feel insignificant in the good kind of
way.
This
specific,
humbling
insignificance, I have decided, is
my favorite kind of feeling. I want
to pocket it for times when I feel too
self-assured, too smug, too caught
up in my own minute troubles. I
want to feel tiny and unwise and
know I have places to go that will
bring me, in the most literal sense,
back down to earth. I want to hold
on to this feeling for the rest of my
life. When I set off for my return
down Roy’s Peak — with a quiet
brain, tired legs and a huge smile on
my face — I set off in pursuit of that
insignificance.
Institutions under attack
This case involved a male
student, referred to as John
Doe, and a female student,
named Jane Roe, who were
attending a fraternity party.
Doe
allegedly
sexually
assaulted Roe after serving
her alcohol, and Roe went
to the hospital to have a
rape kit administered later
that evening. No criminal
charges were made against
Doe; however, the University
decided he was guilty of
sexual misconduct, and he
left
school
before
being
expelled. Doe then sued the
University on the grounds
that he was denied his right
to a cross-examination of his
accuser, and the circuit court
eventually ruled in favor of
Doe. In light of this ruling,
we as the Editboard at The
Michigan
Daily
encourage
the
University
to
stay
committed to supporting and
protecting all survivors of
sexual assault.
The ruling declares those
accused of sexual misconduct
must be given the option to
cross-examine their accuser.
Researchers have shown that
live cross-examination does
little to find truth in legal
proceedings, but rather it gives
the defense an opportunity to
intimidate and manipulate the
victim. Cross-examination is,
at its essence, combative and
aggressive;
Thapar
himself
characterizes
the
practice
as
“the
back-and-forth
of
adversarial questioning” in
the ruling.
In
cases
of
sexual
misconduct, this process of
adversarial
questioning
is
gratuitously
traumatizing
for the accuser, as it requires
them to face their alleged
abuser and recall distressing
events. Due to this effect,
the ruling may discourage
victims from coming forward
to the University about the
assault or misconduct they
have experienced, in fear that
they will be forced to relive it
through
cross-examination.
Furthermore,
it
may
also
discourage
witnesses
from
testifying
on
behalf
of
accusers, as they are also
subject to cross-examination.
There is reason for having
separate
University
and
legal proceedings in sexual
assault cases, so as to provide
the
survivor
with
greater
agency in handling the case.
This ruling narrows the gap
between these two kinds of
proceedings, thus removing
a substantial part of that
agency.
This
ruling
also
has
implications beyond cross-
examination;
it
has
been
framed
as
a
victory
for
the
accused
in
cases
of
sexual assault, and also as a
victory on behalf of men in
general. In the ruling, the
judge writes the University
has “discredited all males,
including Doe, and credited
all females, including Roe,
because
of
gender
bias,”
suggesting
in
the
effort
to
support
survivors,
the
University has in fact been
discriminatory
against
all
men. This rhetoric conflates
“males” with “accused,” and
“females” with “accusers,”
which reinforces the idea
that men cannot be victims to
sexual assault. Furthermore,
it paints an image of accusers
as
conniving
or
wrongly
motivated in coming forward.
Framing sexual assault in
this way is dangerous and
harmful to survivors of all
genders.
The University has yet
to
announce
if
they
will
appeal this ruling to the
Supreme
Court.
We
hope
regardless of their decision,
they will stand ardently on
the side of survivors and not
succumb
to
rhetoric
that
seeks
to
intimidate
them.
Assuring that sexual assault
proceedings are done in a
manner that makes the victim
as comfortable as possible
is essential to this goal, as
we want survivors to feel
empowered to come forward,
rather than discouraged by
fear of intimidation. Moreover,
we encourage the University
to
continue
creating
a
process
that
encourages
healing for survivors rather
than
disturbing
traumatic
memories.
In summary, we as an
Editboard
do
not
believe
cross-examination
will
add anything beneficial to
sexual assault cases at the
University; moreover, it will
unnecessarily upset survivors.
The rhetoric surrounding the
case has also been harmful and
counterproductive. For these
reasons, we do not support the
circuit court’s ruling. Despite
the University’s decision in
this particular case, we hope
they will continue to protect
their students by supporting
survivors in all future legal
proceedings.
Noah Harrison can be reached at
noahharr@umich.edu.
Rebecca Brown is an LSA senior.
To search for education abroad
opportunities and register your travel
visit global.umich.edu.
JILLIAN LI | CONTACT JILLIAN AT LIJILLI@UMICH.EDU
Do you love to debate today’s
important issues? Do you want your
voice heard? We hold twice-weekly
Editorial Board meetings at our
newsroom at 420 Maynard St. in Ann
Arbor, where we discuss local, state
and national issues relevant to campus.
We meet Mondays and Wednesdays
from 7:15 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.
Learn more about how to join
Editboard here.
FROM THE DAILY
The problems with cross-examination
L
ast Friday, September 7th, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
on a controversial sexual assault case against the University of
Michigan. Judge Amul Thapar wrote the decision, ruling that
“if a public university has to choose between competing narratives to
resolve a case, the university must give the accused student or his agent
an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and adverse witnesses in
the presence of a neutral fact-finder.”
Cross-
examination is,
at its essence,
combative and
aggressive
The reality is
that our political
institutions are
under attack...by
the president
NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN