Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, April 8, 2019
Erik Nesler can be reached at
egnesler@umich.edu.
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
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
O
ver
spring
break,
I
met with my former
classmates
from
a
coalition
of
17
international
high schools around the world,
schools built on the basis of a
global
education
movement
to unite people, nations and
cultures for world peace. Our
school
breeds
feminists
and
social
justice
advocates
who
engage in leadership for positive
change. I presumed this diverse,
socially aware group would hold
a constructive discussion about
the tricky topic of sexual violence.
But I was egregiously disappointed
when I was the only one — in a
subgroup of five individuals — who
expressed a dissenting opinion
regarding the statement “rape is
still sex.”
If we are truly — and not
just
fashionably
—
dedicated
to combating rape culture and
victim blaming, we have to stop
manipulating language to equate
rape with sex. In 2017, a New
York Times letter emphasized
the necessity to stop connecting
rape and sex in order to prevent
the perpetrators from framing
the dialogue in this way. So it’s
crucial for all of us to sort out
the terminology and devise a
productive lexicon to talk about
rape and sexual assault.
First, we need to dispense
the myopic mentality that cites
simplistic
biological
notions
to conclude rape is sex. In the
biological
definition,
sexual
intercourse, also called coitus
or copulation, (but not “sex”),
is a reproductive act in which
“the male reproductive organ ...
enters the female reproductive
tract.” This definition itself is
derived from a heteronormative
understanding,
and
is
specific only to heterosexual,
reproductive aspects in animals
and
humans.
It
precludes
the social and psychological
implications
of
all
sexual
relationships and is insufficient
to envelop all the acts we consider
sex and all the acts criminalized
as rape by law.
In reality, when we use the
word “sex” in our social circles, we
don’t mean mindless penetration
or only penetration. We associate
sex with sexual pleasure and
intimacy — commonly between
two
individuals
regardless
of gender. Famous memes on
mainstream media today, stating:
“Yeah sex is cool but …” reflect a
general consensus in society that
sex is an act that is supposed to
feel good for all parties involved.
While the Shakespearean era
was greatly influenced by it,
today’s hookup culture sells
sex as a need-based commodity
that fulfills sexual desires of
all participants. And rape and
sexual assault are not relatable
to the universal meaning of sex
because they do not include all
participants’ sexual needs but
rather involve one abuser and
victim.
So to those who say rape is
“still sex,” your vocabulary must
be so inadequate that the term
“sex”
serves
two
polarizing
sentiments: sexual gratification
and violation of a human being.
The
physical
and
emotional
violence, in addition to the lack
of consent, renders the act an
entirely
different,
negative
concept called rape. But this does
not mean “rape is non-consensual
sex,” and thus sex. That short-
sighted perception posits an act
without consent and an act with
enthusiastic consent to mean
the same thing — obfuscating
the necessary lines marked by
legal systems to distinguish
the treachery that endangers
individuals.
When people have “consensual
sex,” they don’t narrate, “Yesterday,
I had some consensual sex.” We say
“I had sex with someone,” because
implicit in “having” sex is consent,
so the term non-consensual sex
itself is an oxymoron. We have
been highlighting the importance
of consent because it is a part of
sex, not an outlier. The fact of the
matter is that without consent,
including victim incapacitation
and
coercion,
it’s
not
“non-
consensual sex,” “bad sex” or
“sex” of any kind. It is rape and
sexual assault — abusive behavior
penalized by jurisdictions.
The U.S. legal definition was
reformed by the Department of
Justice in 2012 to include victims
and perpetrators of all genders, not
just women being raped by men. It
now states: “The penetration, no
matter how slight, of the vagina or
anus with any body part or object,
or oral penetration by a sex organ
of another person, without the
consent of the victim.” Though the
law does not explicitly mention
the act of “sex,” I argue that by
highlighting lack of consent in
the definition, the law presumes
the presence of consent in having
sex — which is a legal act. Without
consent, the law criminalizes the
act as rape and our society must
not counter-productively distort
this understanding.
Yet, my multinational peers
in
London
argued
that
my
legal
argument
“only
applies
to the United States.” So let’s
look at legislation in the United
Kingdom. It states: “Rape: A
person (A) commits an offence if
he intentionally penetrates the
vagina, anus or mouth of another
person (B) with his penis; B does
not consent to the penetration
…” The law assumes there is
consent when the act is legal,
thereby demonstrating the innate
difference between sex and the
crime of rape. So this argument
“rape is not sex” is not specific to
a nation and does not stem from
right or left politics.
This is about common sense.
When a thief steals someone’s
jewelry, people don’t say they
borrowed it without permission.
If you argue rape is “non-
consensual sex” and “still sex,”
you should logically say robbing a
bank is “non-consensual loan, so
still a loan.” This statement sounds
like you’re trying to explain the
criminal’s skewed point of view.
So we must recognize that while
rape may be received as sex to a
perpetrator, it is not. To a victim,
it is a gross breach of their bodily
autonomy and personal agency,
which is why sexual violence
is considered a human rights
violation that should never be
confused with sex.
The University of Michigan’s
Sexual
Assault
Prevention
and
Awareness
Center
has
emphasized the dangers of this
misguided
path,
stating
“By
framing sexualized violence as
about sex and not about violence
we focus on the perpetrator’s
narrative and not the survivor’s.
Focusing on the perpetrator’s
narrative leads society to blame
the victim and to not hold the
perpetrator
accountable
for
their actions.” In other words,
associating rape with sex silences
the victims’ traumatic experience
with empathy for the perpetrator,
which is as far from “listening to
survivors” as a response could
possibly can be. Survivors get
to choose the terminology to
talk about their horror, and a
society does not get to sugarcoat
the
allegations
against
their
perpetrators with the troubling
oxymoron of “non-consensual
sex.”
So in the future, reporting
on disgraced Hollywood mogul
Harvey Weinstein should stop
recycling
the
words
of
the
accused, such as his attorney
stating that he: “...has maintained
that he has never engaged in non-
consensual sex with anyone.” It
should clearly state that he: “...
denied allegations of rape and
sexual assault,” because those are
the claims under investigation
and trial. Public safety advisory
emails should not report rape
as “forced her to engage in non-
consensual sex.” How can one
“engage”
in
something
they
haven’t even consented to? This
crude
participatory
language
is counterintuitive and negates
the perversity of rapists. It fuels
the persisting problem: When it
comes to sexual violence, society
inherently listens to perpetrators,
not victims.
It is urgent to judiciously
frame our advocacy on victim
blaming
around
the
victim’s
narrative. Many survivors don’t
report their atrocities and when
they do, they still bear the blame.
How can we expect it to change
when individuals who receive
the most eye-opening education
continue to say rape is still sex?
From now on, I hope to never
hear that preposterous statement,
especially from young intellectuals
who have the privilege of using
their knowledge to implement
productive dialogue. Words always
matter, so choose them wisely.
DYLAN BERGER | COLUMN
It’s not too late to help Puerto Rico
E
arlier
this
week,
the
protracted
controversy
over President Donald
Trump’s
administration’s
response to Hurricane Maria
burst back into the limelight with
a new conflict over federal aid in
Puerto Rico. Still reeling from the
devastating damage of Hurricane
Maria, the people of Puerto Rico
are in desperate need of federal
disaster relief. As loyal American
citizens, the people of Puerto Rico
have every right to assistance
from the federal government to
get back on their feet.
Once again, however, an issue
that should bridge the political
divide has fallen victim to our
toxic partisan politics. A GOP
disaster
relief
measure
that
would have provided $14.2 billion
in
much
needed
emergency
aid to Puerto Rico, including
$703 million for Medicaid and
nutrition assistance, failed to
advance in the Senate this week.
Senate
Democrats
opposed
the measure, citing inadequate
funding to deal with the crisis.
Meanwhile, Trump has also
resisted calls for further federal
aid to Puerto Rico, accusing the
island’s leaders of incompetence
and corruption.
The ongoing back and forth
in Washington over who is to
blame for Puerto Rico’s woes
is a distressing illustration of
what’s wrong in America today.
Our leaders, on both sides, are
hurriedly attempting to seize
the narrative on this crisis for
political benefit. All the while,
the
people
of
Puerto
Rico
continue to suffer from a lack of
action, discarded as props in the
broader political battle engulfing
America. We cannot continue to
allow Washington to abdicate
its responsibility to help the
American citizens of Puerto Rico
any longer. Instead, we must apply
pressure on our representatives
to provide robust aid.
Hurricane
Maria,
which
struck Puerto Rico in September
2017, is the deadliest storm to
hit the United States since 1900.
Most of the carnage inflicted
by Maria occurred in the six
months following the storm,
not initial impact. After an
initial reported death toll of 64,
a study by researchers from the
Milken Institute School of Public
Health at George Washington
University,
commissioned
by
the Puerto Rican government,
found 2,975 excess deaths in
the six months after the storm.
In those six months following
Maria, the researchers found a
mortality rate 22 percent higher
than would be expected without
the storm. The death toll in
the months after Maria was
particularly pronounced among
the most vulnerable Puerto Rican
populations. Those living in the
island’s poorest municipalities
had a startlingly- high 60-percent
elevated risk of death while
older, male Puerto Ricans had a
35-percent elevated risk of dying.
While
more
research
is
needed on this catastrophe, it’s
evident the bungled government
response, both federal and local,
led to the preventable deaths of
so many Puerto Ricans after the
storm. While FEMA emergency
workers did heroic work on the
ground to save lives, not nearly
enough resources were directed
to Puerto Rico in the days after
Maria. A study by the BMJ Journal
found the federal government
was far slower in its response to
Maria than comparable Category
4 storms in the same time period.
Within nine days of the disaster,
victims of Hurricane Harvey in
Texas and Hurricane Irma in
Florida received $141.8 million
and $92.8 million from FEMA to
recover, respectively. Victims of
Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico
received only $6.2 million from
FEMA in the same time period.
The
lackluster
response
from FEMA and the federal
government had a direct impact
on the well-being of the Puerto
Rican people. A prime example is
when over 20,000 pallets of water
were brought in by FEMA and
remained sitting on the tarmac
of an airport in Puerto Rico for
months on end while Puerto
Ricans were forced to resort to
drinking unfiltered spring water.
It’s unacceptable Puerto Ricans
were required to put their health
at risk by drinking potentially
unsafe water while 20,000 pallets
of water were sitting on the island
either tainted by heat or unused.
Both FEMA and local authorities
shoulder the blame for this
egregious act of mismanagement
and poor communication. The
heroic emergency work of FEMA
and local authorities on the
ground to save lives immediately
after the storm’s landfall doesn’t
make these appalling mistakes
excusable.
The inequality in federal
response between catastrophic
storms on the mainland and
Puerto Rico is abhorrent. The
people of Puerto Rico are equal
citizens of the United States
and ought to be treated as such.
When our nation has asked the
Puerto Rican people to fight
for our freedoms, they have
answered the call resoundingly.
More
than
200,000
Puerto
Ricans have served bravely in
the U.S. Armed Forces in every
conflict since World War I. We
in the continental United States
cannot turn our backs on our
fellow Americans in Puerto Rico
in their time of need. One of the
many reasons our country is so
exceptional is because we rally
around each other during times
of adversity. Puerto Ricans are
very much a part of that tradition.
Our government’s response to
Hurricane Maria must reflect
that.
Going forward, it’s evident
that
an
improved
federal
government
presence
can
make all the difference for the
health and well-being of the
Puerto Rican people. With the
failure of the disaster relief
package for Puerto Rico in the
Senate this week, the Puerto
Rican
people
continue
to
wait for federal assistance on
matters of life or death such
as nutrition and health care.
While nearly two years have
passed since Hurricane Maria,
our commitment to our fellow
American citizens in Puerto
Rico cannot wane. It’s past time
for our leaders in Washington
to put partisanship aside and
demonstrate that commitment
with continued disaster relief.
Dylan Berger can be reached at
dylberge@umich.edu.
T
here is a disconnect on
climate change between
Democratic
voters’
priorities
and
the
attention
it is given on a national level.
According
to
a
recent
Pew
Research
Center
poll,
voters
ranked the environment as their
third most important issue. But
that enthusiasm was not apparent
during
the
2018
midterms,
where Democrats seldom talked
about climate change, instead
choosing to focus on health care,
the Republican tax plan and
corruption in President Donald
Trump’s administration.
I have been wondering for a
long time when a Democrat would
run for president primarily on
climate change. In 2016, national
media gave it little airtime, and
candidate Hillary Clinton did not
prioritize the stark differences
between herself and President
Donald Trump on the issue.
A possible explanation for the
recent lack of national climate
change conversation is the partisan
nature of climate politics. The
same Pew poll highlighted that
climate change is the issue with the
largest partisan prioritization gap.
Another possibility is that climate
change conversations seem too
apocalyptic to be inspiring. Or
perhaps many Americans think
dealing
with
climate
change
means losing jobs.
Jay
Inslee,
governor
of
Washington and current 2020
candidate for the Democratic
nomination,
believes
those
obstacles can be overcome. By
running as the climate candidate,
he is trying to exploit the
disconnect between the extent
Democratic
voters
prioritize
climate change and the attention
candidates give it on the national
stage. Coming from Washington,
which
has
a
sizable
rural
Republican population, he thinks
he can make climate change an
issue Republicans can get behind.
And instead of prophesying doom
as many climate advocates do,
he is explicitly pushing a hopeful
message, one centered on the
potential jobs a transition to clean
energy brings.
Though
the
rest
of
the
Democratic field also calls for
action on climate change, they
do not make it a priority — it is
just another on the laundry list of
agenda items they have once in
office. For Inslee, climate change
should be the next president’s top
priority.
Inslee’s message is especially
significant
because,
for
Democrats, prioritization shapes
policy. In 2008, then-candidate
Barack Obama had an ambitious
legislative agenda, but since he
prioritized the Affordable Care
Act and the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, he was
unable to expend more political
capital
passing
comprehensive
immigration
reform
or
his
cap-and-trade plan for carbon
emissions.
If
climate
action
proposals are just another item
on the long list of policies 2020
candidates need to prove their
progressive
credibility,
I
am
skeptical we will see meaningful
change.
Inslee’s bet does not seem to
be paying off. While it is early in
the campaign and Inslee does not
have high national visibility, he
has not been polling higher than
one percent and often does not
even appear in the top 12. He is
not even the most popular issue-
based candidate — entrepreneur
Andrew Yang’s campaign based
on universal basic income has
been about as successful so far
(and he certainly has more of a cult
following).
Inslee’s low polling is not a
condemnation
for
prioritizing
climate action on the national
level, but it underscores the need to
integrate climate into other issues
Democrats are passionate about.
In that capacity, he is losing
out to the other, faceless climate
candidate of the 2020 Democratic
primary — the Green New Deal,
which is the proposed framework
for fighting climate change and
socio-economic inequality from
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey,
D-Mass.
Despite,
or
maybe
because of, the right’s vilification
of the proposal, it has polled well
across the political spectrum,
with more likely voters expressing
support than opposition (including
71-percent
of
Democrats).
Historically, Democratic climate
policy has focused on wonky
policies
like
cap-and-trade
proposals or carbon taxes. When
these
were
the
headliners,
voters
were
unenthusiastic,
which limited how intensely the
Obama administration wanted
to put themselves behind climate
legislation, according to David
Axelrod, President Obama’s senior
adviser. These efforts also ignored
the ways in which climate change
will first impact marginalized
communities.
Even though Inslee’s climate
messaging is more nuanced
than the climate politics of the
past, by branding himself as
the climate candidate, he has
sidelined economic and social
justice issues important to the
Democratic base. And it does not
help that Inslee, a 68-year-old
white man, looks like the people
who have often advocated for
technocratic climate policies.
The recent report issued by
the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change tells the world
that we must drastically reduce
our global carbon emissions by
2030 in order to mitigate the
worst impacts of climate change.
That requires the United States
gets on board and prioritizes
climate
change.
The
Green
New Deal’s popularity, and Jay
Inslee campaign’s lack thereof,
proves that we cannot talk about
climate change by itself, but
that it must be fully integrated
into other efforts voters are
passionate about.
Ramisa Rob can be reached at
rfrob@umich.edu.
Sexual assault is not sex
RAMISA ROB | COLUMN
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the
editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300
words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words.
Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation
to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
Jay Inslee and the future of climate politics
Zack Blumberg
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
Erin White
Ashley Zhang
Solomon Medintz can be reached at
smedintz@umich.edu.
SOLOMON MEDINTZ | COLUMN