4B — Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Lola Yang
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
NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN
Against buzzword politics
I
n recent years, several trends have
defined American politics: the rise of
populism, exacerbated polarization
and talks of impeachment, to name a
few. A less frequently discussed trend,
however, is the proliferation of buzzwords
and empty rhetoric in political discourse.
The rise of “buzzword rhetoric” cheapens
our political discourse and impedes policy
formation. If left unaddressed, buzzword
rhetoric could fundamentally change the
way this nation debates and discusses
politics for the worse, and its effects
could linger long after the current wave of
populism recedes.
As with many trends in today’s politics,
buzzword
rhetoric
is
embraced
by
President Donald Trump. Trump has never
been known for his eloquence or detailed
policy proposals, but he is especially prone
to using buzzwords. Trump regularly
dismisses opposing ideas and inconvenient
realities as “fake news” — in the first year
of his term, he averaged one “fake news”
or related variation every day. When
confronted with specific policy issues or
challenges, Trump habitually distorts
the issue at hand with inflammatory
buzzwords. Immigration at the southern
border is referred to as an “invasion” and
trade agreements are reduced to zero-
sum games where America is “winning”
or “losing.” Special interests and neutral
career bureaucrats are lumped together as
“The Swamp,” and Democratic opponents
are accused of being a part of “The Deep
State.”
On many matters Trump can be
considered an anomaly, but Trump’s
proclivity for buzzwords is shared by many
of his fellow conservatives. In response
to criticism for his blocking of election
security measures, Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., accused his critics
of “McCarthyism.” Ironically, McConnell
accused critics of diminishing “our ability
to debate public policy” despite being
the one who responded to policy-specific
criticism with grandstanding.
Another prime example is the right’s
effort to paint Democrats as “socialists.”
The
conservative
campaign
to
link
Democrats to socialism is nothing new —
Barack Obama was regularly denounced
as a socialist — but the campaign was
reinvigorated by the rise of progressive
politicians like Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.,
and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. To be
fair, some of these left-wing figures do
embrace the label of “democratic socialism,”
but equating progressive proposals, such as
universal health care and higher taxes on
the wealthy, with the brutal collectivism of
communist regimes is both inaccurate and
irresponsible.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms
of progressive proposals — such as their cost,
efficiency and efficacy — but these critiques
are usually voiced by the center-left rather
than conservatives. Regardless of the merits
of progressive policies, the blanket dismissal
of these policies as “socialist” lacks nuance
and fails to address the policy issues that
these proposals respond to.
Of course, the usage of buzzword rhetoric
is not exclusive to conservatives. Trump
critics frequently slip into using buzzwords
and hyperbole when denouncing his policies
and conduct. Former Massachussetts Gov.
Bill Weld, a Libertarian and Republican
presidential candidate, accused Trump
of treason in response to revelations that
Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine
in order to pressure Ukraine’s president
to investigate former Vice President Joe
Biden. The Constitution defines treason
narrowly as waging war against the United
States or assisting U.S. enemies in wartime.
Trump’s request abused power, spawned an
impeachment probe and likely constitutes a
crime, but it was not treason, as Weld had
implied.
Noah Harrison can be reached at
noahharr@umich.edu.
O
n Sept. 7, 2018, the U.S.
Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled in the Doe
v. Baum case that the University of
Michigan must allow and mandate
“live
cross-examinations”
in
sexual misconduct cases where the
accused could face suspension or
expulsion or where the accuser’s
credibility
is
disputed.
The
interim policy has been in effect
since January 2019, but instead of
having an attorney perform cross-
examination, it is the accused
interrogating the accuser. It was
not mandated by the court that the
cross-examinations happen this
way.
Since January, the interim policy
has been protested. In September
2019, the American Civil Liberties
Union sent a letter to the University
calling on the University to change
the sexual misconduct policy to
adhere to Title IX and due process
by having the cross-examination
performed by a lawyer, not an
accused student. The ACLU claims
that by having an alleged abuser
conduct the cross-examination, it
discourages reports, re-traumatizes
those who do report and creates
a “hostile campus environment.”
Since the letter, the University has
still not changed its policy. While
the University does have a student
advisory committee in place, the
committee has not made any lasting
changes to the interim policy, as
it has been in effect for almost
a year with no changes made.
Students are in danger of becoming
re-traumatized.
Beyond the ACLU, University
students have protested the policy.
I spoke with LSA sophomore Emma
Sandberg, an aspiring public policy
student, about her non-profit Roe
v. Rape. The non-profit aims to
help survivors heal through their
activism. Sandberg has “met with
countless administrators” to discuss
the University’s policy and work
to change it. Roe v. Rape’s goals
are to have the University change
the requirements and have the
cross-examination conducted by
professionals and for the University
to cover the costs for attorneys. This
way, regardless of their financial
situation, both parties will have
equal representation.
Cross-examination
by
an
attorney is by no means a good
solution. The process can be
re-traumatizing, with the purpose
being to find damning discrepancies.
An attorney will know how to ask
more cutthroat questions than
the accused. The questions will
be brutal, and the process will
likely be longer. However, at least
it is not the accused doing the
cross-examination.
Reporting
is already traumatic, and an
investigation even more so. But
cross-examination performed by
the accused heightens trauma.
According to Roe v. Rape, survivors
on and off campus have stated it
would be “far more traumatic to be
cross-examined by their assailants
than by attorneys.”
As a survivor, the idea of not only
facing my assailant but being cross-
examined by him is beyond belief. I
never reported, much less went to
court against him, but the thought
of even being in the same room
as him is disturbing and causes
anxiety. I cannot fathom having
to be cross-examined by him, and
those who have had to go through
it should be commended for their
bravery.
Healing from sexual assault is
not just physical. The emotional
healing process takes months
and years to recover from. Even
without reporting or seeing their
abuser
again,
sexual
assault
survivors
face
shock,
denial,
depression, guilt, shame and anger.
Furthermore, post-traumatic stress
disorder can develop, as well as
general fear and panic. With these
emotions, other symptoms include
flashbacks, nightmares, anxiety
and depression.
Even though the court mandated
the
live
cross-examination
of
survivors, the University can and
should make it as comfortable
as possible for the survivors.
Cross-examination is going to be
traumatic whether it is an attorney
or the accused performing the
cross-examination.
However,
it will be even more traumatic
if the accused is doing it. Cross-
examination will force the accuser
to relive the assault in distinct
detail as their story is questioned
over and over again. While the
University does allegedly offer
the cross-examination to be done
using technologies like Skype,
this does not necessarily make the
cross-examination less traumatic
or
painful
for
the
survivor.
Furthermore, even through Skype,
survivors still have to communicate
with their assailant. They have to
see their assailant’s face, and they
have to listen to the questions and
defend their trauma to the very
person who perpetuated it, all in
hopes of obtaining justice.
Whether through Skype or
in-person,
this
is
traumatic.
Moreover,
it
is
unnecessary.
By either providing attorneys
or covering the legal costs, the
University can still adhere to
the court’s mandate while also
adhering to Title IX and due
process. While providing legal aid
obviously costs money, it would
be money well and fairly spent.
Additionally,
providing
legal
assistance will benefit both parties
as it relieves them from the financial
stress of the situation. Despite the
fact that University of Michigan
students live in an expensive city,
the student population is financially
diverse. Not everyone can afford
lawyers, but in investigations like
sexual misconduct and assault,
both parties deserve equal legal
representation to ensure the trial’s
equity.
The current sexual misconduct
policy has been in place for almost
a year. It is time the University
reforms
the
policy.
Enough
is enough. In the meantime,
remember to continue to support
survivors. Support can be shown in
a myriad of ways: listening to and
believing their stories, providing
resources, giving them space,
respecting
confidentiality
and
educating yourself about sexual
violence. Do not pressure them
to report. Reporting is not the
responsibility of survivors; healing
is. Instead, resources provided
can be national or local, on or off
campus and survivors can choose
whether or not to utilize them.
Beyond supporting a specific
person, you can show support by
continuing to educate yourself,
joining groups like the ACLU and
even attending protests to show
your allyship. A benefit of our large
campus is that there are multiple
ways to get involved even for one-
time events. We, as students, do not
have to quietly allow poor policies
to continue. Through education
and protest, we can convince the
University to reform the policy.
It takes time and passion, but the
The University’s damage to sexual assault survivors
CHLOE PLESCHER | COLUMN
Chloe Plescher can be reached at
chloebp@umich.edu.
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
TIMOTHY SPURLIN | COLUMN
Multiple pieces to the puzzle of our economy
W
e are officially less than one
year away from the 2020
presidential
elections,
and
voters across the country are watching
candidates as they talk about critically
important issues: health care costs, job
opportunities and wages. One of the biggest
splits among Democrats and Republicans,
and even between different wings of the
Democratic party, is the economy.
Many Republicans and other supporters
of President Donald Trump have been
using the economy as proof that, despite
being unconventional and constantly mired
in
controversy,
Trump
is
successfully
accomplishing the goals he set out to
accomplish in 2016. Democrats, however, tell
a different story — a story of wealth inequality
and an economy that is only benefiting a small
number of Americans.
The main disconnect comes from the fact
that “the economy” is an ambiguous term —
one whose definition changes depending on
how you look at it. So both sides can technically
be correct, but who is telling the more complete
picture and how can we measure it?
Traditionally, measuring the health of
the economy uses statistics surrounding
gross domestic product and GDP growth,
commonly called the growth rate. This simply
tracks and measures GDP over time for the
entire country, broken down into quarterly
reports, to see how the economy as a whole is
growing or shrinking. President Trump has
been vocal about the success of the economy,
and often uses the growth rate as his only
evidence. Indeed, the growth rate in the U.S.
has been steadily positive since Trump took
office in 2017. Over his first term, the growth
rate is about 3.1 percent — an impressive
number to be sure, though much smaller than
the 5 to 6 percent goal Trump promised while
on the campaign trail.
As it turns out, however, the picture of our
economy’s health is actually more complicated
than President Trump advertises. While total
GDP may be up, that growth is almost entirely
concentrated on the top-earners in the
country and is not shared among the majority
of Americans. This is the fundamental flaw
in only observing the growth rate: GDP as a
measure of the economy’s health only looks
at total growth in the economy, and therefore
paints an incomplete story. To find the whole
story, we need to look at other indicators.
For example, one important statistic that
impacts all Americans is income inequality.
Income inequality is the measure of how
wealth is divided among different percentile
earners. Unfortunately, in the U.S., income
inequality has become a serious problem.
According to Bloomberg News, the richest
1 percent of earners in the U.S. are about
to surpass the entirety of the middle class
— meaning all of the middle class’s wealth
combined will be less than the wealth of the
top 1 percent.
Timothy Spurlin can be reached at
timrspur@umich.edu.
Read more at MichiganDaily.com