Trigger 
warning: 
this 
article 

contains mentions of sexual assault
O

h yeah, I was at a frat last 
night” — a decently typical 
way to begin a story — “and 

some dude shoved his hand down 
my pants.”

“Some dude — what?” I whipped 

around to stare at my friend, eyes 
wide. I was horrified, but not all 
that surprised. 

“Yeah. Everyone was pretty 

drunk at the time, I was sober and 
just — the vibe was off. This dude 
started dancing with me and then 
he started to dance a little more… 
on me?” She posed it as a question. 
“So I, like, threw my elbow back 
but he just pulled me closer to him 
and put his hand down my jeans. It 
was gross.” 

I didn’t know how to react. I 

told her I was sorry she had to go 
through that and asked if she had 
reported the incident. She hadn’t, 

even though she was well aware 
of the Sexual Assault Prevention 
and Awareness Center’s resources 
(which you can find at the end of 
this article). 

The nonchalance with which 

she told me her story makes me 
question why it is that we all 
seem so desensitized to sexual 
assault and whether sexual assault 
prevention 
resources 
are 
as 

accessible as they claim to be for 
University of Michigan students. 

So I sat down with LSA senior 

Sophia Fortunato, the student 
co-coordinator of the Consent, 
Outreach 
and 
Relationship 

Education 
(CORE) 
team 
at 

SAPAC. She told me that SAPAC, 
within its four branches (CORE, 
Bystander 
Intervention 
and 

Community Engagement, Survivor 
Empowerment and Ally Support 
and Michigan Men) works on four 
separate levels. The intrapersonal 
level 
includes 
empowerment 

activities 
that 
encourage 
self 

love and continuing education. 
Interpersonal 
involves 
healthy 

relationship 
workshops 
and 

peer-to-peer 
communication. 

The cultural level deals with 
primary 
prevention 
education 

and bystander training. And last 
is institutional, involving campus-
wide policy and the University’s 
response to sexual assault. This 
is the one level Fortunato feels 
is lacking and her sentiment is 
echoed in the University’s history 
addressing sexual assault claims.

“You can’t really go about trying 

to end any ‘-ism’ or any oppression 
without taking (all four levels) into 
consideration,” she said, adding 
that SAPAC’s reach across these 
levels is what gives her hope. 

Then, with my friend’s story 

in 
mind, 
I 
asked 
Fortunato 

when students should reach out 
to SAPAC. She responded that 
“there is a lack of awareness 
regarding what SAPAC does and 
what resources are available,” but 
students are encouraged to reach 
out for “any personal concerns 
relating to sexual assault” including 
asking 
for 
advice, 
reporting 

sexual assault, learning about the 
volunteer programs or expressing 
concern for another person. 

Lack 
of 
awareness 
and 

consequences are just two pieces 
of the puzzle that is normalizing 
sexual assault culture on college 
campuses. The power dynamics 
allowed by “sexual geography,” a 
term coined by authors Jennifer S. 
Hirsch and Shamus Khan in their 
book Sexual Citizens referring to 
“places and spaces where people 
meet folks that they might be 
interested 
in 
romantically 
or 

sexually,” is another piece. One 
such example of normalization 
through sexual geography occurs 
at fraternity houses. Fortunato 
elaborates that at a fraternity 
“you are always stepping into — 
physically — a space controlled 
by (the) group of men (that live 
there). (And) that power dynamic 
and geography inherently creates 
implied norms about who is more 
entitled in that space and whose 
boundaries and consent aren’t as 
privileged.” 

But when it comes to changing 

rape and party culture on campus, 
the answer doesn’t seem as 
obvious. During our interview, 
Fortunato 
emphasized 
the 

timeline SAPAC works within, 
stating that “by the time students 
come to college, they have been 
socializing for 18-20 years of their 
life” already, meaning how one 
interacts is “pretty locked in by 
the time they arrive on campus.” 
Now I, too, am a victim of the “Tea 
Consent” video of our collective 
youth, which taught the rather 
complex concept of consent by a 
two-minute animation. Even as 
someone who has since pursued 
further education on the subject, 
I wonder how effective primary 
prevention education can really be 
at the college level.

Perhaps 
it’s 
less 
about 

informational 
handouts 
and 

the four Cs of consent that one 
may or may not remember once 
blackout drunk, and more about 
denormalizing the “college life” 
which 
perpetuates 
the 
non-

consensual behavior that plagues 
each and every campus. Or maybe 
prevention education must start 
at a far younger age, taking its 
place between Algebra 1 and Sex 
Ed. Or perhaps we must consider 
large scale policy change, forcing 
institutions to take responsibility 
for the profusion of sexual assault 
occurring under their watch, the 
disregard of which is now being 
brought to the forefront by Dr. 
Anderson’s victims and many other 
brave students who have shared 
their stories. Either way, it is clear 
that organizations such as SAPAC 
must be paired with campus 
reform in order to create real, 
lasting change in an ever-changing 
community such as the University 
of Michigan. 

So as we invite the newest class 

of Wolverines to the University 
this fall, let’s focus on welcoming 
them into a community that 
prioritizes the sexual agency of 
every individual. 

SAPAC Resources: (734) 764-

7771

 The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
 Wednesday, March 16, 2022 — 9

PAIGE HODDER

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.

JASMIN LEE

Editor in Chief

JULIAN BARNARD 

AND SHUBHUM GIROTI

Editorial Page Editors

ficial position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Julian Barnard
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Brandon Cowit
Jess D’Agostino

Ben Davis

Andrew Gerace

Shubhum Giroti

Min Soo Kim
Jessie Mitchell

Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes

Nikhil Sharma

Joel Weiner
Erin White

Devon Hesano
Rushabh Shah

Alex Yee 

Anna Trupiano
Jack Tumpowsky

W

ar precludes perfect 
solutions. It necessitates 
sacrificing 
the 

dream of mutual prosperity in the 
pursuit of bare survival. U.S. policy 
surrounding the attack on Ukraine 
needs to reflect this reality. Direct 
military intervention is seemingly 
off the table, as it should be. Even 
though we will not be sending 
troops to defend Kyiv, Ukrainian 
allies must still take swift and 
decisive action to decimate the 
Russian regime economically until 
a resolution is met, while also aiding 
those fleeing the conflict. 

Recently 
the 
Biden 

administration, 
under 
heavy 

pressure from Congress, moved 
to ban Russian oil imports. This 
was 
a 
well-needed 
sacrificial 

step for Americans, and one that 
cordons off a key part of Russia’s 
economy from the rest of the 
world. Unfortunately, European 
allies have failed to undertake 
the same sacrifice. NATO — the 
treaty group of Western countries 
initially bound together to stand 
up to Soviet influence in the 20th 
century — is most successful when 
it acts in unison. For Europe to lie 
back and let the U.S. take action, 
while avoiding taking similar steps, 
makes these moves less effective 
in combating Russian aggression. 
Not only that, it prolongs the 
conflict that will leave thousands of 
additional Ukrainians and Russians 
dead. 

A 
second 
action 
the 

administration should take, with 
congressional partnership, is to 
make a direct and forceful call 
on U.S. companies to suspend 
operations in Russia. A significant 
number of companies have already 
taken such action without federal 
support, but holdouts still exist 
— Hilton, Hyatt and Mars being 
among them. If this conflict is to end 
in a timely manner, companies must 
suspend operations, as opposed 
to ending them outright, with the 
condition that business operations 
in Russia will return at the 
conclusion of Russian aggression. 
This sets a concrete barometer, 
while clearly incentivizing Russian 
de-escalation. 
Likewise, 
the 

American 
government 
should 

put its full weight behind efforts 
to punish Russian oligarchs with 
assets in the U.S. and other Western 
countries.

As of March 8, over 2 million 

people have fled Ukraine, half of 
whom are reportedly children. 
About 25% of the aforementioned 
refugees have sought safety in 
neighboring countries such as 
Poland, but it is imperative that 
other European — such as Germany 
— countries pull their weight 
as well. While there has been 
outpouring support across Europe 
for Ukraine in the past 10 days, 
some worrying trends have come 
to light. Reports of people of color 
finding it significantly harder to 
escape Ukraine mirror the biased 
media coverage of the invasion 
as compared to similar situations 
in Africa and the Middle East. 
Intentional or not, the message 
coming out of Europe right now is 
that refugees are welcome, just not 
all of them.

Looking beyond the Atlantic, the 

more places there are for Ukrainians 
to seek refuge, the better, and 
the U.S., too, must play its part. 
However, there is an argument to 
be made that a more efficient use 
of U.S. resources would involve 
allocating resources to countries 
in Eastern Europe that are more 
appropriate hosts by virtue of 
their geography. This would allow 
Eastern European countries — such 
as Poland — to prepare for the surge 
of incoming Ukrainians, who would 
also benefit from a well-funded 
refugee program. 

While the short-term focus is 

and should be on aiding Ukrainian 
refugees, they are not the only 
people actively seeking to flee the 
current conflict. Reports suggested 
that almost 50% of the Russian 
population do not support Putin’s 
invasion of Ukraine, with the 
deteriorating economic situation 
one of many reasons for such 
displeasure. This offers the U.S. 
and the global community an 
opportunity to attract educated 
Russian individuals to immigrate to 
the U.S. or Europe. Not only would 
this further Russia’s shrinking 
population problem, it would be 
the sort of brain drain, an exodus 
of educated citizens, that weakens 
the powerhouses of the Russian 
economy, many of whom have 
played vital roles in strengthening 
Putin’s reign. While such an idea 
of 
weaponized 
emigration 
— 

using green cards and permanent 
residency statuses to lure educated 
urbanites out of Russia — will pay 
dividends in the long term, it will 
have the added short-term benefit 
of dismaying the Russian public, 
and hopefully bringing an end to 

the conflict sooner. 

On Feb. 22, 2022, German 

Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared a 
halt to the certification of the Nord 
Stream 2 pipeline, the second of 
two Baltic Sea natural gas pipelines 
from Russia to Germany. While the 
Russian state-operated company 
Gazprom maintains more than 50% 
of Nord Stream 1, created in 2011, 
Nord Stream 2 is owned entirely 
by Gazprom. Prior to the February 
invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the 
United States and the European 
Union expressed their concerns 
about Nord Stream 2 and German 
reliance on Russian energy. In 
response, the Chancellor defended 
the project out of “private-sector” 
interests, deterring attention from 
political impact in late 2021. 

In January, as concerns of 

invasion arose, the U.S. and EU 
released a joint statement declaring 
a move toward accessing natural 
gas from “diverse sources across the 
globe” to better protect European 
countries from supply shocks and 
reliance on Russia. As Western 
Europe’s economic powerhouse, 
Germany is not only in danger 
of creating a disunited EU front 
against Russia but also risking 
long-term economic strangulation 
in Ukraine. Major Soviet-era gas 
pipelines from Russia to Europe 
have long fed Ukraine transit fees, 
fees that Baltic undersea pipelines 
avoid paying. 

Without 
access 
to 
Russia’s 

steady supply of gas, Germany 
has legitimate fears about its 
energy independence. However, 
without a united front against the 
Russian 
government, 
sanctions 

may not be as effective or work as 
quickly. While Germany relies on 
Russia, Russia relies on Europe 
— about 70% of Russia’s natural 
gas exports go to Europe. In other 
European countries, like France 
and the Netherlands, reliance on 
Russian gas is far below the roughly 
40% of EU-wide dependence. In 
early 2022, France promised an 
expansion of its already substantial 
nuclear program, moving toward 
more sustainable and independent 
energy. Nuclear energy, a highly 
polarizing 
topic 
concerning 

cleaner 
energy 
and 
possible 

nuclear disasters (such as those in 
Chernobyl and Fukushima), has 
made France less reliant on Russia. 
On the other side of the energy 
argument, Germany promised in 

From The Daily: Punishing Russia 

— the smart way

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

I

n November of 2018, former 
U.S. 
Rep. 
Beto 
O’Rourke, 

D-Texas, ended his concession 

speech to Republican incumbent 
Senator Ted Cruz by exclaiming 
“I am so fucking proud of you 
guys.” Abrupt and unfiltered, this 
conclusion embodied the heart 
and soul of the O’Rourke Senate 
campaign.

O’Rourke’s efforts to win a seat 

in an elected position have not gone 
unnoticed by the media, or by the 
public. His usage of social media and 
community involvement are what 
have made him notable, and, while 
not successful at the ballot box, he 
has been successful in changing 
how campaigns are run.

In the last five years, O’Rourke 

has staged political runs as a man of 
grassroots ties — knocking on doors 
and speaking directly to the people 
he aims to represent. His 2018 
Senate run against Cruz, his 2020 
Democratic primary hopes and 
his current campaign against Gov. 
Greg Abbott hold this same core — 
the strategic message of “Powered 
by People.” In fact, these hands-on 
efforts did make a difference: the 
O’Rourke Senate campaign was an 
intensely close call, with only a 2.6% 
difference between O’Rourke and 
Cruz.

The other notable characteristic 

of the efforts of O’Rourke and 
multiple other Democrats is their 
shared goal. Young, fresh-faced 
politicians want a seat at the table 
because they want to make change 
and directly help their constituents, 
but, in recent election years, the true 
goal of hopeful Democrats seems to 
be voting Trumpism out of office.

The primary goal of Democrats 

in the 2016 election was to prevent 
Donald Trump — a new brand of 
conservative, a right wing populist 
— from becoming president. That 
hope was replicated in 2020, with 
the Democratic establishment again 
aiming to stop Trump from winning 
re-election. The general election 
was no different — Democrats 
fought hard to take back the Senate 
by defeating Republican officials 

particularly supportive of Trump.

Congressional Democrats and 

political hopefuls like O’Rourke find 
themselves split by ideology — with 
the progressive and moderate sides of 
the party continuously challenging 
one another on the party’s legislative 
agenda. Disagreement leads to lack 
of action, and in recent months the 
Democratic Party has been often 
described as ineffective in their 
efforts to enact substantive policy. 
Though not united ideologically, the 
Democrats continue to collectively 
oppose the Trump-wing of the 
Republican Party.

American voters have become 

more polarized in recent election 
cycles. Trump’s position in the 
political framework has intensified 
this division, and a focus on 
defeating him has made people 
defensive of their party, whether 
Democrat or Republican. People still 
vote based on issues of importance 
and who is best fit to serve their 
interests, 
but 
with 
campaigns 

becoming much more candidate-
centered, politicians — specifically 
Democrats — have made changes 
in their campaigning efforts. It has 
become less about who is the best 
candidate to serve their constituents 
or who may best achieve these policy 
goals and more about preventing 
other parties from taking control. 
This mindset actively works against 
the interests of those they are meant 
to represent. 

O’Rourke is making his third 

attempt in the past five years to 
represent the people of Texas. 
By 
effectively 
and 
personally 

communicating his goals with 
voters, O’Rourke, like many other 
Democratic 
candidates, 
comes 

across as well-acquainted with 
the role of public office and the 
importance of constituent service. 
But having tried and failed two 
times to defeat a Republican 
incumbent, ulterior motives may 
be detected: is this about service, or 
is it about preventing Republicans 
who share Trump’s ideology from 
holding office?

It is commendable to continue to 

run for public office after multiple 
defeats. But, at some point, candidate 
and party-based motives are not 
enough to run on, and they can, in 

many cases, do more harm than 
good. Being opposed to a certain 
candidate or party does not make 
a campaign popular, and repeated 
attempts to unseat Republicans 
— without any meaningful policy 
goal after they are defeated — are 
counter to a “progressive” agenda. 
O’Rourke’s close race in 2018 gave 
him the confidence to continue 
campaigning, but, over the years, 
it has become less about him 
being the best candidate for the 
people and more about defeating 
a Republican. In an era when 
intensified 
political 
and 
social 

issues have become central to the 
identity of people, voting a certain 
type of politician out of office is 
no longer reasonable: the act of 
voting a certain type of politician 
into office is most important. 
Democratic 
communications 

strategy, rightfully, mobilized to 
eject Donald Trump from office 
and combat his wrongdoings. But 
this 
communications 
strategy 

seems to be sorely inept at 
combating Republicans post Trump 
Presidency. 

Democrats are struggling to stay 

afloat with this philosophy in mind. 
With the midterm elections quickly 
approaching, they have to begin to 
rethink their strategy. Focusing on 
the past is counterproductive, and 
calling out former presidents on 
the campaign trail is not the call to 
action they think it is. There must 
be a concrete agenda for candidates 
to follow: an effective compromise 
between the more progressive 
and moderate wings of the party. 
The American people want direct 
aid from their representatives. 
They want constructive policy 
that makes their lives better — not 
speeches dedicated to discussing 
a politician who no longer holds 
public office.

“Voting Trumpism out of office” 

won’t work anymore; it won’t get 
constructive Democrats elected. 
Hopefuls such as O’Rourke must 
focus less on being the opposite 
of Trump and his allies and more 
on being a representative for their 
constituents. Elections may be 
about victory, but not for one’s self 
or party — for the constituents they 
represent. 

Campaigning against Trump won’t 

work for Democrats in 2022

LINDSEY SPENCER

Opinion Columnist

THE MICHIGAN DAILY 

EDITORIAL BOARD 

An everyday occurrence — sexual assault?

REVA LALWANI
Opinion Columnist

The duality of Michigan weather

Design by Opinion Cartoonist Ambika Tripathi