 The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Opinion
8 — Wednesday, March 30, 2022

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

Jack Tumpowsky

Joel Weiner
Erin White

 
interest, both of the Editorial Page 
Editors did not participate in The 
Editorial Board’s interviews with 
the candidates, the subsequent 
deliberation 
and 
voting 
on 

candidates or in the writing and 
editing of this editorial. Editorials 
represent the views of The Editorial 
Board, hosted within The Michigan 
Daily’s Opinion section.
T

he 
Michigan 
Daily 

Editorial 
Board 
voted 

to 
endorse 
Noah 

Zimmerman and Jackie Hillman 
of the EnvisionBlue party for 2022-
2023 Central Student Government 
president and vice president in the 
election on March 30 and 31. While 
both parties running offer valuable 
perspectives, the specificity and 
breadth of EnvisionBlue’s platform 
sets them apart. It is paramount 
to have a CSG president and vice 
president who come into office 
with 
tangible 
initiatives 
that 

reflect the extensive scope of issues 
the incoming administration will 
encounter, 
and 
EnvisionBlue’s 

platform offers these policies.

With an emphasis on instituting 

pragmatic policies, EnvisionBlue’s 
platform consists of 30 action 
items and 15 advocacy initiatives. 

Zimmerman and Hillman aim 
to serve as a voice of the students 
while keeping their promises 
realistic and within the realm of 
CSG’s capabilities. This platform’s 
advocacy priorities emphasize the 
importance of both enhancing 
current CSG programming and 
creating new CSG programming. 
The candidates would like to create 
partnerships between CSG and 
upper-level diversity programs 
within the Spectrum Center, the 
Trotter Multicultural Center and 
advocacy groups to ensure CSG’s 
resources are serving all students. 
This platform also details the 
advancements of several specific 
programs designed to increase 
accessibility 
and 
affordability 

for students, such as creating a 
textbook donation program.

Considering 
the 
University 

of Michigan’s history of sexual 
misconduct, 
the 
candidates 

expressed 
their 
commitment 

to rebuilding trust with the 
administration and pre-existing 
organizations 
for 
preventing 

sexual 
assault. 
To 
do 
this, 

this platform advocates for an 
acceleration 
in 
SAPAC’s 
case 

manager–hiring process; as there 
are currently two case manager 
vacancies, this would allow SAPAC 
to more efficiently address the 
needs of the student body. Part of 
this platform’s sexual misconduct 

prevention 
initiatives 
also 

includes requiring any candidate 
for 
University 
president 
and 

future administrative positions 
to undergo extensive background 
checks 
specifically 
related 
to 

past cases of handling sexual 
misconduct. One of this platform’s 
30 action items is to install a 
“Blue Light” outpost near the 
fraternities, a manageable change 
that will advance student safety on 
campus.

The 
Board’s 
evaluation 
of 

the 
candidates 
was 
twofold, 

considering 
not 
only 
the 

candidates’ stated platform but also 
their personal commitment to their 
goals. The duo is well prepared 
for office and the high-pressure 
positions they would be accepting. 
Zimmerman’s membership in CSG 
as a College of LSA representative 
gives him valuable knowledge on 
the inner workings of CSG, while 
Hillman’s experience with the 
California Senate empowers her 
with fundamental communication 
and 
organizational 
skills. 
In 

their presentation, both beamed 
while sharing their plans for the 
future of CSG and the students it 
represents, full of energy and drive 
to accomplish what they have set 
out to do. 

From the Daily: Vote 

EnvisionBlue on March 30-31

THE MICHIGAN DAILY 

EDITORIAL BOARD 

Content note: This article contains 
mentions of sexual assault.
A

s 
incoming 
freshmen 

at 
the 
University 
of 

Michigan, many students 

grumbled about being required 
to complete an online course as 
a prerequisite for beginning the 
school year — namely, AlcoholEdu 
and Sexual Assault Prevention for 
Undergraduates. A blurb from the 
University’s First Year Experience 
webpage 
explains 
that 
these 

programs are designed “to inform 
students about alcohol and sexual 
assault issues. The confidential, 
research-based 
courses 
provide 

students with accurate information 
in a non-judgmental tone and 
encourages students to consider 
their own decisions and those of 
their peers.” Taking the course was 
fairly straightforward and seemed 
rather educational; the program 
explains in great detail what is 
required for informed consent to be 
given. Likewise, it emphasizes that 
the aftereffects of being victimized 
by sexual violence are treatable 
and that support is available. As a 
survivor of sexual assault myself, I 
felt an overall satisfaction with the 
information that was provided, and 
I figured that other students felt 
similarly.

However, the effectiveness of the 

sexual assault prevention program on 
our campus fails to withstand more 
intense scrutiny. Despite the fact 
this program was required for every 
incoming Michigan student and 
thoroughly explained the concepts 
of sexual assault and consent, the 
University still experienced a spike in 

sexual misconduct cases from 2017 to 
2019, ranging from stalking to rape. 

Moreover, 
the 
Office 
of 

Institutional Equity reported that 
violations, from intimate partner 
violence to sexual harassment, 
increased almost every year from 
2014 to 2020, climbing from 134 
violations to an astonishing 322 
violations. Though this can be 
partially attributed to a culture 
shift on campus that has made it 
more comfortable for survivors to 
report instances of sexual violence, 
these 
numbers 
still 
stand 
as 

evidence that our required sexual 
violence 
prevention 
program 

is not functioning to the extent 
that it should. Had the program 
successfully deterred sexual violence 
from happening in the first place, 
there would be far fewer reports 
for instances of sexual violence on 
campus. 

These numbers are estimated 

to 
be 
even 
more 
alarming 

among women of marginalized 
identities, 
and 
cases 
involving 

non-white women are frequently 
underreported, especially on college 
campuses. Moreover, though Black 
women, Indigenous women, disabled 
women and LGBTQ+ women are 
disproportionately 
affected 
by 

sexual violence, our school’s required 
prevention program still centers 
white, straight, able-bodied women 
in discussions about sexual assault. 
The institutional barriers that exist 
for 
marginalized 
communities 

within our country’s education and 
criminal justice systems evidently 
bleed into the supposed equitable 
reporting 
opportunities 
— 
and 

support systems — for survivors of 
color. 

An example of students of color 

disproportionately suffering from 

sexual 
exploitation 
on 
college 

campuses can be observed at our very 
own university. Serial sexual abuser 
Dr. Robert Anderson, who assaulted 
over 950 students during his time 
at the University, is said to have 
targeted Black male athletes more 
than any other identity group. Jamie 
White, a lawyer for approximately 
40 of Anderson’s survivors, cited 
the students’ first-generation and 
lower socioeconomic statuses as 
factors that made them increasingly 
vulnerable to Anderson’s abuse. 
Many of these Black athletes risked 
losing their athletic scholarships that 
enabled them to attend the University 
if they came forward with abuse 
claims. This horrific pattern alone 
proves the necessity of transforming 
our sexual violence prevention 
program to better serve students 
from a variety of backgrounds and 
social identities.

Aside from how our current 

sexual violence prevention program 
is oriented around white, straight, 
able-bodied identities, these sorts of 
programs are ineffective at actually 
preventing assault from occurring. 
A study focused on the difficulty 
of analyzing the effectiveness of 
these programs describes how 
there is a “lack of outcome studies 
that evaluate the event to which 
interventions have been effective 
at decreasing the actual rates of 
sexual assault.” In other words, 
little to no studies surrounding 
sexual assault prevention programs 
on college campuses can present 
empirical data that evaluate the 
effectiveness of these programs 
or measure learning directly after 
these programs are taught. 

College sexual assault primary prevention 

programs are failing us. Why?

SOPHIA LEHRBAUM

Opinion Columnist

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

Building a more diverse, equitable, 
and inclusive U-M community 
takes the will and work of all of us. 

Learn about our transition from 
DEI 1.0 to DEI 2.0.

2021-22
Evaluation

2022-23
Planning

2023-24
2.0 Launch

LEARN MORE: 
diversity.umich.edu/dei-2

Back to backpacking

Design by Tamara Turner, Opinion Cartoonistw 

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

A

ndrew 
Yang 
rose 
to 

prominence 
on 
the 

back of a very peculiar 

idea: universal basic income. This 
proposal that every American should 
receive a no-strings-attached $1,000 
check from the federal government 
every month propelled Yang to the 
presidential debate stage. Though 
it was impressive that he shared the 
stage with experienced politicians 
like (then Vice) President Biden 
and several senators, his lack of 
experience and a stable base were 
ultimately his downfall.

Leaning into meme culture and 

popular podcasts like The Joe Rogan 
Experience, Yang often touted his 
approval rating with Independents 
and Trump supporters, but he was 
sorely unable to transform that 
general likability into cold hard votes.

After this impressive — but 

nonetheless 
disappointing 
— 

campaign for a relative newcomer to 
electoral politics, Yang transitioned 
to running for mayor of New York 
City. I won’t delve too deeply into 
Yang’s journey from leading the 
mayoral primary to a disappointing 
fourth-place finish, but rest assured 
that his subsequent failure hinged on 

the same issues: an inability to form a 
coherent base from merely a friendly 
smile and some unique ideas.

After his defeat to current New 

York City Mayor, Eric Adams, Yang 
made a public announcement. 

He 
had 
formally 
left 
the 

Democratic Party and formed the 
Forward Party. He announced this 
new party in his book of the same 
name. “Forward” — which I read 
— laid out the platform of “ranked-
choice voting,” “open primaries,” 
“fact-based governance,” “human-
centered capitalism,” “modern and 
effective government,” “universal 
basic income” and “grace and 
tolerance.”

Yang’s core claim was that this 

party, with its hodgepodge of 
reasonable-sounding policy ideas, 
would be able to fill a gap in the 
American party repertoire that both 
Democrats and Republicans were 
neglecting. Through an assortment 
of commonsense policies aimed at 
reforming government, Yang believes 
this party could inspire action in a 
diverse coalition of discouraged and 
infrequent voters.

In some sense the polls are on 

Yang’s side: many of his ideas are 
certainly popular. Seventy-seven 
percent of Americans agree that 
campaign spending needs to be 
curtailed. Eighty-two percent side 

with his call for Congressional 
term limits. Nine in 10 Americans 
share his stance against partisan 
gerrymandering. 
With 
42% 

of 
Americans 
identifying 
as 

independents, this should be great 
news for a party that aims to capture 
the politically homeless middle.

Unfortunately, even though a 

plurality of Americans identify 
as Independents, as many as 91% 
of Americans have a significant 
preference for one party or the 
other, with the leftover 9% of “true” 
Independents varying significantly 
in race, occupation and economic 
interests. This makes forming a base 
from voters with common interests 
— like how Democrats captured 
the union vote and Republicans 
successfully courted evangelicals — 
very difficult. 

Currently, the Democrats’ base 

is largely young people, urbanites, 
ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people 
and those with college degrees. The 
Republican base is largely white 
evangelicals, business owners, those 
living in rural areas and voters older 
than 65. These bases are sustainable, 
based on groups with shared interests 
and are able to mobilize effectively to 
achieve concrete outcomes. 

Andrew Yang’s a loser: The 

future of third parties

JULIAN BARNARD

Editorial Page Editor

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

