Chanel Miller's virtual plaque at the site of her sexual assault back in 2015
Source: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-04/the-space-where-brock-turner-sexually-assaulted-chanel-miller-is-at-the-center-of-an-ongoing-battle-at-stanford
Back in September, the sexual assault victim in the 2016 Brock Turner case revealed her real name as Chanel Miller. She also released her victim statement that sparked awareness and support for sexual assault victims. Stanford University had agreed to create a garden with a plaque at the location of Miller's assault; recently, issues have arisen between Miller and the university based on the statement she decided to have etched. The university claimed that Miller's word choice may trigger sexual assault victims, which led her to withdrawal from the project. So instead, supporters created a virtual plaque instead.
The Brock Turner case was the precedent that enabled for specificity regarding the definition of sexual assault and rape, to prevent people like Turner from taking advantage of their privileged positions in society to receive lesser punishments for sexual assault. The #MeToo Movement is gaining power and influence, but the reveal of the victim's name of such an important case for sexual assault significantly adds to the support for the movement. Activism has always been an important issue and as the movement gains more power, they will gain more political sway as well. I believe that Miller's words were not at all too harsh for the plaque, and I question whether or not Stanford's rejection of the statement was in order to protect sexual assault victims or to protect their university from having such a revealing text on display.
Was Miller's statement inappropriate for the plaque at the site of her sexual assault?
How does the reveal of Miller's name affect the MeToo Movement?
8 comments:
Personally, I think that Stanford has good intentions, but it is unfortunate that they would not let Miller's statement accompany a space that praises her bravery. I understand that this is actually a very common occurrence, that is, people being "censored" in order to protect others. I don't really like censoring of what people have to say, even if it is to protect others. I think that if Stanford had other motives for rejecting Miller's statements, they should be open about those, and that might be met with more understanding (merica has got free speech, ya know). I think that it is really empowering as well, regarding the #MeToo Movement, that Miller went public with her real identity and name, because it encourages people who have been victims of sexual abuse/assault to break the stigma and be open about their experiences. After all, it's important to be open about your experiences in order to begin healing. :)
Adding on to Olivia, I do think that it's great that Miller was able to provide a powerful statement about her experience. I think that Stanford did try to refrain her from having her text be engraved because it would reflect poorly on the university; however, a message being on a device is not the same significance as having something lasting on stone. I would really hope that Stanford and other universities stop caring about the image so much but rather try to make people more aware of these types of situations and educate their students/public.
I agree with Olivia and Srimaye. I thought the article brought up a really interesting point of how one of the books that incoming freshman at Stanford have to read includes a description of rape and genocide, and yet the university is claiming that they can't include Miller's current statement on the plaque because it may be triggering to others. Stanford should be more clear with why they feel the need to censor Miller's statement, as currently it seems like they may just want to protect the image of the university. I think that it was very courageous of Miller to release her name, in doing so she may help others who are victims of sexual assault.
I think that Ava, Olivia, and Srimaye all made great points. There appears to be an overall consensus that Stanford chose to disapprove of the statement on the plaque for the university's benefit, rather than to protect sexual assault victims. Stanford should clarify when and why things need to be censored since they already use rather explicit readings for their students. Although it is morally correct for Stanford to allow Miller to share her experience with the plaque, it seems highly unlikely the university will ever change their mind about her statement. The virtual plaque is a creative and innovative way for others to view Miller's words, but it is very convenient for Stanford to approve of this since the reminder of one of their students' raping another is not permanently etched and placed onto the ground for all to see.
I agree with all the points made above. I feel that Stanford, and most universities in general, tend to avoid talking about the issue of sexual assault on college campuses in order to preserve the image of their university. Chanel’s quote seems very empowering for victims so I don’t know how much it would actually trigger survivors in comparison to other indications of sexual assault seen in the books students read and the classes that they may take. The taboo behind the subject of rape seems to prevent people from speaking about it, so I think that Chanel’s statement is a step in the right direction for the MeToo movement as she is creating a conversation about sexual assault on the Stanford campus that may not happen otherwise.
I am not exactly sure why Stanford sees her words as an issue. It looks even worse when they deny her and her supporters such a thing. She was the one raped. She was the one whose life irrevocably changed by the actions of another. She was the one who was brave enough to speak her truth when many others would bury it instead. What right does Stanford have to say, "Sure, write a plaque. Just make it one we will agree with." I understand, they have a reputation to uphold. This, however, doesn't change the fact that a girl was raped. They can save their excuses and games for someone else. Plus, hello?? Are people suddenly going to stop applying to Stanford? If the 43,000+ people applying in the next few years are any indication, I'd say no. For what it's worth, I think Stanford should just suck it up and let the girl do what she wants.
I don't think Miller's statement was inappropriate for the plaque at the site of her sexual assault. But I think it's strange Stanford wanted to put up a plaque for Miller. I understand it is supposed to honor Miller and what she went through but I think that putting the plaque in the location of the assault is just a reminder of bad memories I'm sure she would like to forget. I don't think her original words were too harsh for the plaque. Stanford making her change her words is just masking the assault. Miller deserves more than this; her withdrawal from the project was a good move. I think she is a good role model for the MeToo movement and now that her name is revealed makes it even better. Now that she has published a book and come forth and revealed her name, she can be a role model for other people going through the same thing. Now people know who to look to when they need help. The reveal of Miller's name is a good thing. Side note: I think Brock Turner deserves a longer sentence.
Responding to Sam's comment, I'd just to clarify that Miller herself did agree to the plaque with Stanford. She approved of the location being turned into a garden and the creation of the plaque; I don't believe that she'd agree if she thought the location was a negative reminder. I also believe that she may have accepted the memorial in order to stand as support for all sexual assault victims; her book already indicates her reminder that victims do not have to struggle alone but the memorial would be a reminder for the school to see as well. I agree that revealing her name as well as publishing the book helps the MeToo Movement. And Turner definitely deserved a longer sentence; at least former Judge Aaron Persky was later recalled for many unreasonably lenient sentencings.
Post a Comment