An overview of this article focuses on Chanel Miller as the main subject. The reason behind her coming out was of her sexual assault by a twenty-year-old, Brock Turner. At this point, Chanel was twenty-three years old. The irony in this context was despite her being a victim, Turner only served three months in jail, instead of the intended six months. Nonetheless, he was banned from ever competing in the swimming contests. Also, the university initiated a project to host a plaque with Miller’s wording on it. Upon submission, Stamford university rejected her ideas of words to be placed on the physical plaque. On the first account, the university argued that it was meant to attack Turner. The second submission was rejected on the basis that her wordings triggered negative feelings to the survivors. She felt offended since those were what she was feeling, having been the victim of sexual assault.
Miller’s choice of words should be respected and placed on the plaque. That forms the basis for my opinion on this matter. On a closer look at Miller’s words, I find it interesting that it mirrors her inner thoughts about sexual assault. I feel as though there exists a lot of ideas and thoughts regarding how the environment should be. As such, it is my opinion that sentiments placed on this plaque should be as raw as possible. The reason behind my thinking is that every victim of sexual assault has deep feelings that they would wish to put out. Besides, a lot of people can relate to what Miller is talking about. I, therefore, feel as though removing the plaque from the environment or rejecting Miller’s choice of wording is highly inappropriate. As a university, I feel like its leaders should act in a way that preserves the outcry of the victims.