4A - Wednesday, October 12, 2011

The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com

4A - Wednesday, October12, 2011 The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom

e tt ian ail
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com

HANNAH DOW

E-MAIL HANNAH AT HDOW@UMICH.EDU

STEPHANIE STEINBERG
EDITOR IN CHIEF

MICHELLE DEWITT
and EMILY ORLEY
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

What fall "study" break is really used for:
Mix socialjustice and business


NICK SPAR
MANAGING EDITOR

Unsigned editorials reflectthe official position of the Daily's editorial board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Evidence is essential
'U' should remove interim misconduct policy
The University's Statement of Student Rights and Responsi-
bilities, issued by the Office of Student Conflict Resolution, is
responsible for addressing issues of stalking, sexual assault,
hazing and inappropriate behavior among students. However, a recent
amendment to the Statement that lowers the burden of proof for accu-
sations of sexual misconduct may actually threaten the rights of stu-
dents. The interim policy recently put into place by the University is
not a proper change and may lead to students being wrongly accused

of sexual misconduct.
The amendment could, in certain situa-
tions, admit hearsay evidence in cases of sexual
harassment, which means students could more
easily be implicated in sexual misconduct. The
current policy is an interim mandate and it
needs to be removed immediately. If the Uni-
versity wanted to change the policy regarding
sexual misconduct accusations, it should have
done so by first seeking proper approval from
the Senate Advisory Committee on University
Affairs, the lead faculty governing body, and the
Michigan Student Assembly - the two bodies
that must approve amendments to the student
code. Moving forward, the University should
return to its previous policy written in the code.
Last week, Suellyn Scarnecchia, the Uni-
versity's vice president and general counsel,
and E. Royster Harper, vice president for stu-
dent affairs, announced the interim procedure
that will be implemented to comply with the
U.S. Department of Education's Title IX rec-
ommendations. The old procedure required
accusers to present "clear and convincing evi-
dence" before an investigation into alleged
sexual misconduct. The guideline meant that
a defendant would be held responsible if it was
"highly probable or reasonably certain that the
sexual harassment occurred." Now, the inter-
im procedure requires only a preponderance of
evidence, in which officials only need to deter-
mine that "it is more likely than not that sexual
harassment or violence occurred."
The policy's main flaw is that individuals
bringing forth allegations ofsexual misconduct
only need to persuade OSCR that "it is more
likely than not" that misconduct occurred.
The ambiguity of the new policy could lead to

unfair interpretation of a situation based on
questionable evidence. The consequences for a
student found guilty of misconduct range from
a formal reprimand to a suspension or expul-
sion from the University.
In December 2009, SACUA recommended
MSA amend the student code and apply the
"preponderance of evidence" standard to the
entire Statement, rather than just the sexual
misconduct policy. After initially backing the
recommendation, MSA eventually withdrew
its support because the lower standard of evi-
dence applied to atoo broad range of offenses,
and MSA felt some of the offenses necessitated
a more rigid burden of proof.
It's strange that the University selected only
issues of sexual misconduct for the implemen-
tation of this new policy. If University officials
truly wish to change the standard of evidence
required to bring forth allegations of miscon-
duct - which isn't advisable - they should apply
this change to all issues discussed in the SSRR.
The University should work to educate stu-
dents on dealing with issues of sexual miscon-
duct if they occur, rather than imposing the
interim policy. Students should be told about
methods of gathering evidence for reporting a
claim, who to speak to if an incident occurs and
what resources are available to them to ensure
the process is handled properly.
While sexual misconduct should never be
taken lightly, the University has a responsibil-
ity to protect both the accuser and the accused
until an impartial judgment has been reached.
The University should remove this interim
policy andrevertbackto its "clear and convinc-
ing" standard of evidence guideline.

What perceptions do you
have of students in the
Business School? What
comes to mind
when you think
of students
studying social
justice?
From my place
in the social jus-
tice sphere, the
Business School
has attained a NORA
negative stigma. STEPHENS
I constantly hear
comments from
my classmates about the school's
elitism. Remarks like "Ross students
have a sole, shallow focus on making
money" or "they have no interest in
helping the unprivileged," rule the
air. At a glance, many of these com-
mentsappearwarranted.With amas-
sive, $145 million building, the school
seems to prioritize glitz and glam,
which many social justice students
would agree is not a main concern.
Ross has been unresponsive to
social justice initiatives on campus
as well. Officials from the school
have never requested a Common-
Ground workshop - a program of
the Program on Intergroup Rela-
tions - to facilitate conversations
about social inequalities. Even hard
science schools, including the Col-
lege of Engineering and the School of
Information, have sponsored these
dialogues. Or consider Ross limiting
the speed of Internet in its building
to non-business students? Block me
out - really? That screams elitism.
I discussed these questions with

Business junior Dan Morse. From
Morse's experience, the vast major-
ity of BBA students focus little on
issues of social justice. When Morse
quizzed Business School students
on their knowledge of basic social
justice terms, like "social construc-
tion," a majority of responses were
"What is that?" or "hmm?" Many
people didn't seem to care.
He believes this lack of interest
makes sense. The school allows cor-
porations to host impressive recruit-
ing events - several catered in the
Big House and even one thatbrought
former Olympic athletes to talk
about "following your dreams" -
making it easy for Business students
to fixate on these opportunities and
forget social justice altogether.
On a different note, maybe social
justice students are too quick to
judge. Upon inspection, many
Business School organizations are
focusedonsocial awareness - Mich-
igan Business Women encourages
discussion on issues women encoun-
ter in business, the Social Venture
Fund invests $50,000 to $250,000
in businesseswith measurable social
impact and MReach brings Detroit
and other Southeast Michigan high
school students to Ross for action-
based learning experiences.
Academically, the school offers
classes such as Business Information
Technology 445 Base of the Pyra-
mid: Business Innovation for Solving
Society's Problems, Business Infor-
mation Technology 444 Introduc-
tion to Microfinance which provide
financial services to the poor and
other classes to explore corporate

social responsibility, These clubs,
classes and a general business edu-
cation give students skills to build
and sustain an organization - some-4
thing lacking from the non-profit
sector and possibly from social jus-
tice students. Maybe there is room
for socially conscious students in the
Business School after all.
Are Ross students
above helping the
community?
Even with these opportunities,
most Business students choose to
work in the corporate world, while
many social justice-minded fresh-4
men don't think of applying to the
Business School as an undergradu-
ate. These two worlds at the Univer-
sity remain quite separate. So what
led to this divide? Why do we keep
our worlds separate? Is it personal?
Is it institutional? Are students from
either side too quick to judge? Are
these judgments justified? Most
importantly, what steps can we take
to begin bridging the gap?
None of these questions are easily
answered, but we think it's.time for
students to think about them.
This column was written with Dan-
iel Morse, a junior in the Ross School
ofBusiness.
-Nora Stephens can be
reached at norals@umich.edu.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Aida Ali, Michelle DeWitt, Ashley Griesshammer, Patrick Maillet,
Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley,
Teddy Papes, Timothy Rabb, Seth Soderborg, Andrew Weiner
ANDREW WEINER I
Drawing the confrontation line,

TIMOTHY RABB I
Make abortion obsolete

I'll forever remember holding my friend
*Maggie's hand because her delinquent, drug-
addled boyfriend wasn't there to do it. I held it
in the car on the way to the shuttered clinic, in
the admitting room while we waited for the cli-
nician and during the ultrasound as the nurse
ran the sensor along Maggie's belly in search of
the second heart that beat inside her.
I wish I could've been by her side during her
second and final appointment the following
week, but the nurses told me I wasn't allowed to
be present for the procedure, so I sat once more
in the admitting room, watching the incoming
patients and the men that accompanied them.
I was only 17-years old, certain at the time
abortion was one of those moral "grey areas"
about which I had no right to opine. But four
years of inner debate and a week of emotionally
charged protests, editorials and letters to the
editor have convinced me it's worth an attempt.
Though a fetus's "personhood" has been
publicly debated for years, I think the argu-
ment is flawed in that it focuses entirely on the
present state of the fetus. The general assump-
tions both sides make about the sanctity of
human life before birth always seem to reach
a logical impasse. What exactly defines a "per-
son," and what gives that person the rights to
"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"
That's why Don Marquis, professor of phi-
losophy at the University of Kansas, brought
something new to the table with his 1989 essay
"Why Abortion is Immoral." His essay was
the basis for the "future-like-ours" argument,
which disregards the fetus's present state and
instead focuses on itsfuture potential to become
a human being with the same "experiences,
activities, projects and enjoyments" as our own.
Why do we mourn premature death with
the observation that "(s)he died far too young?"
Marquis's argument addresses this fact of life
with the theory that death is tragic and killing
immoral because "When I die, I am deprived
both of what I now value which would have
been part of my future personal life, but also
what I would have come to value. Therefore,
when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of
my future."
By asserting that life's value lies not only
in the present and past but also in the future,

Marquis sidesteps the question of a fetus's
"personhood" and suggests that a fetus's future
potential to become a human being extends it
the right to life. He does, however, offer excep-
tions for cases involving rape or incest.
While I'm by no means trying to endorse
Marquis's essay as absolute truth, I often won-
der why pro-life supporters resort to grotesque
imagery captioned with inflammatory terms
such as "genocide" and "murder" to get their
point across when there are other more logical,
less offensive options. But even now, more than
20 years after its appearance, I have yet to see a
single public protest or debate make mention of
the "future-like-ours" argument. Curious, con-
sidering it's been a hot tppic among academics
since the day it was published and no one has
satisfactorily disproven it.
Though I'm hesitant to take Marquis's firm
stance on the moral implications of abortion,
I think most of us can agree that it's a tragic
choice for any woman to be faced with. It's
even more troubling when one considers that
most abortions could be prevented by the uni-
versal availability and proper use of birth con-
trol. The most recent statistics from the Allen
Gutmacher Institute show that 46 percent of
women seeking abortions weren't using birth
control during the month of conception. Of
those who used birth control, "76% of pill users
and 49% of condom users report having used
their method inconsistently."
Rather than suggest we outlaw elective
abortion or rail against either the pro-choice or
pro-life camps, I'd rather express the hope that
we'll all someday consider abortion a last resort
to be sought only after all other resources have
been exhausted. Unfortunately, the figures
above show that's presently not the case.
To this day, I regret not trying to talk Maggie
through her decision, to see if she had consid-
ered all her options - but I was too young to
know how. The most I can do now is promise
myself that if I should ever havea daughter, I'll
give her the emotional support that Maggie
never had. No one should have to face such a
critical decision alone.
*Maggie's name has been changed.
Timothy Rabb is an LSA senior.

I've never been one for confrontation. OK, let me
rephrase - I've never been one forsober confrontation.
Like all my ailments, I blame, it on.my mother. I've
seen the frightened look in countless waiters' eyes as
she boldly rejects the table they've seated us at. Yes, the
booth is minusculely closer to the door than ideal. But is
it really worth vinegar - or something worse - in your
salad dressing?
Maybe it was simply maturation, but I eventually got
over my embarrassment and realized there are reasons
to be respectfully confrontational. If I go to dinner with
a group of students, it's not right for the host to assume
we won't tip well and give us a table next to the bath-
room. I politely ask for another table, very careful to
smile and be much nicer than my mother.
Restaurant etiquette aside, I found myself wrestling
with respectful confrontation in a more controversial
arena. A friend had posted a tad risque Facebook status
- both pro-choice and supporting LGBTQ rights. No
qualms there. The comments, however, took me aback.
An adult woman had commented, "Just because some-
one is against gay marriage doesn't necessarily mean he
is against gay people.:)"
Beside the fact that emoticons are not appropri-
ate over age 14, I was immediately offended. I whole-
heartedly disagree with her statement. I didn't know,
however, if a response was warranted. I don't tolerate
homophobic comments, but this was somewhere on the
edge. Was this homophobic? And more importantly, was
it my place to confront a woman who I didn't know and
would most likely never meet? Is Facebook an appropri-
ate forum for this kind of sensitive discussion?
I initially wrote a typical, fiery, liberal response, took
a deep breath and deleted it. Instead I wrote: "I have to
disagree." Short, respectful and lacking and backbone or
argument. Even as I posted it, I became the 9 year old,
embarrassed and whispering, "Mom, this table is fine!"
I figured my one-sentence response would end my
involvement in the thread. The woman, however, con-
tinued the conversation. "To some, changing the defi-
nition of marriage would be like changing the law of
gravity," she said on the thread. Someone else pointed
out that gravity is a description of a force in reality - an
explanation of a pre-existing phenomenon - while mar-
riage is an unfixed human construct. It was worded well
and, again, respectful.
The woman, pointing outthe civility of the discussion
and apt to keep it going, said that marriage isn't simply a

social construct, "buta human good with certain inher-
ent requirements."
The first tine it had been easy to shake off. This
wasn't. I was conflicted whether to make a substantial
response or not. She was still being respectful, but it was
challenging to respond in a non-threatening manner.
I responded with my agreement. Marriage is a human
good with certain inherent requirements; including love,
consent and not much else. It's a human good I would like
to be a part of someday - or tomorrow, Zooey Descha-
nel, whenever is convenient for you. Beyond the "human
good" aspect, I pointed outthatthe legal structure isvital
as well for hospital visitation rights and taxbenefits.
The woman pointed out in one sentence that it was
possible for non-heterosexual couples to attain these
rights. At this point, it was all she could do to rein-
force her argument without saying something blatantly
homophobic, which she had clearly been avoiding to
keep a civil tone. I knew this and went in for a confron-
tational kill.
In about 20 states, there are waysto attain most of the
legal rights that a heterosexual married couple has. But,
I responded, by doing so I affirm that Im not allowed the
same "human good with certain inherent requirements"
that heterosexual couples are. Therefore, I affirm that I
am less of a human - less deserving of a "human good"
- than a heterosexual. I'm not. I'm firm and unwavering
in that conviction, regardless of what side of the issue
she or anyone else is on.
She apologized for offending me, but had I taken the
previously polite conversation too far? Was I too con-
frontational? Haven't I learned about the importance of
respectful dialogue in every sociology class?
In the end, there are some things that no amount of
political correctness can sugarcoat. Yes, asking for a dif-
ferent table with nice tone probably saves me from spit
in my Coke, but calling millions of conscious, produc-
tive and, sexuality aside, normal people less than human
with polished language and smiles doesp't change your
thesis. There are times when civility should be thrown
aside, when respectful forcefulness with rational and
intellectual argument is necessary. As uncomfortable
the confrontation may be, we must say: "You are infring-
ing upon my rights and dignity. I cannot stand by idly
and let you continue."
Andrew Weiner is a senior editorial page
editor. He is an LSA sophomore.

b 4.

4