CELEBRATING OUR ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIFTH YEAR OF EDITORIAL FREEDOM
michigandaily.com
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
INDEX
Vol. CXXIV, No. 98
©2015 The Michigan Daily
michigandaily.com
NEWS........................... 2
OPINION.......................4
ARTS............................. 5
SPORTS ........................7
SUDOKU....................... 2
CL ASSIFIEDS.................6
NEW ON MICHIGANDAILY.COM
Nursing School joins climate change effort
MICHIGANDAILY.COM/BLOGS
GOT A NEWS TIP?
Call 734-418-4115 or e-mail
news@michigandaily.com and let us know.
WEATHER
TOMORROW
HI: 71
LO: 43
Editor’s note: Emily Camp-
bell, one of the subjects of this
piece, is a copy editor at The
Michigan Daily. Campbell was not
involved in the editing process of
this editorial or the Daily’s special
report.
***
In a phone interview with Uni-
versity spokesman Rick Fitzger-
ald on Tuesday afternoon, the
Daily requested specific informa-
tion about the sexual misconduct
investigation process in order to
clarify several aspects of a news
report published in today’s edi-
tion of the paper. On behalf of the
University, Fitzgerald declined
to comment and said the Student
Sexual Misconduct Policy would
suffice in answering the Daily’s
questions.
In February 2014, the Depart-
ment of Education’s Office of
Civil Rights announced it would
investigate the University for
violations of Title IX legislation.
In response to the investigation,
the University issued the follow-
ing statement: “We’re very proud
of our student sexual misconduct
policy, our prevention efforts and
our programs to support sur-
vivors of sexual misconduct …
we believe that a review of our
policy, programs and investiga-
tions will conclude that the Uni-
versity of Michigan is doing what
it should in this important area.”
While the University claims it
is doing “what it should” to sup-
port survivors of sexual miscon-
duct, after reviewing documents
and University policies, it is
undeniable that the University’s
sexual assault adjudication and
education processes contain sig-
nificant policy faults that cannot
be ignored.
First, the University’s sexual
misconduct investigations func-
tion in a manner that brings
their equitability into question.
Second, there are discrepancies
between the Sexual Assault Pre-
vention and Awareness Center’s
definition of consent and that of
University policy it determines
cases on, which raises concerns
about the educational materials
promoted by the University. In
light of this specific case and the
larger Title IX investigation, the
University is left with one choice:
It must change its sexual miscon-
duct investigation policies and
formulate better sexual educa-
tion programs for its students. To
persist with the current policies
would only further discredit the
University’s sincerity in combat-
ing sexual assault on campus.
In December 2013, LSA soph-
omore Emily Campbell alleged
that she was involved in unwant-
ed sexual contact with then-
LSA-freshmen Aaron Reuben
and Jonathan Barnet. Campbell
reported the incident to SAPAC,
which referred her to a Uni-
versity hospital sexual assault
nurse examiner, or SANE. A
University Police Department
investigation was automatically
initiated. Information from this
investigation was brought to the
Office of Institutional Equity,
where an adjudication process
December 6 2013
2:00 a.m. : Campbell and Reuben return to Reuben’s room in Markley
2:26 a.m. and in the hours immediately following the alleged assault:
Photos are sent to 20 people via a GroupMe depicting the alleged assault
Evening: Campbell goes to SAPAC and later to the University of Michigan Emergency Room
January 9 2014: Attorney David Nacht states
on behalf of Jonny Barnet, “His contention is
that anything that happened that night was
consensual.”
December 11 2013: Campbell meets with OIE
investigator Elizabeth Seney, beginning the
University’s formal investigation.
March 17 2014: Barnet requests an extension
to provide feedback to the University following
the University's initial draft report, which is later
granted.
ocuments reviewed by The Michigan Daily — detailing a 2013 sexual assault complaint filed
by a University student — raise potential questions about the school’s internal process for
investigating allegations of sexual misconduct.
Editor’s note: Emily Campbell, one of the
subjects of this piece, is a copy editor at The
Michigan Daily. Campbell was not involved
in the editing process of this story. For further
information regarding the reporting process of
this story, see this Editor’s Blog online.
Documents reviewed by The Michigan
Daily,
detailing
a
2013
sexual
assault
complaint filed by a University student, raise
questions about the University’s process for
investigating allegations of sexual misconduct.
In February 2014, the U.S. Department of
Education launched a formal investigation
into the University’s handling of sexual
misconduct cases. In the months
since
federal
officials
commenced
their
investigation,
the
University
was subject to another Title IX
complaint. Title IX is a component of
federal education law that prevents
discrimination based on gender in
any education programs that receive federal
funding.
In December 2013, then-LSA-freshman
Emily Campbell reported to the University
that she had been sexually assaulted on
campus by Jonathan Barnet and Aaron
Reuben, who were LSA freshmen at the time.
The
University’s
judicial
process
determined the two were not responsible for
sexual misconduct — a decision Campbell
unsuccessfully
appealed
—
but
were
sanctioned for disseminating photos of the
incident without Campbell’s knowledge or
consent. Barnet and Reuben were ultimately
suspended, effective in January 2015, on
that charge — a decision they unsuccessfully
appealed. They will remain suspended until
January 2016.
Campbell’s
mother,
Maria
Mortellaro,
filed a Title IX complaint with the U.S.
Department of Education on Campbell’s
behalf. The complaint argues the University
mishandled her daughter’s sexual misconduct
case. The Department of Education has taken
on the complaint and added it to its ongoing
investigation of the University.
This complaint details several steps of the
University’s process that Mortellaro says were
handled unfairly and alleges the University
failed to provide a prompt and equitable
response to Campbell’s report.
The complaint centers around Campbell
and Mortellaro’s view that a discrepancy
persists between the standards of consent
taught by the University’s Sexual Assault
Prevention and Awareness Center and those
used during the University’s judicial process.
The complaint also alleges that the University
does not employ adequate protocols for
determining what types of evidence and
witnesses are permitted in proceedings.
Another key part of the complaint is
Campbell’s claim that the University advised
her that hiring a lawyer was unnecessary.
However, without a lawyer advising her
throughout the University’s appeals process,
Campbell said attorneys for the respondents
blocked several documents from being
considered in the appeals deliberations.
These documents included a letter from the
University Police detective who investigated
her case, in which he called the panel’s decision
to find the respondents not responsible for
sexual assault “unfathomable.”
The
Daily
reviewed
the
documents
pertaining to the University’s investigation,
including the Office of Institutional Equity’s
investigation
report,
appeals
documents
filed by both Campbell and the students who
she alleges assaulted her — referred to as
“respondents” in the University’s documents —
and the final findings of an appeals board.
Attorneys for the respondents chose to
speak on behalf of their clients and did not
comply with the Daily’s requests to interview
the respondents directly on Tuesday.
The Daily filed a Freedom of Information
Act request in January 2015 regarding
documents considered in the U.S. Department
of Education’s March 2014 investigation of the
University. The Daily has not received these
requested documents.
University spokesman Rick Fitzgerald
could not provide more information regarding
any questions raised by the documents
related to this case and declined to comment
regarding the University’s general processes
at large. It could not be confirmed whether the
documents reviewed by the Daily for this case
encompassed all of those generated by the
investigation and judicial proceedings.
The incident occurred after Campbell,
according to OIE investigation documents,
attended a date party as a Kappa Kappa Gamma
sorority pledge. Both Reuben and Barnet
attended the same party. Campbell alleges she
was coerced into participating in unwanted
sexual acts with both Reuben, a Pi Kappa Alpha
fraternity pledge, and his roommate Barnet,
a Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity pledge, at
approximately 2 a.m. on Dec. 6, 2013 in their
Mary Markley Residence Hall dorm
room.
Campbell reported the alleged
assault to SAPAC later in the day on
Dec. 6, where she was advised to go the
University Hospital. At the hospital, a
sexual assault nurse examiner, also
known as a SANE, administered a rape
kit.
At the hospital, University Police Detective
Ryan Cavanaugh was the first to ask her
questions about the previous night’s events —
the initial step in a yearlong series of hearings,
interviews and discussions regarding the
incident.
After Cavanaugh’s interview with Campbell,
the Office of Student Conflict Resolution and
Anthony Walesby, the University’s Title IX
coordinator, reviewed the case and transferred
it to the Office of Institutional Equity, which
launched
See POLICIES, Page 3
See EDITORIAL, Page 4