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

