commenced. OIE found Reuben and 
Barnet in violation of University 
policy for disseminating electronic 
images of Campbell during the event 
without her knowledge, but did not 
find them responsible for unwanted 
sexual contact. Reuben and Barnet 
were suspended from the University 
for one year and will be allowed to 
return to campus in January 2016, 
pending the fulfillment of proba-
tionary stipulations.

Part One: 

Equitability of the process

The University has a right to con-

duct its misconduct investigations 
independently. However, OIE inves-
tigative proceedings must be altered 
to include safeguards that increase 
the equitability of the process and 
allow individuals a more just oppor-
tunity to file, pursue and defend any 
claims made by or against them.

The Student Sexual Misconduct 

Policy explicitly states that both 
respondents and complainants “may 
bring a support person or adviser 
with them to any meetings with 
the Investigator” handling the OIE 
investigation. However, there is 
no specific policy in existence gov-
erning whether complainants are 
advised to seek legal counsel, and 
Fitzgerald declined to elaborate fur-
ther as to what standard procedure 
entails. Both Reuben and Barnet 
retained high-quality legal repre-
sentation at the onset of the process, 
while Campbell did not retain attor-
ney services until she decided to 
press civil charges 11 months later.

Leaving the decision to retain 

counsel up to students who are 
involved with a stressful and likely 
emotionally damaging investiga-
tion could lead to a situation where 
ill-equipped individuals are pitted 
against experienced attorneys using 
experts to discredit and counter 
their claims. A system that provides 
guaranteed representation for all 
individuals involved with an OIE 
investigation must be created to 
ensure equitability.

In addition to the retention of 

legal representation, paid expert 
testimony and analysis is allowed 
in the OIE investigation process. 
The OIE investigator in charge of 
the case consulted various experts 
for 
the 
investigation, 
including 

the SANE who examined Camp-
bell and a University psycholo-
gist 
with 
post-traumatic 
stress 

disorder expertise. In response to 
these 
University-obtained 
testi-

monies, Reuben’s attorneys paid 
and consulted experts regarding 
the SANE examination, memory 
formation and PTSD to directly 
contradict the informed opinions 
of University employees. The allow-
ance of this testimony is concern-
ing. To maintain a standard of 
review, it is crucial that the opinions 
considered do not harbor a vested 
interest in the outcome of any con-
tended issue, as is the case with paid 
 

expert opinions.

OIE investigations include an 

appeals process that allows new, 
“appropriate and probative” mate-
rial to be introduced after an appeal 
has been filed. This is entirely con-

tradictory to the purpose of an 
appeal. An appeal is a review of 
an original decision to determine 
whether a “harmful legal error 
has occurred”; it is not intended to 
“give a litigant a second opportuni-
ty to reargue the facts of his or her 
case.” Complainants and respon-
dents are allowed to submit objec-
tions to materials during the appeals 
process, which are considered and 
ruled upon by OIE staff. Permitting 
additional documents to be submit-
ted during an appeal only muddles 
the factual findings of the Univer-
sity’s investigation and unneces-
sarily complicates and elongates 
 

the process.

Furthermore, the policies gov-

erning students and their actions 
bear few definitive thresholds for 
punishment. The University only 
provides a list of potential sanc-
tions, meaning very few violations 
of policy result directly in a spe-
cifically defined punishment being 
levied against violator(s). Alarm-
ingly, academic standing policy 
is more concrete in its language 
and 
punishments 
than 
sexual 

assault policies. Leaving punish-
ments undefined limits the abil-
ity of University policy to inhibit 
 

unwanted behavior.

Punishments aren’t just unde-

fined. They are, as in Campbell’s 
case, mercurial. E. Royster Harper, 
vice president of student life, after 
reviewing the materials from the 
OIE investigation and suggested 
sanctioning from the appeals pro-
cess, wrote in a Dec. 17, 2014 memo 
addressed to Stacey Vander Velde, 
associate director of the Office of 
Student Conflict Resolution, that 
she had “chosen to modify the 
sanctioning recommendations” by 
extending the suspension period 
levied against Reuben; he will not 
be allowed to return to the Uni-
versity until January 2016. This 
was done without explanation or 
rationalization by Harper or her 
office, which further raises ques-
tions about the transparency of 
 

the process.

Reworking the OIE investigation 

system is essential because it will 
benefit both the University and stu-
dents, leading to a more equitable 
process and definitive outcome.

Part Two: Consent definition 

and sexual education

According to its website, SAPAC, 

the main campus provider of sex-
ual education, defines consent as 
“when someone verbally agrees, 
gives permission, or says ‘yes’ to 
sexual activity with someone else.” 
However, the Student Sexual Mis-
conduct Policy defines consent with 
less detailed description. It states 
that consent is “clear and unam-
biguous agreement, expressed in 
mutually understandable words or 
actions, to engage in a particular 
activity,” with the key issue being 
“whether the Respondent knew, or 
should have known, that the activ-
ity in question was not consensual.” 
Because of the University’s official 
policy, Reuben and Barnet were 
found not guilty of unwanted sex-
ual contact during the encounter 
with Campbell. While we under-
stand that SAPAC’s definition of 
consent is educational and not a 
standard used to hold individuals 
accountable to University policy, 
the large discrepancy between the 
two is troubling; “mutually under-
standable words or actions” is too 
ambiguous. The current policy sets 
a dangerously low threshold for 
consent that can be misconstrued 
and misunderstood.

To remedy these ambiguities, 

the policy should clearly state that 
silence and inaction are not accept-

able and do not, under any circum-
stances, 
constitute 
consent. 
In 

an interview with The Michigan 
Daily, Barbara Niess-May, execu-
tive director of SafeHouse Center, 
further elaborated on the topic of 
consent. “It’s active, not passive,” 
Niess-May said. “Cooperation does 
not equal consent.”

According to the American Psy-

chological Association, immediate 
reactions to sexual assault include 
shock, disbelief and fear. While 
the lack of a response, as a result 
of these reactions, can cause con-
fusion for involved parties, misun-
derstanding is not a viable excuse 
for sexual misconduct. The Univer-
sity’s policy must take into account 
the very real, biological reactions 
individuals may experience during 
a traumatic event.

Beyond the pitfalls in the policy 

itself, sexual education on cam-
pus is minimal, at best. Currently, 
the University administers sexual 
education to incoming students 
indirectly 
through 
AlcoholEdu 

and directly through Relationship 
Remix. However, completion of 
these programs is fail>not strict-
ly enforced, and neither of the 
programs detail the University’s 
sexual misconduct policy nor the 
investigative process. These pro-
grams are not rigorous enough 
educational tools because, even if 
enforced, such brief sessions can’t 
cover all of the material necessary 
for an adequate understanding of 
sexual misconduct.

Therefore, the University must 

provide SAPAC with more resourc-
es to expand its educational pro-
grams for students. For students, 
a more thorough and prolonged 
curriculum should be taught to 
provide a comprehensive and con-
tinual education. A mini-course 
should be mandated for freshmen 
during their first semester aimed 
at clarifying all policies and pun-
ishments regarding sexual miscon-
duct. In addition, online refreshers 
should be mandated before class 
registration each academic year 
to provide updated information 
regarding 
sexual 
misconduct 

resources and policy.

That said, it would be unfair 

to claim the University is com-
pletely uncommitted to changing 
campus culture and policies. Uni-
versity President Mark Schlissel 
has announced a student survey 
on sexual assault to gather infor-
mation, UMPD has formed a sex-
ual assault special victims unit 
focused on sexual misconduct and 
SAPAC is currently hosting round 
tables to provide feedback on the 
sexual misconduct policy. While 
these steps will improve aware-
ness, gather information and bet-
ter train UMPD officers — all 
critical to tackling sexual mis-
conduct — they do not adequately 
address the issues that currently 
exist within the system, the policy 
and how information is dissemi-
nated on campus.

The University must own up to 

its faults and make integral chang-
es to its OIE investigation process, 
sexual misconduct policy and edu-
cation programs. Further inaction 
in this regard cannot be tolerated.

Opinion

JENNIFER CALFAS

EDITOR IN CHIEF

AARICA MARSH 

and DEREK WOLFE 

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

LEV FACHER

MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 

the University of Michigan since 1890.

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s editorial board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Wednesday, April 8, 2015

A

nother April is upon us, which means 
another Hash Bash is behind us. As 
the cleanup crews get to work try-

ing to get the Diag ready for 
another week of classes, the 
entire student body needs a 
gentle reminder to help keep 
this area pristine for all of us. 
However, it’s not the trash I’m 
talking about (though the out-
of-towners bring a lot, damn 
dirty hippies), but the noise 
pollution.

Yes, it’s just about that time 

for the campus hate-mongers 
to make an appearance. If this isn’t your first 
semester, then you know exactly who I’m talk-
ing about: the angry man with his sandwich 
board, spewing hate and vitriol to anyone who 
will listen; the guy who argues with him while 
hocking his own book and performing a few 
weird magic tricks; or just about any imagin-
able kind of gospel-preachin’, soul-savin’ out-
door evangelist.

Regardless, when you break all of them 

down into their constituent parts, they’re 
here spreading a message 
of hate, intolerance and/or 
exclusivity, and that is the 
polar opposite of what cam-
pus should be. Anyone car-
rying around a sign that says 
“Repent or die,” “Ask me 
why you’re going to be cast 
into a lake of fire” or “Obey 
Jesus” isn’t coming at you 
with an attitude of love or 
respect (again, except Magic 
Guy, and he’s just here for your cash — though 
at least he’s honest about it).

Don’t get me wrong; I love a good campus 

preacher. One of the first groups I associ-
ated with, the campus Atheists, Agnostics & 
Humanists at Western Michigan University 
— presently the Center for Inquiry — origi-
nally congregated around a campus preacher. 
Then again, what they had at WMU we lack 
here at the University; mainly, a strong-
willed, intelligent group that could factually, 
and loudly, counter anything that gets tossed 
around — and do it in a way that isn’t overly 
insulting or condescending.

And that is a problem here on the Diag. Sure, 

we have plenty of people who will yell at the 
guy, but all they’re doing is playing into his 
hands. This preacher isn’t doing anything spe-
cial, per se, but a lot of this goes back to the facts 
that we just don’t have many older students 
here, and campus religious diversity always 
seems to revolve around some sort of god (as I 
have noted before).

Unfortunately, the Diag is technically 

considered a public space, so they are well 

within their rights to preach their message 
of hate — or magic and books, depending on 
the source. But there are a few things we can 
do to combat this nuisance. One tried-and-
true response is for a well read, free thinker 
to stand out there, to heckle him back while 
winning over the crowd, until the preacher 
gets irritated and goes away. However, lack-
ing a 350-pound man with a booming voice, 
quick wit and a powder blue t-shirt that reads 
“Friendly Neighborhood Atheist” — and we 
are lacking that on campus, trust me — the 
best thing we can do is ignore him.

I know, much easier to ignore such a spec-

tacle. Students naturally congregate around 
these people. Honestly, we’ve all done it. In 
fact, I stopped and watched one about this 
time last year. I probably should have spoken 
up, but I was underprepared, and that’s the 
last thing you want to be when dealing with 
these loons. “Never argue with an idiot. They 
will drag you down to their level and beat you 
with experience,” as the saying goes.

Then again, as much as I say we should 

ignore them, I also have some weird fantasies 
about these people getting their comeuppance. 

I mean, wouldn’t it be fan-
tastic if the circle of people 
around one of them just spon-
taneously turned around and 
started talking to the people 
behind them, alienating the 
preacher in the midst of a 
large group of people? Or if a 
couple of them started some 
sort of preacher rap battle, 
and we were on hand to judge 
it, complete with scorecards? 

I’d love to see sandwich board guy try to spit a 
rhyme — I bet it would be hysterical.

Anyhow, remember they are not there to 

be nice or make friends, no matter what they 
say. They are here for self-serving ends, to get 
attention and money, whether it be American 
dollars or spiritual spending power for the 
afterlife. Be vigilant around these con men, 
and stay out of their money trap.

Finally, whatever you do when you see 

these guys, make sure you don’t get violent 
or make threats. All of these things play into 
their hands, and the last thing we want is to 
give them more self-righteous fury. Instead, 
smile and walk away. If they have no crowd, 
they have no currency, and they will quickly 
move along to the next group of “suckers.” Let 
them say what they came to say, and then let 
them leave. The sooner they get the message 
that we don’t care, the sooner they’ll go away 
and the sooner we’ll go back to having a nicer, 
cleaner Diag. 

 
— Eric Kukielka can be reached 

at ekuk@umich.edu.

Keep the Diag clean

ERIC 
KUKIELKA

SAPAC needs more 
resources to expand 

sexual education 

for students. 

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Ben Keller, Payton 
Luokkala, Aarica Marsh, Victoria Noble, Michael 
Paul, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Allison Raeck, Melissa 
Scholke, Michael Schramm, Matthew Seligman, 

Mary Kate Winn, Jenny Wang, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

EDITORIAL
From Page 1

E-MAIL RACHEL AT RDAWSON@UMICH.
RACHEL DAWSON

The sooner they 
get the message 

that we don’t care, 

the sooner 

they’ll go away. 

A system that 

provides guaranteed 
representation must 

be created.

 

— U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said during a rally Wednesday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky.

“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

Today I announce with God’s help, 

with the help of liberty lovers 
everywhere, that I’m putting 
myself forward as a candidate 

for president of the 

United States of America.”
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and viewpoints. 

Letters should be fewer than 300 words while 

viewpoints should be 550-850 words. 

Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to 

tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

