Opinion

SHOHAM GEVA
EDITOR IN CHIEF

CLAIRE BRYAN 

AND REGAN DETWILER 
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS

LAURA SCHINAGLE
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
4A — Thursday, January 21, 2016

Claire Bryan, Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan, 

Jeremy Kaplan, Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala, Aarica 

Marsh, Anna Polumbo-Levy, Jason Rowland, Lauren Schandevel, 

Melissa Scholke, Rebecca Tarnopol, Ashley Tjhung, Stephanie 

Trierweiler, Mary Kate Winn, Derek Wolfe

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

During the past week, I have had 

the pleasure to attend the town hall 
meetings designed to gather student 
input on the University’s diversity 
strategic planning process. It’s clear 
to me, after hearing directly from 
students and reading a thoughtful 
and compelling Jan. 11 Michigan 
Daily essay written by Michigan in 
Color contributors Jamie Tam and 
Velma Lopez, that we have not done 
an adequate job explaining some 
aspects of the planning process. 

While a great deal of important 

information about the nuts and bolts 
of the planning process is posted on 
the diversity.umich.edu website, we 
have been less clear regarding our 
rationale for conducting the plan-
ning process in the manner that we 
have. This lack of clarity has given 
rise to some concerns regarding the 
process itself.

One 
concern 
voiced 
is 
that 

the University cannot be serious 
about diversity because we have 
not announced a specific fund-
ing amount dedicated to tackling 
this issue. Last fall, Yale University 
announced a five-year, $50 million 
initiative to increase faculty diver-
sity. At about the same time, Brown 
University announced a $100 million 
commitment to a wide range of ini-
tiatives regarding diversity, equity 
and inclusion.

While this approach may make 

sense for Yale and Brown, I do not 
believe it is an approach that is right 
for Michigan. First, I believe that our 
planning should drive our funding as 
opposed to our budget driving our 
planning. I am confident the ongo-
ing strategic planning process will 
produce innovative, thoughtful and 
well-considered ideas and initiatives 
that will be targeted at specific mea-
surable objectives. 

While announcing a particular 

dollar amount at the beginning 
of the process may make a strong 
statement, my concern is that it pre-
maturely places a limit on what we 
are willing to spend on diversity, 
equity and inclusion. We want and 
need to be free to go wherever our 
ideas take us.

Second, I believe the best fund-

ing approach is not to have a sepa-
rate diversity funding structure 
but 
instead 
to 
institutionalize 

diversity, equity and inclusion into 
every aspect of the University. This 
approach ensures that the funding 
endures beyond the present climate 
of activism.

Diversity, equity and inclusion 

are core part of our mission. As 
such, it must be part of the every-
day business of the University. The 
best way to do that is to make sure 

the goals and initiatives adopted 
from the planning process are inte-
grated into the regular budgeting 
process. This way, diversity, equity 
and inclusion efforts are not segre-
gated into their own token pot, but 
instead are central to every unit’s 
budget and thus their mission.

Still skeptical? As a psycholo-

gist, I know that the best predictor 
of future behavior is past behavior. 
Within the past year, the University 
has made major funding commit-
ments to significant diversity efforts.

Just last month, the University’s 

Board of Regents approved con-
struction of a new multicultural 
center in the heart of campus. Next 
month, a supplemental educational 
program called Wolverine Path-
ways will launch for students liv-
ing in the Ypsilanti and Southfield 
school districts. Students who com-
plete the program and are admit-
ted to the University are provided a 
four-year tuition scholarship. Last 
fall, we also launched the HAIL 
scholarship program to identify 
high-achieving, low-income stu-
dents from all over the state and 
offer four-year, full-tuition scholar-
ships for those who apply for admis-
sion and are accepted.

As significant as these three ini-

tiatives are, they are by no means 
the only financial commitments we 
are prepared to make. The admin-
istration is committed to finding the 
resources necessary to support our 
strategic plan – and the initiatives 
generated by that planning.

It also is clear from the student 

town hall meetings and from my 
many other encounters across cam-
pus that some people are struggling 
to understand this unorthodox, bot-
tom-up approach to strategic plan-
ning. This approach is unlike any 
other planning process undertaken 
here. And I’m proud of that.

Our approach is intentionally bot-

tom-up. Our goal is to provide every-
one in the university community an 
opportunity to put forth ideas about 
what our objectives should be and 
how we should go about achieving 
them. I believe such an approach 
will not only generate the best ideas, 
but also provide students, faculty 
and staff greater ownership of the 
plans and help empower us all to cre-
ate the change we all want to see in 
this university. 

Make no mistake, the plans we 

develop will not be the administra-
tion’s plans, nor will they be Presi-
dent Mark Schlissel’s plans. The 
plans will belong to all of us. We all 
have a role to play in the develop-
ment of the strategic plan, and are 
all accountable for its implementa-

tion and success.

To date, we have received hun-

dreds of comments and ideas from 
members of our community through 
our various community engagement 
activities and the Be Heard social 
media platform. These comments 
and ideas are being forwarded to 
the appropriate planning leads to be 
evaluated for integration into unit 
and area plans.

Yet, we are not satisfied with 

the level of engagement on this 
critical topic. I urge you to look for 
announcements of more campus-
level and unit-level town hall meet-
ings and other activities in the 
coming weeks.

The key to making this all work is 

the nearly 100 individuals who are 
serving as the diversity leads for their 
respective school, college or unit. 
The diversity leads have the critical 
task of synthesizing a great deal of 
information into a specific plan for 
their units. These are individuals 
who were hand picked by their unit 
leaders to do this important work. 

Most of the diversity leads have 

a history of promoting diversity, 
equity and inclusion in their units. 
A few are relatively new to this 
area. I can attest that these leaders 
are committed to improving their 
units. I also can assure you that 
they have the knowledge and skills 
necessary to lead their units in the 
planning process. 

I have spent 25 years in various 

capacities working to make the Uni-
versity a more diverse, equitable and 
inclusive place. I understand that we 
have a very long way to go before we 
live up to our considerable potential. 
I, too, feel the frustration many of us 
feel that we are not further along. I 
also am under no illusion that the 
strategic planning process will be a 
panacea that will fix everything. 

I am very optimistic and excited 

about what this strategic planning 
process can do. We have an oppor-
tunity to infuse a plan for achieving 
a more diverse community into the 
core mission and operation of this 
university. The planning process 
can be a powerful example of how 
including individuals from diverse 
perspectives and experiences can 
lead to more creative, innovative and 
effective ideas — the perfect embodi-
ment of why a diverse, equitable and 
inclusive community is fundamental 
to academic excellence.

Robert M. Sellers is the University’s 

vice provost for equity, inclusion 

and academic affairs. He is also the 

Charles D. Moody Collegiate Professor 

of Psychology and Education and 

an alumnus of the University. 

A clearer strategy for diversity

ROB SELLERS | OP-ED

FROM THE DAILY

A better policy, please

Second Sexual Misconduct Report reveals we need change
T

he Office of Institutional Equity released its second Student 
Sexual Misconduct Annual Report, showing a 25-percent 
increase in reported cases of sexual misconduct from 2014 to 

2015. In the 2014 reporting period, 129 cases were reported, whereas 
in 2015 there were 172 cases reported. This increase in reports is the 
result of a multitude of factors, including increased media attention 
 

the topic of sexual misconduct has received nationwide and on 
campus in the past several years. This increase is not where we should 
direct our most critical attention, however. What’s most concerning 
about the statistics in the report is the decrease in the percentage 
of reported cases investigated by the Office of Institutional Equity, 
which is the result of the inadequacy of the University’s current 
Sexual Misconduct Policy.

A brief summary of the reporting process 

through OIE is warranted: Sexual misconduct 
under the current policy includes both sexual 
assault and sexual harassment. All reports 
of sexual misconduct are first reviewed by 
the University’s Title IX coordinator, who 
determines whether a given case is a potential 
violation of the Sexual Misconduct Policy. If 
a case is in potential violation of the policy, 
the Title IX coordinator sends it to a review 
panel made up of various representatives. 
The panel then decides whether each case 
warrants an investigation. The investigation 
would ultimately determine whether the 
reported case of sexual 
misconduct is indeed a 
policy infraction.

While 
the 
report 

acknowledges that there 
has been an increase in the 
number of cases reported, 
it is misleading when it 
states “the number of 
investigations 
remained 

the same.” While it is 
true that in both 2014 and 
2015 there were 29 cases 
brought 
under 
official 

investigation 
by 
OIE, 

29 cases amounts to 22 
percent of cases reported 
in 2014 and just 17 percent of cases reported in 
2015. This means that despite the 25-percent 
increase in cases reported, we have seen a 
5-percent decrease in the number of cases 
actually investigated by the University.

This is concerning because data from 

the Campus Climate Survey shows that 
sexual assault is much more prevalent than 
the number of cases reported shows. Many 
students are sexually assaulted, but do not 
report the incident or do not wish to follow 
through with an investigation. There is a 
huge discrepancy between the prevalence of 
sexual assault and the number of cases being 
investigated by the University. What can 
explain this gap?

OIE conducts its investigations based on 

the current Sexual Misconduct Policy and 
the evidence the complainant provides. The 
current standard seems to be too weak to 
properly identify situations in which sexual 
assault has occurred, relying on how the 
available evidence interacts with the policy. 
If there is enough evidence to support that 
sexual misconduct occurred within the 
definitions of the policy, then the reported 
instance is considered an infraction. If there 
is not enough evidence to support it, then, 
according to the policy, no violation occurred.

In an ideal world, the sexual misconduct 

policy 
would 
always 
reprimand 
sexual 

misconduct where it is due. But statistics 
in this report clearly show this is not the 
case — especially regarding instances of 
sexual assault, which made up 25 of 29 cases 
investigated. Of these, OIE just found seven 
cases to be in violation of the policy. You read 
that right. In 2015, the University only issued 
sanctions to seven perpetrators of sexual 

assault, barely an improvement from last 
year’s five.

The current Sexual Misconduct Policy is 

not doing its job. Two terms are of utmost 
importance when discussing the effectiveness 
of a sexual misconduct policy in bringing 
cases of sexual assault to justice: consent and 
incapacitation. Consent in the current policy is 
defined as “clear and unambiguous agreement, 
expressed in mutually understandable words 
or actions, to engage in a particular activity.” 
The policy goes on to say that a person 
cannot give consent if they are incapacitated, 
incapacitation being defined as “lacking the 

physical 
and/or 
mental 

ability to make informed, 
rational 
judgments.” 

According to the policy, this 
inability to make rational, 
informed judgments could 
include 
“being 
asleep 

or 
unconscious, 
having 

consumed alcohol or taken 
drugs, 
or 
experiencing 

blackouts or flashbacks.”

Both of these definitions 

are 
inadequate. 
Who 

is to determine what is 
“clear” or “unambiguous” 
agreement? Who is to 
determine whether these 

signs were “mutually understandable?” What 
does it mean to make “informed, rational 
judgments”? The current policy’s definitions 
of consent and incapacitation are entirely too 
subjective and must be improved.

This fall, OIE released a draft of a Revised 

Student Sexual Misconduct Policy. Breaking 
sexual misconduct into six subcategories all 
under the umbrella of “Prohibited Conduct,” 
the draft adds that consent cannot be inferred 
from silence, or an existing or previous sexual 
or dating relationship, while also elaborating 
that 
consent 
with 
one 
person 
doesn’t 

constitute consent with anyone else and 
that consent can be withdrawn at any time. 
While these are improvements, the draft still 
maintains the subjective language of “clear” 
and “unambiguous” agreement as grounds 
for consent. The changes the draft makes to 
the definition of incapacitation are negligible, 
leaving it just as subjective as the current 
policy.

If OIE considers defendants in cases of 

alleged sexual assault to be innocent until 
proven guilty, the subjective nature of 
definitions of consent and incapacitation 
make it virtually impossible to prove the 
defendant committed sexual assault. An 
adequate sexual misconduct policy, which the 
University claims to be releasing soon, should 
define consent and incapacitation in much less 
subjective terms. Only then can we expect 
the percentage of reported cases investigated 
to increase, and only then can we expect the 
University to reprimand more than seven 
cases of sexual assault per year. In response to 
this report, we reiterate the call to action we 
made nine months ago: Clear, unambiguous 
action is required. 

Outdated intramural policy
G

rowing up privileged in the 
affluent suburb of Bethesda, 
Md., meant that, fortunately, 

I 
never 
truly 

experienced 
hard-hitting, 
blatant 
sexism. To my 
knowledge, 
I 

was never denied 
any opportunity 
because 
of 

my 
sex, 
or 

had 
violence 

directed 
against 
me 

solely 
because 

I am female. Looking back on my 
childhood, I’ve become more aware 
of how role models, like my parents, 
teachers and rabbis, made clear, 
decisive moves to remind me again 
and again that anything a boy could 
do, I could do, too.

Here at Michigan, we largely live 

in an academic and cultural environ-
ment where overt, external sexism 
is hardly commonplace or tolerated. 
However, the rosy world in which 
I thought I lived in, one in which 
men and women are truly viewed 
as equal, is not realistic. Sexism and 
misogyny still exist in our world 
today, but largely in subtle ways that 
can be easily disregarded by detrac-
tors. Furthermore, this prejudice dis-
proportionately impacts those who 
are the least likely or able to draw 
attention to it — women of color and 
of low income.

However, as important as it is to 

highlight this pervasive institution-
alized sexism that denies women 
opportunities and undermines our 
ability to exercise agency, I’m plac-
ing that aside to discuss a rather 
curious piece of University policy 
that, though governing something 
comparatively innocuous, I still find 
troubling. No, it doesn’t have to do 
with anything as serious as the wage 
gap in the University’s payroll or the 

ever-prevalent problem of sexual 
assault, and the subject of the policy 
doesn’t have far-reaching, damaging 
consequences that echo throughout 
society. But neither of these realities 
mean it should be neglected.

Here at the University, women are 

treated differently than men when 
they step on the field to play certain 
intramural sports. This is the result 
of something called “co-rec modifi-
cations,” a different set of gendered 
rules enshrined in the official online 
rule book posted on the Student Life 
Recreational Sports page. After a bit 
of digging through the back pages 
of the website, I found a whole set 
of rules that alter game play for 
intramural flag football if women 
are present on the field. There are 
different rules regulating plays and 
passing, and the advent of something 
called an “illegal male advancement” 
(which, to me, sounds like a bulky, 
technical term for sexual assault) 
that bans male players from being 
“the first player to advance (carry) 
the ball beyond the line of scrim-
mage,” when, in turn, there are no 
such restrictions “on any run by a 
female player at any time.” And when 
a woman scores a touchdown, she 
wins nine points for her team, but 
when a man scores, he earns six.

Though I’ve heard of rule modi-

fications being in place for other 
intramural sports, such as indoor 
soccer and inner-tube water polo, 
there are no official co-rec modi-
fications in any other online rule 
book except for flag football. Pre-
sumably, these rules, both official 
and unofficial, aim to soften game 
play to make it easier, and thus 
more “fair,” for the women who 
choose to participate. However, 
they’re founded on flawed logic that 
instead has the potential to corrode 
both women’s success on the field 
and women’s will to go out and 
“play with the boys.”

Don’t get me wrong — it’s impor-

tant to recognize and address the 
unique challenges women face every 
day. Denying the fact that a woman 
may experience the world around her 
differently because of her sex allows 
for a false sense of enlightenment and 
results in complacency, when in real-
ity, there’s much work to be done. But 
treating women differently in intra-
mural flag football isn’t a progres-
sive step toward greater equality. 
The gendered rules unnecessarily 
draw a hard line between men and 
women, and predict a woman’s abili-
ties before she’s even stepped foot on 
the field. All in all, they do more harm 
than good.

The fact that we have these dif-

ferent sets of rules for co-rec sports 
was just as surprising to me as it 
was to most people I talked to. A 
quick, informal canvas of my peers 
produced a fairly unified response 
of “Wow, really? That seems so … 
outdated.” And it is — to me, the 
policy seems oddly antiquated, and 
rubs against the overwhelmingly 
progressive and inclusive environ-
ment the administration actively 
tries to perpetuate.

Though we cannot kid ourselves 

and forget that gender relations 
in contemporary America are not 
nearly as “enlightened” as we like 
to think, this relic of a policy is 
based on the logic that in sports, 
men have such an overwhelming 
physical advantage over women 
that the rules should be crafted to 
make the sport easier for us when 
we’re playing together. Superim-
posing equality onto co-rec intra-
mural sports actually helps women 
by bolstering our ability to compete 
with and against men. The rules 
must be changed to fall more in line 
with the University’s consistent 
progress toward greater gender 
equality, both on and off the field. 

— Anne Katz can be reached 

at amkatz@umich.edu.

ANNE 

KATZ

There is a huge 

discrepancy between 

the prevalence of 

sexual assault and the 
number of cases being 

investigated by the 

University.

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 to 850 words. Send the writer’s full 

name and University affiliation to to thedaily@michigandaily.com.

