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.