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.