The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Tuesday, February 14, 2017 — 3

Matthew Lige wrote in the press 
release email.

The 
second 
incident 

occurred the following day, 
when a student reported being 
verbally assaulted and then 
pushed down a hill. While the 
victim and witness statements 
were 
deemed 
credible, 
the 

investigation is no longer active 

due to lack of information 
regarding the assailant.

“The 
area 
where 
the 

assault 
occurred 
did 
not 

have independent video of 

the 
incident,” 
Lige 

wrote. “No suspects could be 
identified as the victim was 
unable to describe the assailant 
beyond a vague clothing and 
physical description. At this 
time, 
this 
investigation 
is 

inactive.”

The third incident involved 

a woman who reported being 
assaulted 
by 
a 
man 
who 

scratched her face with a safety 
pin while she was walking on 
Liberty Street. The incident 
was heavily investigated by 
both AAPD detectives and 
FBI agents, who concluded the 
report was false and the crime 
did not occur.

Investigators 
found 

numerous inconsistencies in 
the victim’s statement and there 
was no surveillance footage of 
the crime to support the report. 
In response, detectives have 
submitted a warrant request for 
criminal charges against the 
Ann Arbor resident who made 
the false report. 

“This 
incident 
originally 

reported was a misdemeanor 
assault,” 
Lige 
wrote. 
“A 

criminal penalty for a false 
police report would also be a 
misdemeanor.”

DPSS
From Page 1

faculty governance.

Lehman stressed the importance 

of a communicative relationship 
between the provost and the faculty 
governance committees.

“The biggest complaints that 

have come forward historically … 
is too much decision making before 
consultation with the faculty,” 
Lehman said. “It’s come out as an 
issue, and you’re still going to find 
people complaining about this.” 

SACUA member Silke-Maria 

Weineck, a professor of German 
and comparative literature, posed 

concerns about how the next 
provost will lead the University 
through the current contentious 
political climate.

“It seems to me that we may 

be faced with a somewhat very 
hostile federal administration in 
the future,” Weineck said. “I would 
like to see a provost who has various 
game plans to (protect) our various 
vulnerabilities … Somebody who 
has had some serious experience 
interfacing 
with 
government 

would be useful, and possibly 
someone who knows the mind of 
conservatives.”

The conversation then turned 

to whether SACUA would prefer 
a candidate who already works for 
the University or someone from 

outside the community. SACUA 
Secretary David Potter, a professor 
of history and classical studies, 
highlighted the merits of both 
backgrounds, but said he ultimately 
felt an outside perspective could be 
good for the University.

“We’ve had two very successful 

internal 
candidates 
recently, 

following an extremely successful 
external candidate … but the 
perspective an outsider can bring 
(is) that we don’t necessarily need 
to do everything the same way all 
the time,” Potter said. “And I think, 
after a number of years of very good 
internal people, having an external 
candidate might be nice.”

Weineck disagreed with Potter, 

saying the new provost must have 

a knowledge of the University’s 
culture.

“With all of the new deans 

and with (Schlissel) still being 
a bit (new), I don’t think it’s 
strictly a question of inside or 
outside,” Weineck said. “I think 
we do need somebody who has an 
understanding of the identity of the 
University.”

The search committee has 

already had its first meeting 
and elicited the help of a search 
firm. The committee will accept 
applications and nominations until 
the end of the month, at which point 
it will begin confidential interviews 
of select applicants. A new provost 
is expected to be appointed before 
next year’s fall semester.

SACUA
From Page 1

always be heard and will always 
be heard,” Pamukcu said. “It was 
important when America was 
founded, and is just as important 
today, especially because the 
ways that we now communicate 
are continually changing. The 
law has to keep changing on how 
it interprets speech, and in what 
capacity — does it extend to social 
media, what I say to people when 
I’m working? It’s an amendment 
that will continue to be important 
and 
its 
interpretation 
will 

continue to evolve.”

The 
SPG 
also 
created 

policies 
directed 
specifically 

against 
“Discrimination 
and 

Harassment.” 
This 
in-depth 

policy stance includes definitions 
of the terms and the appropriate 
responses to and procedures 
to follow in these instances, in 
addition to the Regents’ Bylaw 
14.06 and the Nondiscrimination 
Policy Notice already created to 
target these issues.

The 
policy 
clearly 
states 

the 
University 
is 
committed 

to 
maintaining 
an 
academic 

and work environment free of 
discrimination and harassment.

“The 
University 
has 
a 

compelling interest in assuring an 
environment in which learning 
and productive work thrives,” the 
policy reads. “At the same time, 
the University has an equally 
compelling interest in protecting 
freedom of speech and academic 
freedom and in preserving the 
widest possible dialogue within 
its instructional and research 
settings.”

Pamukcu believes there is 

a 
distinction 
between 
hate 

speech and free speech, and the 
University has the discretion to 
decide what classifies as hate 
speech and when the University 
has cause to intervene, especially 
given 
the 
current 
divisive 

political climate.

“Hate speech is one of those 

things 
that 
is 
recognizable, 

you can use common sense,” 
Pamukcu said. “You can see by 
the way they act, the language 
they use, the context they say it 
in — those are all important parts 
about deciding whether someone 
is exercising their own right to 
free speech or they’re using their 
speech to target an individual or 
cause harm to an individual in the 
way that hate speech does.”

For Philosophy Prof. Daniel 

Jacobson, however, freedom of 

speech stands as a prerequisite to 
knowledge, and as such, people 
should be able to defend their 
views against all arguments, 
whether or not some would 
consider it to be “hate speech.”

“There isn’t even a clear 

meaning to the phrase ‘hate 
speech,’ which is one good reason 
not to use the phrase, let alone 
to use it to propose restrictions 
on speech,” Jacobson wrote in 
an email interview. “But the law 
is clear: Hate speech (including 
false, immoral, even harmful 
speech) is protected by the 
Constitution. That is a good thing, 
because if hate speech could be 
suppressed, 
then, 
inevitably, 

unpopular moral and political 
opinions would be labeled as hate 
speech.”

The aforementioned guarantee 

of free speech and the importance 
of diverse opinions was the 
University’s rationale in allowing 
The Michigan Review to utilize 
University space to host two 
contentious figures. Early in the 
primaries of the 2016 presidential 
campaign, Milo Yiannopoulos 
debated against Julie Bindel in 
the Michigan League in February 
2016.

Both 
figures 
are 
banned 

from multiple universities in 
the United Kingdom because 
of their controversial views — 
Yiannopoulos for his opinion that 
feminists invent fake problems 
specifically regarding rape and 
sexual assault, and Bindel for 
her opinions of modern feminists 
and the transgender community. 
Most recently, Yiannopoulos was 
slated to speak at the University 
of California-Berkeley, but after 
violent protests from the student 
body, the university cancelled the 
event.

Many 
students 
expressed 

discontent 
with 
the 
hosting 

of this event, but University 
spokesman Rick Fitzgerald wrote 
to the Daily in an email at the time 
of the event that the University 
allowed for participation by the 
two aforementioned participants. 
The University is committed to 
allowing freedom of speech and 
opinions for all students and 
outside guests, referencing the 
SPG.

LSA junior Andrew Krieger, 

president of the University’s 
chapter of Young Americans 
for 
Liberty, 
a 
non-partisan 

libertarian group on campus, 
believes the University’s role 
in 
maintaining 
free 
speech 

and censoring hate speech is 
important, but his peers could 
work on being open to others’ 

ideologies.

“So we believe that free speech 

allows for you to challenge your 
ideas and to change the ideas 
of others,” Krieger said. “As far 
the University censoring those 
ideologies, I think that makes 
racism worse in that it solidifies 
their convictions and doesn’t 
allow for them to hear the other 
side.”

For LSA junior Emily Kaufman, 

who identifies as a transwoman, 
Yiannopoulos coming to campus 
was a point of contention, as in 
her opinion, he represents hate 
speech rather than exercising his 
right to free speech.

“I went to the event, and it 

was the most uncomfortable I’ve 
probably ever been in my life,” 
Kaufman said. “It was a lot of 
white men from out of town. The 
kind of people that look like they’d 
beat up a trans girl like me … The 
misrepresentation of feminism 
and having all these people from 
out of town, it wasn’t University 
of Michigan students having a 
productive debate, which could 
have been useful.”

Krieger said Young Americans 

for Liberty does not shy away 
from bringing in controversial 
speakers such as Yiannopoulos 
because it is incredibly beneficial 
to have open dialogues and listen 
to the viewpoints of those with 
different political ideologies than 
one’s own.

“Obviously, 
we 
don’t 
like 

defamation, flat-out lies, threats 
— none of that is acceptable under 
the Constitution,” Krieger said. 
“Unfortunately, the only way 
you’re going to convince people 
with racial ideologies is to have 
discussions with them, and that 
is an issue people don’t like to 
hear and people don’t really want 
to try. For a lot of libertarians, 
free speech is the only way to 
convince people otherwise … I 
don’t like Milo, but it’s sad that 
people aren’t able to come to a 
campus for a fear of their lives.”

Jack 
Bernard, 
associate 

general counsel at the University, 
and Sarah Daniels, associate 
dean of students, spoke about 
the 
University’s 
role 
as 
a 

public institution and the First 
Amendment during a Central 
Student Government meeting in 
December.

Though Bernard and Daniels 

did not specify any incidents, 
their presentation alluded to the 
anti-Islam and politically charged 
messages that have been chalked 
on the Diag, including statements 
such 
as 
“Stop 
Islam” 
and 

“Trump 2016.” The University 

did not remove the chalk, and 
students predominately Muslim, 
eventually 
washed 
off 
the 

writing.

One student who helped wash 

off the chalk messages, Rackham 
student Banen Al-Sheemary, said 
at the time she was frustrated 
with the University’s lack of 
action in response to the chalk 
drawings beyond an email from 
University 
President 
Mark 

Schlissel promoting unity.

“It’s 
irresponsible 
of 
the 

administration 
that 
we 
are 

actually out here with buckets 
of water and napkins to clean 
off these hateful messages and 
the administration isn’t taking 
care of it,” Al-Sheemary said at 
the time. “And not only is the 
administration not taking care 
of it, they are putting us through 
a really difficult process. That 
perpetuates these really racist 
and hateful stereotypes that 
turn into violence and turn into 
students of color feeling unsafe 
on campus.”

Bernard explained the chalk 

writings on the Diag could not be 
interfered with by the University 
if they were not threats of 
violence or other versions of 
unprotected speech, and Daniels 
added the University cannot 
stop people from speaking. Both 
Bernard and Daniels agreed the 
best ways to counteract speech 
was more speech.

Art & Design senior Keysha 

Wall, member of the University 
chapter of BAMN — the Coalition 
to Defend Affirmative Action, 
Integration 
and 
Immigrant 

Rights and Fight for Equality 
By 
Any 
Means 
Necessary— 

took issue with the University’s 
representatives 
during 
the 

CSG 
meeting, 
stating 
the 

chalk drawing incidents were 
representative of a threat toward 
Muslim students.

“You cannot debate fascism,” 

Wall said. “You cannot have a 
discussion with fascism. You have 
to shut that down.”

However, 
the 
University 

was prompted to respond and 
announce its intention to restrict 
the type of speech on alt-right, 
white supremacist posters found 
around 
campus 
on 
multiple 

occasions 
during 
the 
weeks 

leading up to the contentious 
2016 presidential election. The 
posters were primarily anti-
Black and anti-Islam, earlier 
posters advised white women 
not 
to 
become 
romantically 

involved with Black men. After 
many student protests following 
the discovery of these posters, 
Schlissel 
and 
the 
University 

released a statement pertaining 
to the racially charged poster.

“Messages of racial, ethnic or 

religious 
discrimination 
have 

no place at the University of 
Michigan,” the statement read. 
“While we continue to defend 
any individual’s right to free 
speech on our campus, these 
types of attacks directed toward 
any individual or group, based 
on a belief or characteristic, 
are 
inconsistent 
with 
the 

university’s values of respect, 
civility and equality. We also 
have a responsibility to create a 
learning environment that is free 
of harassment.”

The University also stated they 

could not remove the posters 
promoting 
white 
supremacy 

because they were posted in 
public posting spaces.

“Consistent with our policy 

for posting, whenever they are on 
buildings, we can remove them,” 
said former University Provost 
Martha 
Pollack 
during 
the 

Senate Advisory Committee on 
Undergraduate Affairs meeting. 
“If they are on kiosks, they are 
protected by free speech, as they 
should be. Not only do we have 
a constitutional obligation to 
allow all speech no matter how 
heinous, but if you’re going to 
stand by the First Amendment, 
you’re going to stand by the First 
Amendment. But what you have 
to do then is loudly make known 
your abhorrence of this.”

Jacobson thinks the University 

intervening on free speech is an 
illegal act because the University 
is a public institution.

“It is fine to have certain spaces 

where people are ‘safe’ from 
hearing opinions that offend 
them,” Jacobson said. “But the 
idea that the University as a 
whole should be a safe space — 
that it should compel people not 
to express offensive opinions — is 

as misguided as it is impossible 
… And it is impossible because 
everything offends somebody.”

Following the many protests 

and University responses after 
the 2016 election, LSA sophomore 
Amanda 
Delekta 
created 
a 

petition, #NotMyCampus, where 
she stated she felt she faced 
bigotry for holding conservative 
views, and that the University 
administration did not foster 
conversations 
that 
were 

respectful of all ideologies.

“I 
penned 
#NotMyCampus 

after being frustrated at the 
University 
of 
Michigan’s 

seemingly biased response to the 
2016 election results,” Delekta 
wrote in an email interview. “The 
University is a school and its 
purpose is to educate, but instead 
of fostering an open dialog (sic) 
professors and administrators 
highlighted only one viewpoint 
which validated that ideology 
over that of others which I found 
to create a divisive campus 
climate and create a stigma 
among students of us vs. them.”

Jacobson noted the disparity 

between the progressive and 
conservative 
ideologies 
of 

faculty, favoring the former, is 
problematic because it makes 
students with unpopular political 
opinions 
comfortable 
with 

expressing themselves.

“Many 
fields, 
especially 

in the humanities and social 
sciences, 
have 
become 
so 

politicized that scholars cannot 
succeed unless they hew to a 
leftist party line,” Jacobson 
wrote. “Students are subjected 
to 
political 
indoctrination 

even in courses that are not 
about politics. But perhaps the 
most disappointing aspect of 
the situation is that, despite 
its unquenchable thirst for 
‘diversity,’ the University does 
not really value intellectual and 
political diversity.”

However, Delekta wrote she 

believes freedom of speech 
granted to students covers all 
types of speech, but requires a 
great responsibility.

“With this freedom comes 

great responsibility to use it for 
good, to be critical, but to also 
be 
compassionate,” 
Delekta 

wrote. “I believe hate speech 
is speech with ill intent — with 
no productive purpose beyond 
causing another harm. That 
being said, regardless of how 
insidious and horrible speech 
may be it is protected by the 
Constitution. I in no means 
think hate speech is right, or 
legitimate but it is legal.”

FREE SPEECH
From Page 1

Students are 

subjected 
to political 

indoctrination 
even in courses 
that are not about 

politics

The area where 

the assault 

occurred did not 
have independent 

video of the 

incident

University to increase the number 
of counselors that CAPS had to get 
to a better ratio of counselors to 
students, and originally we were 
at one to 1300, which is below 
where we should be,” Sarkar said. 
“The ideal golden ratio is one to 
1000, and because of the advocacy 
work that happened over the last 
year, the University is actually 
hiring more counselors for CAPS 
now and they will be at one to 
1200, which is not the golden 
ratio, but it’s progress and there’s 
a lot of work to be done and we’re 
excited to do that.”

Sarkar said she is also excited to 

strive for a new policy regarding 
the maximum number of exams 
a student can take in one day. 
Currently, students can take a 
total of four exams in one day, but 
can advocate for three. She hopes 
to get the maximum lowered 
to three, allowing students to 
advocate for two, which is a policy 
she believes will strongly impact 
the mental health and well-being 
of students.

Jawad is deeply involved with 

CSG’s efforts to connect with 
the city of Ann Arbor, especially 
in regards to affordable housing 
and student concerns with the 
increasing high prices. Recently, 
CSG made efforts to convince 
the city to move to nonpartisan 
elections in order to encourage 
more University student turnout.

According 
to 
LSA 
junior 

Cassie Fields, who is running for 
communications director, eMerge 
hopes base its campaign on 
responding and elevating student 
voices, especially the voices that 
have not been involved with CSG 
before.

“We are really trying to look 

at students who are overlooked 
or who may have been left out of 
a lot of dialogues, so we’re trying 
to say, ‘we need to look at all 
walks of life,’ ” she said. “Every 
single person in this school has 
interests, how can we best make 
campus work for them? So we are 
really trying to target advocating 
for student voice so that students 
have their own voice on campus. 
We want them to have their own 
opportunities. There’s so many 
kids who don’t even know how to 
get involved, or they don’t know 
how to find a club or don’t know 
what to do, so we want to be a 

resource 
for them to really 

find their place at Michigan.”

Sarkar said the new party’s title 

derives from this very mission 
statement.

“We seek to rise up, or to 

encourage people to rise up, and 
emerge from where they are 
and get involved in issues that 
they care about,” Sarkar said. “I 
think the political climate over 
the last year or so has shown 
us how important it is to speak 
out if you believe in something, 
because if you don’t speak out, 
your opinion will be silenced.”

eMerge has split its platform 

into 
initiatives, 
short-term 

goals and advocacy, or long-
term goals.

With 
its 
initiatives, 
the 

new party hopes to attain 
more practical goals such as 
additional study spaces, Wi-Fi 
on the Diag and mentorship 
programs for nontraditional, 
multilingual 
and 
first-

generation students.

Advocacy is set for long-

term ideas, such as providing 
study-abroad 
scholarships 

and 
encouraging 
tMichigan 

Medicine, 
formerly 
the 

University of Michigan Health 
System to accept Medicaid.

The team was excited to get 

to work, especially in order to 
prioritize their voters during 
the CSG election season. Party 
co-chair Erin Johnson, Business 
junior, said the party hopes to 
connect with the student body 
in the upcoming months.

“Sometimes with campaigns, 

students feel like a platform 
is being pushed on them, but 
we want people to be able to 
find an initiative and mobilize 
themselves and be able to 
work on things that they’re 
passionate about and then feel 
comfortable coming to us and 
talking about things that they 
want us to help them with,” 
Johnson said.

Campaign manager Arathi 

Sabada, a Business sophomore, 
was planning to reach out to 
student groups in order to be 
representative of the student 
body.

“So we’re definitely going 

to be reaching out to a lot of 
groups, getting their ideas, 
getting 
their 
input 
and 

incorporating those into our 
platform just to make sure 
we’re representing the student 
body as well as possible,” she 
said. 

CAMPAIGN
From Page 1

interesting to also think about this 
provost participating in pedagogy 
research.”

Rao also raised the importance of 

a student perspective in the search 
for a provost, as did LSA senior 
David Schafer, president of Central 
Student Government.

“I was very uplifted to hear (the 

committee’s) commitment to ensure 
that students’ voices are heard, and 
that student concerns are weighed 
as part of this search process for 
the next provost,” Schafer said. 
“I encourage any and all students 

as best they can with the provost 
search 
advisory 
committee 
to 

ensure their voices are heard.” 

Schafer thanked Schlissel for the 

inclusion of Public Health student 
Abbas Alawieh in the committee 
and asked Alawieh how he see his 
role.

“I bring to the table, as a 

committee member, all of the 
experiences I have had as an 
undergraduate 
student, 
as 
a 

graduate student and on the Student 
Budget 
Advisory 
Committee,” 

Alawieh said. “I was a resident 
advisor. All of these things which 
are part of the Michigan experience 
are things I will be thinking about 
when I’m thinking about making 
recommendations.”

TOWN HALL
From Page 1