that had been used to screen for
prostate cancer.
The USPSTF recommendation
took prostate cancer screening
out of the hands of primary care
physicians, causing a drop in
overall screenings for prostate
cancer. This reality frightened
Morgan and others in the medical
field who worked specifically
with patients with the disease
“A lot of us who take care of
men with prostate cancer got
really worried that this could lead
to a significant rise in prostate
cancer and men dying of (it),”
Morgan said. “So there’s been a lot
of thought about what we can do
to prevent that from happening.”
His eventual solution was to
create the Prostate Cancer Risk
Clinic at Michigan Medicine,
which will open on March 15, to
regularly screen patients with
a genetic predisposition to the
BRCA mutation or any other
mutation that increases the risk
of prostate cancer. Three doctors
will work at the clinic.
The PCRC’s website lists the
cancer-related mutations which
should prompt the scheduling of
an appointment with the clinic.
Besides the BRCA mutation,
the
clinic
recommends
that
patients who tested positive for
Lynch syndrome, Li-Fraumeni
syndrome and a host of other
mutations should schedule an
appointment.
“The PCRC is intended for
men with these mutations in
order to initiate an individualized
prostate cancer screening plan
and follow-up care,” the clinic’s
website reads.
One area that doctors are still
working on is ensuring men know
to get tested for the specified
mutations.
“Recommendations are totally
vague still,” Morgan said. “There
are a handful of recommendations
that are still out there, but nothing
that is broadly accepted.”
Morgan
explained
that
patients who know they have
Lynch
syndrome,
who
have
sisters or mothers with a history
of ovarian, breast or pancreatic
cancer or who have brothers or
fathers who were diagnosed with
aggressive prostate cancer will
be more likely to go to genetic
clinics to be tested. Morgan and
his team are still working on ways
to create more specific guidelines
to encourage patients to receive
genetic tests.
“Over time we expect to move
from just taking care of these
patients with known mutations,
to honing recommendations to
see which men should get the
genetic condition,” Morgan said.
Clinics
exist
around
the
country to work with patients
with the BRCA mutation to
mitigate the risks of breast
cancer. The PCRC, however, will
be the first clinic with the sole
goal of helping men between the
ages of 35 and 70 without a prior
diagnosis of prostate cancer but
with a mutation putting them at
risk.
If a patient is found to have a
prostate cancer-related mutation,
they will receive screening every
year to reduce the risk of late
diagnosis.
“The goal is primarily to detect
more aggressive prostate cancers
earlier when they are more
treatable,” Morgan said.
Morgan hopes early detection
and follow-up care will lower
the death rate of prostate cancer,
which is currently the second
leading cause of cancer deaths
among men in the United States.
In
addition
to
annual
screenings, men will be asked
to discuss with their doctors
anything that might be putting
them
at
a
greater
risk
of
developing the cancer.
Morgan said he and his team
are confident the creation of
this clinic is an effective step in
working to reduce late diagnosis
of aggressive prostate cancer.
The opening of the Prostate
Cancer Risk Clinic at Michigan
Medicine will allow for an
increased prevention for prostate
cancer,
in
turn
preventing
deaths.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Tuesday, March 7, 2017 — 3
committee would have changed
its recommendations if it could
have foreseen the impact of the
election.
“I really don’t think that
was on our radar screen when
we were doing this,” Peters-
Golden said. “I wonder what
would’ve been going on if this
was happening a year later. But
we didn’t need this particular
election to get those of us on
the committee to think about
how there are all sorts of things
going on. One of the things that
is important in 101 is to look at
the fact that these issues are
not new issues.”
“You’re not asking them to
agree or disagree with it, but
simply understand it.”
Aside from the presentation
of
issues
surrounding
race
and ethnicity, some think the
reason R&E classes can help
ease tension is the platform for
discussion they provide.
American
Culture
Prof.
Matthew Countryman is on
leave this school year, but
he has regularly taught R&E
classes in the past. According
to
Countryman,
each
R&E
class has two aspects: first, the
introduction to information,
and second, a discussion about
how that information relates to
the students’ lives.
“There’s some information
about what race is and what
it isn’t, what the role that it’s
played historically in American
society, and the intellectual
condition of racial inquiry,”
Countryman
said.
“You’re
not asking them to agree or
disagree with it, but simply
understand
it.
The
second
aspect is to then have students
share with each other their
own ideas and perspectives and
hear from people other than
themselves to understand how
… differences in identity shape
different experiences within
the U.S. and our culture.”
Countryman
said
the
discussions do not always come
naturally to his students, but
once they’ve made it past the
initial awkwardness, he and his
students find them rewarding.
“In all the classes, when it
goes well it’s really the most
exciting teaching I do,” he said.
“Race is sort of the ultimate
taboo. Students are nervous to
talk … (But) when they feel like
there’s an environment where
there isn’t a wrong thing to say,
but rather the opportunity to
share with one another, there’s
a real desire to understand
and to think about what it
means to grow up in Detroit
versus the U.P. versus southern
California.”
In
addition
to
helping
students
learn
to
better
understand their classmates,
LSA senior Marjai Kamara,
who also served on the R&E
review committee, thinks part
of the reason R&E can have so
much impact on the University
community is the way it utilizes
the safe space of the classroom.
“Most people have been in
school for a long time and they
know how classes navigate,”
she said. “I think it’s a relatively
OK, safe-ish space for people,
so hopefully engaging with
those ideas and things in a
classroom can be a good place
to start thinking and engaging
with them in the first place.”
“By itself, the requirement
doesn’t do anything but put
people in seats.”
Others are broaching the
political topics of R&E classes
in a subtler way. American
Studies Prof. Sandra Gunning
has taught American Culture
201 for years, but, like Gillcrist,
found herself approaching the
class in a different way this
semester.
“I find myself since the
election
being
even
more
cautious,” Gunning said. “In
other American culture courses
with majority white students,
people are like ‘my friend who
supports
Trump
is
feeling
victimized,’ so I don’t want
people to feel alienated in any
way. Before, I would play news
clips to explain something, but
now I don’t even bother with
that. We still see clips but I try
to find other examples from
just basic culture. And I have
never used the word ‘Trump’ —
I don’t intend to.”
Gunning feels the point of her
class — and of the requirement
— is to present students with
information about race and
ethnicity and let them come
to their own conclusions. She
focuses on teaching the issues
rather
than
the
positions
anyone holds about them.
“If taught properly and if
taught self-consciously, where
you make it clear that it’s
not a brainwashing session
… it can help students think
more clearly and with more
information about whatever the
hot-button issues are,” she said.
“For example, I was teaching
(about how racial categories
are a cultural construction) and
one of the (Graduate Student
Instructors) reported that they
had a student say ‘I’m not ready
yet to let go of those racial
categories.’ To me, that means
the course succeeded. I don’t
need to have them say ‘yes,
you’re right,’ I just need to have
them think about it.”
Still others see the role of the
requirement as much more of
a starting point. Because R&E
classes are required of all LSA
students, not everyone comes to
them with the same mindset.
Countryman
stressed
the
role of the R&E requirement as
a portal to other conversations
and actions, rather than a
complete solution.
“By itself, the requirement
doesn’t do anything but put
people in seats,” Countryman
said. “But it gives us the
opportunity
to
create
educational
spaces
that
allow for a more in-depth
exploration of these issues than
the comments section of the
newspaper or wherever else.”
“There
are
absolutely
connections people can make.”
Faculty involved in Race and
Ethnicity classes recognizes
they
are
not
perfect,
and
still have a long way to go.
According
to
Dillard,
the
recommendations
made
by
the
review
committee
are
still in the process of being
implemented,
but
budgetary
constraints prevent some of
them from happening.
“Trying
to
decrease
the
(discussion) section sizes is
enormously expensive, and we
don’t know how in the world we
can pay for it across the board,”
Dillard said. “So we’re running
a few experiments in American
culture and trying to figure out
how to do that on a budget.”
Other people would like more
resources to help students and
teachers digest the sometimes
unpleasant topics these classes
include, or stricter guidelines
on what the classes should
cover. While Dillard said no
one wanted to abolish the
requirement at the time of the
review, she also conceded that
changes will need to be made.
Through his position as an
officer in LSA SG, Gillcrist
has tackled many of the issues
surrounding R&E firsthand.
But to him, regardless of the
changes to come — or the
changes in the ways people
approach their topics — the role
of R&E classes in this political
climate remains important and
constant.
“There are a lot of students
who
haven’t
seen
certain
perspectives
before,
and
I
think that through the R&E
requirement, they’re able to,”
he said. “I think that there are
absolutely connections people
can make, and see how people
in the past have addressed
issues related to intolerance.”
REQUIREMENT
From Page 1
BATHROOM
From Page 1
CENTER
From Page 1
comments, by stating the GEO
felt applying the restrictions
to only international students
would
actually
be
more
detrimental to the rest of the
GSI community.
“I think actually that, if we
impose the regulation only on
the 30 percent, that’s to the
disadvantage of the 70 percent,
because the additional work
in peak periods will be shifted
onto them,” Ware said.
Courant
spoke
up
next,
voicing his own concerns for
how the new regulations would
affect undergraduate students.
“Just speaking as a humble
schoolteacher,
I’m
a
little
worried about the effect of all
of this on the undergraduates
who are taking these courses,
because the natural rhythm of
the course is not that there’s
an equal amount of work to be
done on the instruction side
every week,” Courant said.
The committee did not come
to a decision on whether or not
to support the GEO’s desire
to create a 20-hour-per-week
maximum for all GSIs, feeling
they did not have enough
time to fully discuss the issue
and draft a statement. They
did, however, recognize this
issue as one that prevails all
throughout academia, and is
not unique to the University.
The
conversation
then
turned to a discussion of
what should be included in
the
University’s
policy
on
transgender bathroom laws.
Committee members discussed
whether the University should
focus on creating more unisex
bathrooms or issue a statement
saying students, faculty and
staff are free to use whichever
bathroom matches their gender
identity.
SACUA
member
Silke-
Maria Weineck, a professor
of
German
studies
and
comparative
literature,
stressed the importance of
supporting
the
transgender
members of the University
community by issuing a formal
statement.
“I’d be very happy in a
world where all bathrooms
are unisex, but I think we’re
not quite there yet, and I
think
for
those
members
of our community who are
transgender, it would mean a
great deal to have an official
statement from the University
saying ‘use whatever damn
bathroom you want,’ ” Weineck
said. “I think our current
practice is use whatever …
bathroom you want, but that’s
how we act, and I think to put
it in writing would be a good
thing to do.”
The topic was tabled while
the
committee
dealt
with
other administrative matters.
When they returned to the
issue at the end of the meeting,
members
brought
up
the
statement issued by Oberlin
College, supporting students’
choices to use the bathroom
of their choice. Wright felt the
committee should adopt the
language used by Oberlin in
its policy, and the rest of the
members agreed.
“I’m surprised we don’t have
a policy, frankly, and one way to
do it … is to essentially adopt the
Oberlin language here,” Wright
said. “Just make the policy that
all members of the campus
community are free to use the
restroom that is consistent with
their gender identity.”
SACUA
made
slight
modifications
to
the
language used by Oberlin, but
unanimously agreed on a policy
that allows all members of the
campus community to use the
bathroom of the gender with
which they identify.
There are a
handful of
recommendations
that are still out
there, but nothing
that is broadly
accepted
Schlissel’s public response
to
the
contentious
2016
election cycle was received
by
overwhelming
backlash
from over 380 students and
alumni who signed a petition
condemning the University’s
response to President Donald
Trump’s
victory,
claiming
that
the
University
was
“perpetuating a hateful climate
that
makes
students
feel
ashamed for voting for Donald
Trump.”
The
requested
emails
would have provided insight
into
Schlissel’s
actions
and
the details of the University’s
response to the emotionally
charged election cycle.
In a news release by the
Mackinac Center, John Mozena,
vice president for marketing
and communications, expressed
how Schissel’s response was
problematic.
“In his professional role as
head of a public university,
President Schlissel took a very
public stance against President-
Elect Trump and the people
who
elected
him,”
Mozena
said. “Our CapCon team was
interested in learning more
about
the
decision-making
process that led to the actions
taken by this public university
and its employee, and filed the
FOIA request accordingly.”
Michigan’s open records law
requires government agencies
and public institutions such as
the University, to respond to
requests within five business
days.
However,
through
a
series of articles in the FOIA
that
permit
and
outline
circumstances for the deferment
of requests, the request kept
getting delayed.
In
an
email
written
by
University
FOIA
Specialist
Shannon
Molen,
the
initial
response to the request stated
that, due to the high number
of appeals, the FOIA Office
cannot respond within the five-
day period as required by the
FOIA and referenced a clause
in the act that permits a 10-day
extension to respond to requests
and ensured the response would
be delivered on or before Dec.
12.
On the final day of the
extension, Patricia Sellinger,
chief Freedom of Information
officer,
responded
to
the
reporter in a letter outlining the
$126 total cost for the request
and a good-faith deposit of half
the total amount, as allotted by
clauses in the FOIA, in order to
complete the request. She also
issued a new estimate of four
weeks to complete the request
once the deposit was cashed.
Through
several
emails
inquiring about the status of
his request, Draplin was first
given an estimate of completion
by Jan. 24. Draplin was given a
later estimate of within 10 days,
being told again the office was
processing a high volume of
requests and could not meet its
original estimate to process in
late January.
On the final day of the latest
estimate, a letter by Sellinger
requested the remainder of the
total fees in order to complete
the request and issue the four
emails found to match his
request.
When the final payment was
processed by the University on
Feb. 23, the Mackinac Center
still received no documents per
its request.
After announcing the lawsuit
on March 2, the Mackinac
Center received the documents,
a few days after the University
processed
the
payment,
containing four of Schlissel’s
emails in the mail. Since the
University’s FOIA Office took
106 days to provide the emails,
however, the Mackinac Center
is still pursuing the lawsuit.
In a news release issued
by
the
Mackinac
Center,
Patrick
Wright,
director
of
the Mackinac Center Legal
Foundation,
discussed
the
nature of the lawsuit and quoted
Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh
in doing so.
“To
borrow
a
phrase
from
the
University
of
Michigan’s football coach, the
Mackinac Center will fight for
governmental
transparency
‘with an enthusiasm unknown
to mankind,’ ” Wright said. “The
documents are important, but
at this point, it’s really about
the delay. People and the press
have a right to information no
matter how embarrassing or
inconvenient it might be to the
public officials involved.”
Wright also reasoned the
simplicity required thereof to
perform the tasks requested by
the FOIA Office.
“This was a simple request,”
Wright said. “Any of us could
find the relevant documents in
30 seconds with a simple word
search in our sent email folder.
There is no reason it should take
over 100 days for the University
of Michigan to follow the law.”
University
spokesman
Rick
Fitzgerald
issued
an
updated statement regarding
the
situation
iterating
the
University has done nothing
wrong.
LAWSUIT
From Page 1
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com