mobility 
impairments, 
the 

accommodations 
process 
is 

a 
collaborative 
effort 
and 

dependent on communication.

“Accommodations 
are 
95 

percent 
communications,” 

Marshall said. “(We) are taking 
a lot of time to make sure 
(students) are being supported 
in the classroom … and making 
sure that everyone feels good 
about everything; it’s a team 
effort.”

Marshall 
emphasized 

each student’s needs differ. 
When 
evaluating 
students’ 

accommodations, 
she 
looks 

over their medical reports 
from doctors, researches the 
condition 
and 
meets 
with 

students individually.

“I believe that people with 

disabilities know themselves 
best,” Marshall said. “It’s an 
individualistic 
process 
and 

every student is completely 
different than another.”

LSA senior Lauren Kimmel, 

president of the Crohn’s and 
Colitis Student Initiative, said 
she needs the support of the 

SSD in order to schedule her 
IV infusions when she must 
miss 
class. 
Public 
Health 

student Kayla Mandel, former 
president of the organization, 
said students with Crohn’s 
may need to take an exam 
in a separate room close to 
a bathroom and be timed 
separately.

“No 
one 
has 
the 
same 

manifestation of Crohn’s, but 
for me I fear... during an exam 
or a pop quiz, having to run 
to the bathroom and get back 
and having time being called,” 
Mandel said. “(I) fear that 
professors are going to think 
you are acting nefariously.”

According to Mandel, many 

students do not know how to 
receive accommodations for 
their illness.

“(The possible alteration) 

isn’t advertised, you have to 
seek it out. It’s not like the 
University emails me (about 
accommodations),” 
Mandel 

said. “They aren’t going to pull 
that information and inform 
me about it.”

Polay 
is 
not 
registered 

with the SSD and said she 
does not feel that she needs 
the accommodations. While 
taking an exam in a separate 

room would be helpful if she 
needs to check her blood sugar, 
Polay said she is concerned the 
isolated environment would 
harm her performance. Rather, 
she ensures she is prepared 
for an exam by eating before 
and making sure she has extra 
supplies in her backpack.

“I definitely think it would 

be helpful because it would 
take off that extra worry I 
have during an exam,” Polay 
said. “I don’t know if it would 
be beneficial (for me) because I 
just know that if you are ready 
and prepared for something 
and are surrounded by a bunch 
of people you do better than 
when you are just around 
yourself.”

Invisible 
illnesses 
often 

make students worry about 
how 
professors 
and 
other 

students 
perceive 
them 
in 

the 
classroom. 
Many 
of 

these students may have to 
step out of class to go to the 
bathroom 
or 
check 
their 

blood sugar, something that 
may take more time than a 
traditional bathroom break. 
An illness like Crohn’s can also 
deplete a student’s immune 
system, 
making 
recovery 

from a traditional cold more 

challenging.

“On the outside, you can’t 

tell 
if 
they 
are 
physical 

disabilities,” 
Mandel 
said. 

“They 
are 
called 
invisible 

illnesses for a reason, so a 
classmate might think you are 
slacking on something and 
didn’t turn in the assignment 
because you look hungover but 
actually you are recovering 
from a cold you got two weeks 
ago.”

Marshall said she works 

with registered students on 
self-advocacy in the classroom, 
a skill they can also use in 
the professional world in the 
future.

“I 
really 
think 
what’s 

difficult for these students 
is the invisible nature of it, 
and there is the feeling they 
need to prove that they might 
be 
struggling,” 
Marshall 

said. “Even if they might tell 
someone, there is a sense of not 
quite believing the individual 
… 
I 
work 
really 
closely 

with my students on self-
advocacy skills, just because 
it’s something you are going 
to readily need from time to 
time so they have those skills 
readily at hand.”

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Tuesday, February 13, 2018 — 3

as early as 2008 and were accessed 
up to May 17, 2017.

Hoeltzel’s lawyer, Raymond 

Cassar, told The Daily he believes 
the woman’s mental health played 
a role in her relationship with the 
doctor. He also thinks Hoeltzel 
did not have sexual relationships 
with any other patients.

“All we know is some tidbits in 

this complaint about her,” Cassar 
said. “I’m wondering what was 
really going on.” 

Hoeltzel is scheduled for a 

detention hearing on Wednesday, 
where the decision will be made of 
whether to release him on bond, or 
if he will continue his time in jail 
until the case outcome is decided.

Cassar said he thinks it will be 

more beneficial for Hoeltzel to be 
out on bond. 

“He’s going to be of more help 

to me (in this case) if he’s out 
here,” Cassar said. 

Michigan Medicine was made 

aware of this investigation in 
early December and fired him 
from his position. According to a 
statement released by Marschall 
Runge, executive vice president of 
Medical Affairs at the University 

and 
the 
CEO 
of 
Michigan 

Medicine, 
the 
institution 
is 

providing 
all 
resources 
for 

patients to report any concerns, 
as well as fully cooperating with 
Hoetzel’s investigation.

“These are very disturbing and 

serious allegations, and we have 
reached out to our patients to 
inform them of concerns related to 
Dr. Hoeltzel, offer resources and 
provide them with a way to report 
any concerns,” Runge wrote.

Additionally, 
Runge 

reaffirmed Michigan Medicine’s 
prioritization and commitment to 
patient safety.

“Any behaviors we discover 

that risk the safety of our patients 
or employees, or violate state or 
federal law, will be reviewed and 
addressed with the appropriate 
follow up,” the statement reads. 
“In addition, we have retained 
an 
experienced 
national 
law 

firm with expertise in this area 
to investigate this matter. The 
review is ongoing with the goals 
of better understanding the facts 
and circumstances surrounding 
this 
incident, 
identifying 

opportunities for improvement, 
and furthering the mission of the 
University to provide the safest 
and the highest quality patient 
care.”

where to invest their available 
funds. According to the Free 
Press, as much as $4 billion 
of 
the 
University’s 
nearly 

$11 
billion 
endowment 
has 

been invested back into the 
companies of large donors such 
as alumni Sandy Robertson, 
Sam Zell and Stephen Ross. 
The report also claimed the 
amount of oversight over the 
endowment 
has 
decreased 

while the endowment itself 
has increased over the past 
few years. According to the 
University’s 
2017 
Financial 

Report, the endowment has 
increased from $9.7 billion 
in 2016 to the current $10.9 
billion.

In 
response 
to 
the 

investigation, 
University 

President Mark Schlissel wrote 
in an op-ed article published 
by the Free Press that the 
claims about the endowment 
are false and do not reflect 
the 
investment 
materials 

provided by the University. 
The University Public Affairs 
Department 
also 
published 

an explanatory webpage to 
respond to the claims made by 
the Free Press.

“We have said all along that 

our endowment’s purpose is to 
provide 
sustained 
resources 

to support our students and 
academic programs,” Schlissel 
wrote. “Without donor and 
endowment 
support, 
annual 

tuition in Ann Arbor would 
be nearly $6,000 higher per 
student. This success requires 
that we achieve the highest 
returns 
through 
the 
best 

investments.”

In response to the University 

and the endowment claims, the 
resolution sponsored by the 
Roosevelt Institute and College 
Democrats 
is 
particularly 

concerned with how students’ 
tuition is being invested in 
ways that will be beneficial to 
the community of which they 
are a part.

LSA 
junior 
Christopher 

Olson, one of the authors of the 
resolution and co-president of 
the Roosevelt Institute, wrote 
in an email interview that 
investments in companies of 
major donors limit the amount 
the University can use to assist 
students with rising condition 
costs.

“As students we have a 

vested interest in how the 
endowment is used to promote 
the educational excellence of 
this University,” Olson wrote. 
“Conflicts 
of 
interest 
with 

University endowment have the 
potential to reduce the returns 
of the endowment which in 
turn will reduce the money 
which could be used to reduce 

the cost of tuition.”

Public policy junior Lauren 

Schandevel, 
communications 

director of College Democrats, 
wrote in an email interview that 
allowing benefactors to serve 
on the Investment Advisory 
Committee is a large conflict of 
interest for the University.

“Students have a right to 

know where the University 
invests its money, especially 
if its motivation for doing so 
is purely to benefit donors,” 
Schandevel wrote. “It seems 
like common sense that if the 
University 
invests 
in 
your 

business, then you should not 
be permitted to sit on the its 
(sic) 
Investment 
Advisory 

Committee. That is an obvious 
conflict of interest and it not 
only keeps money away from 
programs that truly benefit 
students — like financial aid, 
housing and academic services 
— but it also erodes our trust in 
the institution.”

According to the webpage 

published by Public Affairs, 
including alumni donors in the 
investment process increases 
the efficiency and productivity 
of the committee.

“The fact is, U-M alums are 

some of the top investment 
managers in the nation,” the 
page stated. “We would be 
foolish not to reach out to these 
alumni for their high-level 
advice and, when it fits with 

the 
University’s 
investment 

approach, to invest in their 
well-managed funds. The key 
fact is that all investment 
opportunities get vetted in the 
same fashion and we only invest 
with funds and managers that 
meet our stringent criteria.”

In 
an 
official 
statement 

published on the Roosevelt 
Institute’s Facebook page, the 
two organizations criticized 
the 2 percent — or $218 million 
— the University invests in 
firms owned by members of the 
advisory committee, claiming 
the figure is still a large 
amount 
of 
available 
funds. 

They also mentioned the lack 
of specificity in regard to the 
criteria by which investments 
are considered and the claim 
that tuition would decrease if 
these endowment funds were 
spent at the University instead 
of through investments.

“We 
call 
on 
the 
Board 

of 
Regents 
to 
increase 

transparency 
on 
investment 

decisions and performance, to 
increase their oversight of the 
endowment, to appropriately 
address 
potential 
conflicts 

of interest, and to increase 
annual endowment spending to 
sufficiently serve the University 
community,” 
the 
statement 

read. 
“The 
University’s 

investment 
and 
endowment 

spending decisions have eroded 
our trust in U-M. Instituting 

these reforms would begin to 
restore it.”

University spokesman Rick 

Fitzgerald wrote in an email 
interview the Regents already 
publish approved investments 
on their website, so a call for 
more transparency from the 
Regents is not a reflection of 
the current situation.

“All new investments are 

approved by the Board of 
Regents 
and 
are 
publicly 

available as part of the board 
meeting 
agenda,” 
Fitzgerald 

wrote. “For example, later this 
week Regents will consider 
a $30 million investment in 
Detroit area housing.”

Fitzgerald also mentioned 

the segment of the Public 
Affairs Q&Apertaining to the 
spending of endowment funds. 
The website claims endowment 
funds cannot be spent on any 
area the University sees fit.

“How endowment funds may 

be spent is usually restricted 
by 
the 
donor,” 
the 
Public 

Affairs website read. “Such 
funds can be used only for the 
specific purpose for which the 
endowment was established … 
To ensure continuing support 
for 
future 
generations, 
the 

funds themselves are not spent 
but invested so that part of the 
annual distribution can provide 
a steady flow of dollars each 
year.”

LSA senior Enrique Zalamea, 

president of the University’s 
Chapter of College Republicans, 
stressed this is not a partisan 
issue and that all students 
should come together to ensure 
there are checks and balances 
to the people in power when 
it comes to investing tuition 
dollars.

“It’s not a partisan issue 

for us, we just think that 
the 
University 
needs 
more 

transparency,” Zalamea said.

LSA junior Amanda Delekta, 

vice 
president 
of 
College 

Republicans, voiced concerns 
about the endowment being 
utilized for future investments 
in 
addition 
to 
improving 

current University practices 
and 
lowering 
costs. 
She 

also explained why she is in 
support of a resolution asking 
for more transparency from 
the University on these large 
investments.

“Our motivation as students 

on this campus is to make 
sure tuition is going toward 
investments that best serve 
us, that will best reap rewards 
and create programs for us to 
thrive in and take advantage 
of,” Delekta said. “So I think it’s 
really important to make a more 
transparent system where the 
endowment is being invested 
to best serve students, and I 
don’t know if that’s necessarily 
happening right now.”

ENDOWMENT
From Page 1

SSD
From Page 1

HOELTZEL
From Page 1

able to carve out money in the state 
budget in a time where we haven’t 
had a lot of new programs so it’s 
been exciting to see this as an area of 
bipartisan focus.”

That money has been used to fund 

individual university proposals to 
reduce sexual misconduct on their 
campuses.

She added that the issue went 

to higher societal levels, a topic 
which U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, 
D-Mich., spoke on as well, alluding 
to the recent national conversation 
sparked by the #MeToo movement 
— a social movement encouraging 
women to come forward about 
sexual 
harassment 
and 
abuse 

they’ve survived.

“We’re at a crossroads in this 

country,” 
Dingell 
said. 
“When 

the #MeToo movement started in 
November, I said at the time that 
there were consequences for too 
many women (for reporting on 
sexual assault). It wasn’t going to be 
real until it was real for the waitress, 
for the factory worker, the lawyer 
trying to be partner or student on 
campus.”

She went on to criticize White 

House officials on all levels for not 
acknowledging the movement and 
the high-profile cases that have 
driven national conversation.

Public Policy senior Stephanie 

Gusching, the chair of government 
relations 
for 
Central 
Student 

Government, said the event was 
intended to bring students into 
dialogue with legislators about 
issues that affect them, and the 
event was successful on this front.

The 
Michigan 
Daily 

interviewed Rupert Allman, the 
executive producer of NPR’s daily 
radio show “1A,” prior to this 
week’s recording of the show at the 
University of Michigan hosted by 
Wallace House. Joshua Johnson, 
NPR’s host of “1A,” will talk 
on “Speak Freely: Debating the 
First Amendment in a Changing 
America.” The recording will 
be held Thursday at Rackham 
Auditorium.

Here are some highlights from 

the interview:

TMD: I want to talk about, 

first, the background of this show. 
It seems really geared toward 
significant issues of our time 
here in the United States — with 
our current political and social 
climate, how have you seen the 
significance of the show change?

Allman: We’re new, we’ve 

only been going a year, so it 
might be a bit early for us to 
make any firm conclusions about 
changing dialogue. I think what 
was important for us when 
we launched the program was 
that we felt that it was going to 
be really important to try and 
provide some vehicle on the air 
or online where we were happy 
to let it go anywhere, but the only 
rule we had was the fact that it 
was going to be done in a way 
where we avoided just people 
shouting at each other. I don’t 

mean we can’t be passionate. 
But it’s really important that 
we wanted to make sure that 
whatever we produced, people 
felt that they’re heard. … I worry 
a lot about the fact that, clearly 
there’s always going to be any 
number of shades of opinion that 
people genuinely feel, no matter 
what their position, they’re being 
heard, and I think that’s where 
we’ve come at the program, at 
least in our first year.

TMD: And what do you hope 

your central audience is?

Allman: It’s a challenging 

one, because to a certain extent 
we’re hoping that we’re part of 
a movement; perhaps people 
discover us really anywhere that 
they choose. Typically, on one 
level, we’re a very traditional 
outfit, a legacy media piece — you 
can hear us on the radio, you can 
tune in when we’re live and all 
of it. But what we’ve been trying 
to do more aggressively is make 
sure that we’re also in front of 
audiences who would never own 
a radio, they wouldn’t know how 
to turn on a radio. There are 
plenty of people who know what 
we do because they only get us 
on their phone, for example, or 
they might sample some of what 
we have through social media 
or something like that. If we’re 
more successful in that area, then 
the argument from our point of 
view is that we’ll hopefully bring 
in people who know nothing 
about public radio. It’s not really 
part of their media diet, and 

we’re kind of introducing them 
into something which hopefully 
would be some kind of area of 
discovery. Through us, they 
might find other things; they 
might find other, different pieces 
that they wouldn’t normally 
consume. I think that’s part of 
the mission; not just to keep us 
across the news, but also feel 
that we’re thinking about how 
we can get our content and our 
conversations in front of people 
who wouldn’t be a traditional 
public radio audience.

TMD: 
Right, 
and 
that 

definitely makes sense because 
a lot of these issues are so 
significant to the general public, 
not just the news mediascape.

Allman: I think you’re right 

— it’s that whole thing about 
who you’re talking to. We’re very 
conscious about preaching to the 
choir, we love the choir; they’re 
great for us, they’re hugely 
supportive, they’re absolutely 
valuable to what we do and are 
truly important to our business 
model, but I think we’re really 
conscious about the idea now 
that there is a very much so 
fragmented media landscape. We 
can’t expect them to come to us; 
it’s about how we aggressively go 
after them.

It’s important that we are 

mobile 
— 
we’re 
a 
national 

program, 
we’re 
based 
in 

Washington, D.C. — but it’s really 
important for us to make sure 
that we, as a new program, get in 
front of new audiences, go to new 

places, try different things out, 
and we’re trying to start to do 
that. It’s going to be a long thing 
for us to successfully do but it’s 
important that we’re asking to be 
mobile because there’s no reason 
why we have to stay in our studio 
environment being comfortable 
inside.

TMD: You’ll be coming to U of 

M to talk about these issues, and 
of course the First Amendment 
and free speech has come up 
quite a bit for the University of 
Michigan, especially recently 
— can you talk about (and this 
also previews the event a bit) the 
role of free speech with regard 
to often controversial speakers 
like Richard Spencer or – we 
also hosted Charles Murray in 
the fall – talk about that role and 
the possibility of them coming to 
campus?

Allman: I’m not here to offer 

definitive answers. I think it 
is a hugely important and very 
complicated subject. I think 
what’s important in terms of what 
we’re planning for this week is I 
think there are peculiarities and 
sensitivities about free speech 
on campus that really is worth 
exploring and is worth finding a 
little bit about — not just where 
we are at the moment, but 
perhaps the direction of travel 
for some of these arguments. 
Because depending where you 
are on the spectrum, you can 
see the debate as it happens 
on campus as being a kind of 
microcosm of the way this debate 

will play out on a much bigger 
field in the next five or 10 years’ 
time. I’m really intrigued to kind 
of sample something which goes 
beyond the little bit of academic 
discourse, if you know what I 
mean. It’s one of those things 
where you feel perhaps there 
may well be generational divides 
in this particular argument, 
that it goes a little bit perhaps 
to what we’ve heard from some 
of the #MeToo discussion, that 
depending on your age and 
circumstance, 
you’re 
clearly 

looking at this in a different 
way, and that thing that really 
fascinates me, of course, is the 
fact that some of the positions 
seemed to be flipped. That those 
who take a particular position 
you would naturally assume 
to be maybe perhaps part of 
a younger demographic, and 
the more conservative, kind of 
intense positions, being someone 
on the older range of things. That 
feels at the moment, that a lot of 
things we’re talking about are 
on their heads, it’s been turned 
topsy-turvy a little bit, and I 
think that’s worthy of discussion. 
… We’re very happy to expose 
some of those raw nerve ends, but 
hopefully push past just all the 
heat and see if some of the debate 
we get into can make us think 
a little bit more broadly about 
where the discussion is going.

PANEL
From Page 1
A sitdown with “1A” producer Rupert Allman

Ahead of show’s live recording on campus Thursday, NPR team looks at free speech, media role 

ALEXA ST. JOHN

Editor-in-Chief

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com
Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

