Fifteen
years
after
the
University of Michigan went
toe to toe in the Supreme
Court defending affirmative
action, racial demographics at
the University remain largely
homogenous. The University
chapter
of
the
American
Constitution
Society
hosted
a
symposium
Wednesday
evening to reflect on the case’s
history and strategize around
affirmative action in honor
of the 15th anniversary of the
landmark Grutter v. Bollinger
Supreme Court case.
Grutter v. Bollinger upheld
the Law School’s affirmative
action policy in a 5-4 decision.
The ACS invited Law School
Dean
Evan
Caminker
and
appellate
lawyer
Maureen
Mahoney
to
speak
as
key
figures in bringing the case to
the Supreme Court.
The 2003 case drew on the
precedent of the 1978 case
Regents of the University of
California
v.
Bakke,
which
ruled
affirmative
action
policies legal but racial quotas
unconstitutional.
Caminker, who specializes in
constitutional law and clerked
for
former
Supreme
Court
Justice
William
Brennan,
oversaw the development of the
Law School’s case. Caminker
discussed the targeted strategy
the team used in arguing their
case.
“The critical factor when
we approached the Supreme
Court, not surprisingly, was to
figure out how to strategize the
case, how to present the case
in a way that would convince
the court to rule in our favor,”
Caminker said. “In a difficult
constitutional case, it’s not
enough to convince the court
that you are right on the law.
What you have to convince the
court that the court wants to
rule in your favor, in this case
we had to convince Justice
O’Connor.”
Mahoney, head litigator in
the case, has argued 21 cases
in front of the Supreme Court
and clerked for Supreme Court
Justice William Rehnquist. She
was speculated as a potential
Supreme Court nominee in
2005. Mahoney agreed with
Caminker
their
greatest
challenge in winning the case
was
in
convincing
Justice
Sandra Day O’Connor.
“The strategy always was the
way to persuade O’Connor was
to persuade her that Powell was
right, that this diversity was a
compelling interest and that
these programs did help the
nation,” Mahoney said. “But
what it really meant was that in
order to persuade her we had to
wrap ourselves around Bakke.”
Mahoney credited the success
of the case to the support of
former President George W.
Bush and former Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice. The
administration agreed diversity
was an important issue, leading
the White House to issue a
press release detailing its place
in higher education.
“I suspect that we owe our
biggest break in the case to
President George W. Bush and
Condoleezza Rice,” Mahoney
said. “The one must-win issue,
the issue that we could not
lose was that diversity was a
compelling interest — it was
going to be about how to come
up with a program that would
satisfy that interest.”
Mahoney
explained
how
hard
she
worked
on
this
case.
She
wrote
over
300
potential response questions
and
conducted
three
moot
courts with a panel of experts,
including the current Chief
Justice John Roberts Jr. She
said at the end of the case,
former Chief Justice William
Rehnquist called her by her
first name, an accomplishment
in her book.
“I never worked harder on an
argument and all arguments are
stressful … but this one had the
sense that the whole country
was watching,”Mahoney said.
“I think I spent more than
200 hours just preparing for
the argument and what I did
and what (audience lawyers)
have to do is you have to spend
your time actually trying to
anticipate any possible question
that someone may ask you.”
Out of the 21 Supreme Court
cases Mahoney has argued, she
considers this case one of the
highlights of her legal career.
“I really want to thank Evan
and the University of Michigan
for giving me this opportunity,”
Mahoney said. “It was just
a chance do one of the most
challenging important cases an
advocate could ever hope for
and I know it was a difficult
choice for them.”
Mahoney
recognized
the
University’s choice to hire her
for this case was challenging.
As a Republican and active
member of the conservative
community, civil rights lawyers
were skeptical of her ability
to argue the case. Caminker
advocated for Mahoney in the
hiring process because of her
sincerity and drive to win.
“We interviewed four or
five of some of the best moral
advocates and brief writers
in the country at the time
and I ended up championing
Maureen,”Caminker
said.
“I
thought she gave us the best
chance
of
winning
partly
because I think she believed in
the case and I’m not sure the
others did and Maureen was
explaining to us why the case
was important to her personally
and the country. I thought at
the time that she sounds really
sincere and that’s why I want to
hire her, and if she’s not sincere
she’s doing a damn good job.”
Three
years
after
the
University’s victory, Michigan
voters approved Proposal 2,
a ban on affirmative action
practices in state universities
and colleges. Black enrollment
at the University plunged from
10.4 percent of the student
body in 2002 to 6.4 percent
by 2008. Administrators have
explored
pipeline
programs
and
expanded
recruitment
efforts through initatives like
Wolverine Pathways and the
Go Blue Guarantee, but current
metrics still hover around 4
percent.
Law student Austin DelPriore
said he looked forward to
coming to the symposium as
the case pertained to such an
important part of law and the
public.
“I’m genuinely interested in
this, being such a consequential
case,”
he
said.
“It’s
both
fascinating being a law student
and a general member of society
and it’s a very impressive
panel.”
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Thursday, March 29, 2018 — 3
contract is set to expire in
April and bargaining has been
ongoing since last semester.
Following
general
membership meetings on the
University’s three campuses,
LEO distributed online ballots
to members Sunday. Manis said
80 percent voted in favor of
authorizing the union council
to instigate a major job action
“if bargaining doesn’t progress
substantially,”
adding
the
University
could
adopt
the
union’s salary proposals “by
merely drawing on the money
generated by our labor without
having to raise tuition by a
penny.”
In 2016 and 2017, lecturers
produced
$462
million
in
revenue while the cost of
employment was $85 million,
resulting in a surplus of $377
million.
LEO
argues
the
University is more than capable
of raising wages and improving
benefits by using this surplus.
Lecturer salary has been
a
particularly
contentious
issue. Right now, the minimum
salary for a full-time lecturer
is $34,500 at U-M Ann Arbor,
$28,300 at U-M Dearborn and
$27,300 at U-M Flint.
LEO proposed raising the
minimum to $60,000 in Ann
Arbor and $56,000 in Dearborn
and Flint, with a $1,000 equity
adjustment for every year of
service and annual increases
between
5
and
7
percent.
Friday, the University offered
adding $2,000 to minimum
salaries in 2019 and 2020, with
2.25 percent annual raises over
three years in Ann Arbor but no
additional increases.
LEO President Ian Robinson,
a sociology lecturer, said this
salary package provided no
improvements
for
lecturers
whose salaries were above the
minimum.
“The most important piece
that
they
said
absolutely
nothing
on,
and
had
no
explanation for why they had
nothing to say about it, was
that for people who are already
above the minimum, there’s
no increase at all for them,”
Robinson said.
Under the terms of the
University’s
proposal,
in
2021, the last year of the new
contract, the salary minimum
for lecturers would be $40,000
in Ann Arbor, $34,000 in
Dearborn
and
$33,000
in
Flint. Manis called the offer
“inadequate.”
LEO’s
current
contract,
which
remains
in
effect
until
April
20,
includes
a
clause
prohibiting
strikes.
Additionally, teacher strikes
and strikes by public employees
are illegal in Michigan.
University spokesman Rick
Fitzgerald wrote in an email
the University and LEO will
continue to bargain “in good
faith” and remains “hopeful” a
deal will be reached soon. He
also expressed concern about
the effect a walkout would have
on students.
“A work stoppage or strike
by LEO members has its biggest
negative impact on students at a
critical time near the end of the
academic year,” he wrote. “The
university
believes
strongly
that the collective bargaining
process is effective and there
is no need for LEO to call for a
strike.”
Marcus Darden, a lecturer in
computer science and electrical
engineering in Ann Arbor, said
lecturers did not want to strike
but would if they felt it was
necessary.
“I don’t want to go on strike,”
he said. “None of the lecturers
want to go on strike. None of
us want to leave our students.
We work hard and are very
committed to them and the
job that we do, and leaving for
a job action is very distasteful
to every one of us. But if that’s
what we have to do, then that’s
what we’re going to do.”
LEO negotiated with the
University’s bargaining team
Wednesday afternoon. Another
bargaining session is scheduled
for
Friday,
with
tentative
sessions planned for Tuesday
and Wednesday of next week.
LEO will also host a grade-in
Thursday before the Board of
Regents meeting, during which
lecturers
will
address
the
board.
General
membership
meetings
with
lecturers
in
Dearborn, Flint and Ann Arbor
are planned for the first week
in April.
“At these meetings, we’ll vote
on whether to exercise the strike
authorization
we
received
today,” Manis said. “Between
now and these meetings we
have several opportunities to
make ourselves heard to the
administration and plenty of
time for administration to bring
a serious proposal to the table.”
Manis agreed lecturers did
not want to go on strike. She
said even if the University
did not outright accept LEO’s
proposal, she’d be willing to
bring an offer that showed
“serious”
movement
toward
the union’s demand before LEO
members to decide if such a
proposal would be sufficient to
postpone a major job action.
“We want to hear what our
members will agree to,” Manis
said.
“One
thing
we
have
repeatedly told them is that we
are not interested in bargaining
to
the
middle.
We
need
substantial, serious offers.”
deans, chairs, full professors,
associate professors, that sets
a power balance and we need
to look at those factors, and we
don’t have a conversation if we
don’t do that,” Giordani said.
Giordani stressed University
should
ensure
no
one
is
discouraged from reporting a
sexual misconduct incident in
fear the University will exhibit
partiality
to
senior
faculty
members.
“No university will ever be
an academic university if it has
the feeling that, ‘Well, it will
be okay because we keep will
keep this golden boy by himself
and
keep
him
away
from
undergraduates and graduate
students and junior faculty
because he makes us a lot of
money,’” Giordani said.
At the beginning of the
semester, The Daily reported
on a crowdsourced database
of
incidents
of
harassment
and assault in academia —
the University of Michigan
appeared in reports by faculty
and former graduate students
more than a dozen times.
SAPAC
Director
Kaaren
Williamsen gave insight into
the confidential resource of
SAPAC, which often serves as
a contact point before deciding
to report a case to the OIE.
Williamsen acknowledged the
fact the University is aware
of the significance behind the
instances of sexual misconduct
that go unreported.
“We know we don’t get a lot
of reports … and the dynamics
from institution to institution
are very similar,” Williamsen
said. “When thinking back
to the 2015 Campus Climate
Survey … I was struck by the
results for why students are
not reporting. The top reasons
are they don’t want to get the
other person in trouble, they
blame themselves, they feel
embarrassed or ashamed, they
did not think the institution
would do anything, and they
did not believe the incident was
serious enough.”
Williamsen
continued
to
explain how she believes sexual
misconduct and the fear of
reporting should not only be
considered at the individual
level, but also as a broader
cultural issue.
Representing
the
OIE,
Senior Director Pamela Heatlie
highlighted
the
specific
architecture of how a report
is handled under SPG 201.89
when a faculty or staff member
is involved. Heatlie stressed
in most cases this process is
amended to fit the needs or
specific circumstances of the
parties involved.
The process begins with
an
initial
meeting
with
a
complainant. At this meeting
before the incident is even
discussed,
Heatlie
explains
the
investigation
process
and answers any questions
a
complainant
may
have
about their privacy or rights.
Complainants are also allowed
to bring a support person, but
this person does not play an
active role in the meeting.
Following the meeting, a
report is drafted that includes
details from the discussion
with the complainant. This
written statement is then sent
to the complainant for review.
Then, OIE approaches the
respondent and schedules two
meetings to first discuss the
investigation process and then
to give them a space to respond
to the allegation. A report is
then drafted and sent to the
respondent for review. OIE also
asks the complainant if there
are any witnesses or documents
that may provide additional
insight into the investigation.
OIE follows up with these
sources
and
compiles
all
information into a preliminary
report. This preliminary report
is then sent to all parties for
review.
The complete report is then
sent to an investigator who
will make a finding that can
be categorized as four possible
outcomes. Even in cases where
the report is found to not violate
the sexual misconduct policy, it
can be referred to a different
department, such as Human
Resources, who then examines
the situation based on its own
policies.
Rackham student Dogacan
Ozturk was in attendance at
the event and appreciated how
the University handles cases
that are found to not violate the
sexual misconduct policy but
still may be a concern for the
University environment.
“What I like most about
it is how there are other
classifications in the system,”
Ozturk said. “Even if it does
not violate the policy, it can be
transferred to different offices
to get the optimal solution for
these types of cases.”
Ultimately,
Heatlie
emphasized
the
process
is
designed to be as transparent
as possible for the people
involved.
“Our whole point is that
when we get to the end, we
have looked at everything the
parties think is relevant and
everything we think is relevant
… At the end when we make a
finding, none of what we have
considered is a surprise to the
parties,” Heatlie said.
STRIKE
From Page 1
PANEL
From Page 1
Prof. Xiaobing Max Tang,
director of the new program,
highlighted
the
degree’s
vanguard status.
“This is a new kind of
master’s degree program. Not
only on this campus, but also
in the country,” he said. “I
think we are one of the very
few and leading programs in
thinking about serving our
undergrad students in this
capacity.”
Prospective students begin
their journey by applying
junior year. If accepted into
the program, senior year is
considered a transition year,
in which students are allowed
to take one to two graduate-
level courses. Students are
fully emerged by the fifth
year of the program, taking
graduate courses in their field
of study and later fulfilling a
capstone project.
This
year,
LSA
junior
Jeremy Ray is applying by
the April 1 deadline in hopes
of being admitted into the
program for his senior year.
“My areas of interest are
especially related to this,” he
said. “It’s also a year off of
the regular grad school path.
You don’t have to spend extra
time, or the extra bills that
are associated with that.”
Ray studies anthropology
and
linguistics
at
the
University
with
the
goal
teaching
English
in
the
community or even abroad.
University
students
interested in this program
often come from diverse areas
of study, and the degree offers
them a practical way of fusing
together their interests.
The
master’s
program
prepares students for futures
both in academia and careers,
with easy accessibility into
fields
like
anthropology,
sociology and the humanities.
“In
terms
of
career
opportunities,
I
think
what we can prepare our
students for is a training and
experience with a variety
of approaches to not only
different cultures, but also
issues of diversity,” Tang
said. “In thinking about how
we can understand cultures
beyond the national border,
but also cultural difference
within the national context.”
For
LSA
junior
Ashley
Tomaszewski, cross-cultural
understanding is vital, as she
aspires to enter a career in
immigration law. Majoring
in
both
political
science
and modern Greek, she said
getting this degree made
sense.
“Anything that can help me
be better at translation, kind
of on the fly, is helpful,” she
said.
Tang said students will
have free range in designing
their
education
program.
Students will work closely
with their cohort and have
the guidance of advisers.
With
their
mentorship,
students will select courses
that
will
speak
to
their
needs and interests, whether
they
want
to
work
for
cultural institutions or non-
governmental organizations.
“I’m doing research this
summer and next year, and so
any program that I can find
that is willing to help students
with their research and have
a plethora of advisors to do so
… is amazing,” Tomaszewski
said.
Over the past year, the
program
has
received
inquiries both on a national
and
international
level,
largely
in
part
of
the
program’s
avant-garde
nature, Tang said.
As of now, however, the
program is only offered to
University juniors. The next
few years will be dedicated to
establishing a strong system
and
listening
to
student
feedback.
Ray said the novelty of
the program is attractive,
as it allows students to mold
the degree to their personal
interests.
“It’s
very
new,
which
means I really get to decide
a lot of the course work I’m
doing,” he said.
Tang also emphasized the
potential extent to which the
program can grow.
“If it’s successful, there’s
no reason not to expand it and
make it available to students
from outside the University of
Michigan,” Tang said.
The program encourages
students to be open-minded
in their interests. Students
with a sense of curiosity and
interest
in
multi-cultural
and personal understanding
embody the values of the
program, Tang said.
“You can’t excel if you’re
not working in the field you’re
passionate about,” he said.
“The program is authentically
a
program
that
allows
students the opportunity to
make this discovery.”
MASTER’S
From Page 1
Students are fully
emerged by the
fifth year of the
program, taking
graduate courses
in their field.
Law School community remembers 15 years after Grutter
Attorneys, academic faculty laud legacy of University’s fight for affirmative action, after Prop 2 & subsequent slump of Black enrollment
REMY FARKAS
Daily Staff Reporter
“The one must-
win issue,
the issue that
we could not
lose was that
diversity was
a compelling
interest.”