the assembly and SACUA,” 
Lippert said. “Are we inviting 
them in effective ways to 
bring issues of their faculty 
forward?”
SACUA Vice Chair Joy 
Beatty, associate professor of 
Management Studies at the 
U-M Dearborn, recommended 
a points system to boost 
attendance among assembly 
members 
and 
increase 
involvement. 
Similar 
to 
techniques used on students, 
members agreed that the 
inclusion of such incentives 
could produce positive effects 
among faculty.
Touching 
on 
issues 
of 
achieving 
a 
quorum, 
the 

chronic 
truancy 
of 
some 
assembly 
members 
from 
meetings could stem from a 
variety of factors. Because 
quorum 
was 
established 
decades 
ago, 
attempts 
to 
amend the code have faltered. 
In order to change the quorum 
policy within the code, the 
number must be satisfied 
at the meeting in which the 
vote would take place. This 
continuous issue, in addition 
to the lack of interest and 
urgency among members, has 
contributed to low attendance 
numbers in recent years. In 
extreme cases, Beatty said 
some members do not realize 
they’re a part of the Senate 
Assembly.
“(Last meeting) there were 
15 or so people that were absent 
and were ‘no call, no show,’ 

and this is also happening 
in our committees,” Beatty 
said. “The question is, (are 
we) empowered to remove 
those people from (these) 
committee(s)?”
SACUA 
members 
then 
discussed 
the 
possibility 
of 
substituting 
current 
committee 
members 
for 
alternates, 
which 
Faculty 
Senate Secretary David Potter, 
a professor in the Classical 
Studies Department, stated 
is precedented and therefore 
legitimate.
“The 
problem 
is 
the 
Senate Assembly has created, 
technically, this committee 
so you can’t kick people off 
the committee, but there’s 
no reason why, following 
the parallel of the Senate 
Assembly, you can’t put in 

alternates,” Potter said.
SACUA 
Chair 
Neil 
Marsh, 
a 
professor 
of 
chemistry, 
suggested 
further possible strategies to 
enhance member engagement 
and participation. Marsh 
mentioned 
the 
possible 
inclusion 
of 
members 
in 
administrative affairs.
“One 
possibility 
that 
I 
raised was that, in searches 
for deans and directors … That 
one of the members of those 
committees would come from 
the Senate Assembly,” Marsh 
said. “That would certainly be 
a way of adding the voice of 
the faculty to the appointment 
of 
deans, 
directors 
and 
executive officers.”

session 
that 
includes 
instructions on how to have 
a productive discussion, as 
well as a quick run-through 
of facts necessary to have the 
discussions.
Upon 
arrival, 
students 
have to sign in and fill 
out 
a 
questionnaire. 
At 
Monday night’s session, the 
sign-in 
sheet 
asked 
about 
students’ 
political 
leanings 
and what they believe is 
the correct way to interpret 
the U.S. Constitution. This 
information is used to place 
attendees 
in 
groups 
that 
represent a diverse set of 
beliefs and political leanings. 
The University has co-signed 
many of WeListen’s events 
this year to promote values 
of dialogue and intellectual 

diversity.
During 
Monday 
night’s 
session, WeListen provided 
information on the history 
of 
the 
Supreme 
Court, 
and 
attempted 
to 
show, 
historically, the court has 
not been a very politicized 
institution. This was shown 
by a graph indicating a large 
number of the decisions on the 
court have been 9-0, with a few 
major exceptions. In the last 
century, however, the Court 
has historically served as a site 
of political tension on labor, 
race and women’s rights. 
After 
the 
information 
was provided, the students 
broke off into small groups to 
discuss questions about the 
Supreme Court, such as how 
the justices should interpret 
the Constitution or whether 
justices should be appointed 
for life. The groups consisted 
of people of all different 

majors and ages.
The 
session 
ended 
with 
a 
debriefing, 
where 
the 
co-presidents 
asked 
participants 
what 
they 
learned 
from 
the 
group 
members, challenges they had, 
suggestions for future sessions 
and suggestions on how to 
continue the discussions.
LSA junior Vivian Righter 
said she felt the discussion 
changed the way she viewed 
her own stance on politics.
“What I’ve taken away from 
it is being more reflexive of 
my own personal opinions,” 
Righter said. “So not just 
necessarily listening to others 
critique each other, but also 
being responsive to what your 
own biases are coming into 
this before you listen, and 
reflecting on where your own 
opinions may come from.”
Multiple students said they 
felt the discussions gave them 

an 
appreciation 
for 
other 
political views. .
Still, 
politics 
aside, 
testimony by Dr. Christine 
Blasey Ford recounting her 
alleged past assault at the 
hands of the justice seemed 
to sway voters on the Senate’s 
confirmation vote. A CNN poll 
conducted last week found 
51 percent of Americans oppose 
Kavanaugh being voted ont 
the bench. A different tone 
also pervaded at Thursday’s 
march for survivors where 
EMU 
sophomore 
Lindsey 
Brown said the confirmation 
was not divide of right versus 
left but an issue morality. “I 
think when we look back we 
are going to see a clear divide 
of who was on the right side 
of history and who was on 
the side of history that didn’t 
want to listen to survivors 
and the people who have been 
systematically 
oppressed,” 

Brown said.
Education junior Hannah 
Ploof, on the other hand, said 
Monday evening she valued 
the opportunity to converse 
with people whose beliefs 
didn’t align with her own.
“Before this session, any 
conversation I had had about 
Kavanaugh was basically just 
an echo chamber of my own 
thoughts, and so whenever I’d 
be speaking about it, it always 
just got me more amped up,” 
Ploof said. “But after this, 
I have more opinions and 
I’m not as stressed about 
the situation, I’m more just 
calm and thinking about it. 
So I think that talking about 
things in less of a high-stress 
situation and more about our 
thoughts should be applied to 
when I talk about politics in 
general so I can consistently 
not get angry about things.”

began planning for a renewed 
commitment to diversity, equity 
and inclusion. This planning 
culminated in an $85 million five-
year strategic plan that was 
presented two years ago and 
marked the beginning of the DEI 
initiative. Now, almost halfway 
through the implementation of 
this plan, the University is using 
the summit as an opportunity 
to reflect on its progress and 
plan for the future. The plan 
has, at times, been a source of 
contention with students of color, 
those with disabilities and low-
income students. 
The assembly began with a 
brief speech from Robert Sellers, 
chief diversity officer and vice 
provost for Equity and Inclusion 
at the University. Sellers has 
been responsible for overseeing 
much of the DEI initiatives, and 
expressed pride in the work.
Following 
Sellers, 
Regent 
Andrew Richner (R) emphasized 
the 
Board 
of 
Regents’s 
commitment to diversity, equity 
and inclusion and introduced 
University 
President 
Mark 
Schlissel. Schlissel emphasized 
the 
role 
of 
the 
University 
community 
in 
facilitating 
necessary change.
“When 
we 
renewed 
our 
journey to enhance diversity, 
equity and inclusion at the 
University of Michigan less 
than four years ago, we knew 
we had the power of an amazing 
community to carry us forward,” 
Schlissel said. “It’s a community 
of thousands, past and present, 
who share their intellect, their 
commitment to accountability, 
and their passion for a better 
university and a better society.”
Schlissel acknowledged the 
DEI initiative has a long way 
to go and promised to hold the 
University accountable for its 
work.
“We 
know 
that 
many 
challenges remain as we strive 
to ensure that the U-M is 
welcoming for all who live, work 
and study here,” Schlissel said. 
“These challenges will continue 
to drive our work in the months 
and years ahead. We also will 
rigorously evaluate our progress 
to ensure accountability with 
the goal of achieving the greatest 
possible impact for all members 
of our community.”
Following Schlissel’s speech, 
Sellers gave a brief overview 
of the University’s progress 
on the DEI initiative over the 
last two years. He explained 
several specific programs the 
University has implemented in 
the initiative and reviewed the 
administration’s stated goals of 
developing a diverse student body 
and faculty, promoting a more 
inclusive climate and infusing 
DEI goals into teaching and 
service on campus. Sellers then 
previewed the administration’s 
upcoming efforts, including new 
sexual misconduct policies and 
internal and external review of 
the DEI initiative as a whole.
Nearing 
the 
end 
of 
his 
speech, 
Sellers 
echoed 
the 
ideas expressed by Schlissel by 
praising the progress achieved 
to this point but emphasizing the 
work is far from over.
“One of the things I can tell 
you from the bottom of my heart 
is that we still have a long way 
to go,” Sellers said. “But I can 
also tell you we have also made 
a great deal of progress in the 
past three years. We are not the 
same institution that we were 
when we started. We are a more 
diverse, equitable and inclusive 
community, and we will continue 
to work to be even more so.”
Sellers was followed at the 
podium 
by 
Katrina 
Wade-
Golden, deputy chief diversity 
officer, 
 
who 
introduced 
Guerrero as the event’s keynote 
speaker. Guerrero, the daughter 
of undocumented immigrants, 
is an advocate for comprehensive 
immigration 
reform 
in 
the 
United States. Pulitzer-winning 
journalist 
Leonard 
Pitts 
moderated the discussion.
Guerrero spoke at length 
about her experiences growing 
up with undocumented parents. 
Having been born in the U.S., 
she grew up in Boston in a 
predominantly Black and Latinx 
community. 

Proposal 3, as it would work to 
prevent 
disenfranchisement 
of voters who struggled to 
navigate the voting process. 
In 
her 
opening 
remarks, 
she detailed her work for 
the ACLU, which included 
working with voters turned 
away at the polls on Election 
Day. Dolente said even a single 
voter disenfranchised by the 
Michigan 
electoral 
system 
represents a major problem 
that needs to be resolved.
“I hear a lot of noise and 
chaos of what happens on 
Election Day,” Dolente said. 
“I hear all the challenges that 
voters are facing when they 
go to cast their ballots here in 
Michigan. Voters are turned 
away in every single election. 
Voters are turned away right 
here in Ann Arbor. Voters are 
turned away in the primaries. 
Every election I talked to 
voters who were turned away 
at the ballot box.”

Panelist 
Nancy 
Wang, 
board president of Voters Not 
Politicians, an organization 
whose goal is to promote 
Proposal 
2 
and 
end 
gerrymandering in Michigan. 
Wang said the issue isn’t 
explaining the nuances of the 
proposal, but rather making 
sure people know what’s on 
the ballot before they get to 
the polls. Both Wang and 
Dolente said Michigan has 
fallen behind on adopting key 
election reforms, specifically 
involving voter registration 
and gerrymandering. 
“Right 
now, 
we 
have 
thousands of volunteers that 
are knocking on doors, just 
spreading the word,” Wang 
said. “Our challenge right 
now is not with the proposal. 
Everyone 
we 
can 
spend 
about 10 to 15 seconds with 
understands that this policy 
makes sense.”
The 
second 
initiative 
discussed 
at 
the 
event, 
Proposal 2, drew much more 
debate from members of the 
panel. As the law currently 
stands, 
redistricting 
is 

controlled by politicians of 
the majority party in the state 
legislature, and leaders are 
not required to disclose to the 
public information regarding 
the 
redistricting 
process. 
Proposal 
2 
would 
imbue 
far 
greater 
transparency 
in process: if the initiative 
passes, 
Michigan 
residents 
would be able to apply to be 
members of the commission.
However, panelist Richard 
McLellan, an election law 
attorney, 
claimed 
while 
Proposal 
2’s 
intent 
is 
honest, in practice, it would 
ultimately be unsuccessful. 
McLellan 
said 
the 
policy 
would establish a convoluted 
structure inevitably resulting 
in disputes and would bypass 
the 
legislative 
process 
by 
being incorporated directly 
into the state constitution. 
Furthermore, 
he 
said 
constantly changing opinions 
would make such a permanent 
change detrimental to the 
electoral system.
Another element of Proposal 
2 mandates members of the 
redistricting 
commission 

isolate themselves from others 
during 
the 
redistricting 
process. McLellan said this 
amount of distancing from the 
public is unrealistic in today’s 
digital 
age 
and 
isolation 
from the general population 
could lead to ill-informed 
redistricting.
“It 
bans 
commissioners 
from 
talking 
to 
ordinary 
people,” 
McLellan 
said. 
“You can only talk to your 
staff, attorneys, experts and 
consultants. These are a group 
of randomly-selected people. I 
want them walking around, 
talking to people. I don’t think 
that’s good public policy.”
The panel was co-sponsored 
by WeListen, a bipartisan 
student 
organization 
that 
aims to foster discussion on 
contentious political issues. 
LSA 
sophomore 
Taylor 
Smith is a member of the 
organization and said she 
liked weighing the contrasting 
ideologies offered by members 
of the panel.
“It was very interesting 
to 
hear 
the 
conservative 
viewpoint 
and 
the 
liberal 

viewpoint,” Smith said. “I like 
to be totally informed before 
making a decision, as opposed 
to just listening to one side.”
Toward 
the 
end 
of 
the 
event, 
Public 
Policy 
students, as well as others in 
attendance, were encouraged 
to submit questions for the 
panel to discuss. Tom Ivacko, 
the associate director of the 
Center for Local, State and 
Urban Policy at the Public 
Policy School, said this was 
representative of the type 
of discourse Public Policy 
students are encouraged to 
engage in.
“We try to foster at the Ford 
School a focus on conversation 
across differences, and these 
potential 
policy 
reforms 
represent significant change 
that could fall along partisan 
divides,” Ivacko said. “We’re 
trying to foster civil discourse 
about 
challenging 
policy 
issues.”
Organizations, departments 
and other institutional actors 
across campus are boosting 
voter 
registration 
efforts 
before the pivotal midterms. 

The Michigan Daily — www.michigandaily.com
News
Tuesday, October 9, 2018 — 3

THE DR AFT

“In extreme 
cases, Beatty 
said, some 
members do 
not realize 
they are a part 
of the Senate 
Assembly” 

SARAH KUNKEL/Daily
The Draft, an exhibition by Esmaa Mohamoud, investigates the intangibility of Blackness through issues surrounding black represenation at the South Thayer Building. 

WELISTEN
From Page 1

DEI
From Page 1

PROPOSALS
From Page 1

ATTENDANCE
From Page 1

Read more at 
MichiganDaily.com

