Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Zack Blumberg
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Erin White
Ashley Zhang
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
O
n April 9, in response to
demands
from
climate
activists for the University
of Michigan to divest from fossil
fuels, University President Mark
Schlissel gave his interpretation of
the University’s divestment policy
at a carbon neutrality public session:
“Essentially, we don’t divest … If
we begin the process of narrowing
what the endowment can invest in,
based on very valid arguments and
concerns from sincere people, the
ability to invest shrinks, the value of
the endowment goes down and the
institution suffers. We’re just not
going to divest.”
Though I will not talk about the
merits of divesting from fossil fuels
specifically, the recent talking point
from our president opens the door
for a larger discussion about the
University’s endowment divestment
policy and the student body’s role
in endowment investments. But
first, it is important to consider why
students care about divestment,
since our commitment to divestment
is so quickly brushed aside by the
administration.
As students, we are drawn to
divestment
discussions
because
they offer an avenue where we can
tangibly express our beliefs on issues
over which we have little control. In
a prestigious, high-minded academic
institution, there is a disconnect
between the issues we think about
and the amount of control we have
over them. In our classes, readings
and conversations with peers, we
are discussing the most pressing
and salient global issues, yet we have
little agency over them. The issues
we do have influence over — campus
and Ann Arbor policies — are not
stressed in our academic settings,
and consequently (amazing campus
organizing aside) these policies do
not receive the student attention they
deserve.
When activists are spoken
down to, we are told we should
express ourselves by voting. We
do that, but if the issues our votes
have real influence over (municipal
and statewide elections) are so
important, why are we not learning
about them in the classroom? We
are told we are learning about global
issues to become global leaders, but
we do not feel we have the power
to enact change on that scale. The
University’s
endowment,
which
totals approximately $12 billion,
is among the only significant,
tangible thing we can immediately
and forcefully express our values
and beliefs on issues that we have
minimal influence over. And this —
Schlissel has stated — is off limits.
We are also drawn to divestment
because if we want to change the
world, we have a responsibility to
shape our institutions in accordance
with our values. The right kind of
changes are not going to come from
top-down policy mandates, but from
people taking ownership of our
campus issues.
The University does not want
to talk about divestment because it
opens up uneasy and controversial
political discussions that could
alienate
donors,
faculty
and
potential students. Furthermore,
the University wants its financial
safety to be cushioned in case of an
emergency so that it can continue
to function at full capacity. These
are both worthwhile concerns, but
this mindset ignores the tangible
harm our investments cause as well
as how they reflect on our values as
an institution. Like many students,
I want the University to change its
divestment policies, or at least clarify
them.
In his response at the town hall
carbon neutrality public session,
Schlissel accurately depicted current
University policy: The issue is that
the policy is unclear. The University
tries to shield its endowment from
political issues, but it acknowledges
that exceptions are sometimes
necessary. If an issue is labeled
an
exception,
the
University’s
Board of Regents creates an ad hoc
committee to look closely at the issue
in question and decide whether to
recommend divestment. The only
two issues granted divestment were
South African apartheid in 1978
and the tobacco industry in 1999.
In 2005, the University spelled out
the three criteria that need to be
met to achieve such a status: 1) “The
concern to be explored must express
the broadly and consistently held
position of the campus community
over time;” 2) “There must be reason
to believe that the behavior or action
in question may be antithetical to
the core mission and values of the
University;” 3) “There must be reason
to believe that the organization,
industry or entity to be singled out
may be uniquely responsible for the
problems identified.”
If the University is trying to
construct a rational divestment
policy, criteria one and three require
revisions, or at least, clarifications.
The first criterion is flawed
because there is no threshold for
evaluating the campus position. The
campus community will never reach
a uniform opinion. Consequently, the
University can pretend there is no
campus-wide consensus if it does not
want to discuss divestment, as there
are no tangible points that determine
whether the campus community
supports divestment. The University
should establish specific procedures
and benchmarks for determining
if
particular
divestment
issues
have broad and consistent campus
support.
The
third
criterion
needs
changing because it requires that
the companies being divested from
are uniquely responsible for the issue
being objected to. This criterion
should be broadened to include those
companies that bear responsibility
in all levels, not just “unique
responsibility” as the policy states.
Lastly, if the University wants
to abide by these criteria for
divestment, it should be proactive in
evaluating whether its endowment
is
supporting
companies
the
campus community objects to. The
University should not have to wait
to be pushed by campus activists
— it should seek to reflect campus
values in the endowment. One way
to do that would be to publicize the
endowment portfolios, allowing the
community to offer input.
Perhaps
these
criteria
are intentionally vague so the
administration can make divestment
decisions unilaterally. If that is the
objective, they should not pretend
that there is any logic to the decision
of whether to discuss divestment
and admit that it is just political
positioning. If the criteria are just
a facade for unilateral decision-
making, the University should scrap
the criteria entirely.
The University cannot have
it both ways. If the policy is truly
that the endowment will never be
impacted by political issues, then
it should eliminate the criteria for
divestment procedure. It has not
done this because there are obviously
issues our endowment should not be
financially supporting and because
the way we spend our money
reflects our values. If the University
acknowledges that some divestment
claims are valid, it should engage
in these conversations honestly.
Divestment
conversations
are
always going to be messy, but
the University should welcome
students taking ownership over
the institutions we care about.
In response, the Michigan
Daily Editorial Board pushed for
more transparency on the policy,
how it works and its impacts
on specific communities. As
the semester has progressed,
we are becoming increasingly
apprehensive of the University’s
felony
disclosure
policy,
especially
considering
the
University’s purported goals to
promote inclusion on campus.
The initiatives and projects
set out in the Diversity, Equity
& Inclusion plan are meant to
be deeply intertwined with
the
University’s
mission
of
providing an excellent public
education for the public good.
It is, consequently, an ambitious
undertaking,
encompassing
49 plans developed by school,
college
and
campus
units.
Any provision made by the
plan is considered to be not
only an aspect of the DEI plan
itself, but as essential to the
University’s goal of creating a
more welcoming campus where
all students have an opportunity
to thrive. Indeed, the DEI plan
is
consistently
championed
as a concrete example of the
University’s genuine interest in
promoting an inclusive campus.
In the 2018 Strategic Plan
Progress
Report,
University
President Mark Schlissel writes,
“Our Strategic Plan remains a
pledge that will guide our focus
as we work to live up to our most
cherished ideals.”
While
we
applaud
the
DEI plan in its mission, we
also
find
that
University
support of policies such as the
felony disclosure policy call
these “cherished ideals” into
question. The felony disclosure
policy requires employees to
disclose any felony charges and
convictions after Feb. 1, 2019,
within a week of the charge or
conviction, and was created
for the purpose of maintaining
campus safety. However, in
the wake of its announcement,
many groups have found fault in
the plan’s lack of transparency,
potential violation of due process
and contradiction with DEI. We
as an Editorial Board believe
this policy is underdeveloped
and misinformed, and its impact
becomes the reverse of its
intention: It hurts and isolates
communities at our university.
The
felony
disclosure
policy
undermines
the
University’s DEI initiative by
ignoring
how
the
criminal
justice
system
in
Michigan
disproportionately
affects
people of color. In Michigan
alone, for example, Black people
are overrepresented in prisons,
accounting for 49 percent of
the
incarcerated
population,
but only 14 percent of the state
population.
This
picture
of
over-criminalization
is
true
nationwide
as
well,
where
people of color are more likely
than their white counterparts
to enter the criminal justice
system. One of the main drivers
of this disparity in the racial
makeup of prisons is racial bias,
and therefore is necessarily
a concern for advocates of
diversity, equity and inclusion.
The fear POC communities
feel in regard to the felony
disclosure policy is a detrimental
effect of the policy and indicative
of its contradictory nature. The
obvious
disparities
between
white and POC groups in regard
to their experiences with the
criminal justice system has even
proven itself on our campus in
recent years. During the 2017
home football game between
Michigan and Michigan State,
Black and Latino fraternities
reported
receiving
several
citations and arrests, coupled
with aggressive tactics from the
Ann Arbor Police Department,
while
the
predominantly
white Interfraternity Council
fraternities reported no police
presence or citations. This, along
with other campus events, added
to existing mistrust between
police and POC, and a call for
greater communication between
police and POC organizations.
The felony disclosure policy,
while impacting all University
students and faculty, has a
disproportionate
effect
on
minority groups who already
face
adverse
policing
and
treatment
in
the
criminal
justice system. The implications
of this are both tangible and
social, from actually preventing
minorities from being employed
at the University to creating a
campus atmosphere that pegs
POC members as “other.” If the
felony disclosure policy is meant
to promote a feeling of safety,
it fails in its attack on these
marginalized communities.
While legislation such as
ban-the-box laws attempts to
combat racial discrimination,
the felony disclosure policy
does
the
opposite,
actively
contradicting DEI. In September
2018, Gov. Rick Snyder signed
a ban-the-box law to remove
the question, “Have you been
convicted of a felony?” from
state job applications. In doing
so, a huge barrier to employment
and
societal
inclusion
was
lifted for those entangled in
the criminal justice system.
With
the
felony
disclosure
policy, the University is moving
in
the
opposite
direction,
making it harder for groups
disproportionately targeted by
over-criminalization to obtain
employment.
The
University
cannot
justifiably
say
it
supports
diversity, equity and inclusion
while simultaneously promoting
discriminatory
policies
such
as felony disclosure. Since the
University has already heard
strong critique from voices on
this campus — including the
ACLU, the Carceral State Project
and numerous professors and
alumni — continuing to uphold
the policy represents strategic
ignorance. This is the same
type of strategic ignorance that
haunts debates of University
inaction on issues like carbon
neutrality, potentially emerging
as a harmful pattern of behavior
where
the
ideals
that
the
University holds up to the
community are diametrically
opposed
to
the
policies
it
actually supports.
While the felony disclosure
policy’s
presumed
goal
is
to make our campus safer,
especially
in
the
wake
of
tumultuous events such as the
School of Music, Theatre &
Dance sexual assault allegations
and the false shooter alarm, it
lacks the structure and logic to
actually carry out this mission.
The policy should theoretically
filter out University students or
employees that could be a threat
to campus or student safety. But
the policy is fulfilled by entering
information into a simple online
form, followed by a subsequent
review
process
carried
out
by
the
University’s
Human
Resources department, making
it a subjective and unclear
process that gives employees
little clarity about how their
information will be evaluated.
Heather Ann Thompson, a
professor in the Department
of Afroamerican and African
Studies, affirms this idea that
the policy actually holds no
true impact: “The irony here
is that these policies cause
harm and do not make the
public safe,” Thompson said.
“Frankly, some of the evidence
says
when
you
criminalize
people and you make them
feel fearful of reporting, then
in fact you increase danger.”
The halfhearted effort of this
policy does not ensure student
safety as it lacks an objective,
structured procedure, and could
actually have adverse effects.
Additionally, in the wake of
the sexual assault allegations,
it is clear that the University
could have better focused its
attention on creating helpful
policies
or
programs
for
survivors of sexual misconduct
on campus, rather than the
overarching felony disclosure
policy. Survivors not only have
to deal with the emotional and
physical trauma following their
assault, but also an intricate
and often unpromising legal
process in order to get justice or
to finally feel safe on campus.
In the fall, the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals required that
universities allow for cross-
examinations of the accuser in
sexual misconduct cases. This
has caused deep concern in the
community, as the process of
cross-examination, often times
carried out by the accused,
can unnecessarily distress the
survivor. We believe that the
University should direct its
resources and energy toward
protecting these survivors, by
implementing a thorough policy
that has clear and direct impact.
Not all felonies are sexual
assault
charges,
of
course,
and the policy is not explicitly
meant to address those findings.
But we do believe that uplifting
and supporting sexual assault
survivors is a huge part of
promoting campus safety and
is
especially
relevant
now.
The felony disclosure policy
does little to help this group of
students feel safe.
I
t’s no surprise that the
economy is booming. For
more than 10 years, the
market has been on a tear, and
after overcoming the threat of
recession in 2018, it does seem
like we have a couple of years
before the market takes its next
major downturn. In fact, the
Dow Jones Industrial Average
has already rallied to recover
nearly all of its losses it incurred
over last year’s turbulent slump.
Accordingly, the March jobs
report that recently showed
the addition of of 196,000 jobs
nationally
is
not
especially
shocking. The stats show an
unemployment rate of a fiery 3.8
percent, about 1 percent lower
than the commonly accepted
threshold for full employment
(4.1-4.7 percent). But amid all
of this positive data, should
we still be concerned of the
impending crash that everyone
seems so anxious about? In
short, yes and no. Yes, there will
be an economic downturn in the
near future, but no, there’s no
indicator that it will necessarily
be close to a full-on recession.
One
potential
area
for
concern in this regard is the
aging nature of the tax cuts. The
Trump-backed
measure
that
reformed taxes and managed
to widely revitalize the market
is now about a year and half old
and many expect its benefits
will continue to fade. Without
that driver, the economy will
be suddenly exposed to the
elements once again, potentially
creating a catalyst for a recession
in the future. However, this can
be combated with good policies
from the Federal Reserve, which
has recently done a fairly good
job in managing inflation. Their
decision to stop the planned rate
hikes in 2019 was a smart one,
having allowed the economy to
escape the chokehold the fists of
recession almost dragged it into.
Perhaps a more dire forecast,
however, is the one offered
by the bond yield curve. The
March jobs report came on
the heels of the first inversion
of the bond yield curve since
2007. While such news means
next to nothing to the average
person, it was enough to send
the financial world into panic,
with the Dow Jones dropping
nearly 500 points in response.
The bond yield curve is simply a
graph representing the balance
in yield between long-term and
short-term Treasury bonds. The
classic ratios include the 10-year
to the three-month and the
10-year to the two-year. While
the latter remained in the green
— albeit barely — the former
dipped under zero, indicating
that long-term bonds had less
yield than short-term bonds.
In short, the market has higher
expectations
for
economic
expansion today than it does for
the future.
Conditions
like
this
are
especially
conducive
to
recession. In fact, all of the past
nine recessions since 1955 have
been prefaced by a yield curve
inversion within two years prior
to the recession. And the one
time the yield curve inverted
without an ensuing recession,
the economy hit a downturn
nonetheless. While the history
may not directly correspond to
the situation of the economy
today, this precedent is still
cause for concern.
But this doesn’t mean you
should run to the banks right
now and liquidate all your assets.
Most don’t expect a coming
recession until 2021 — late 2020
at the earliest. Furthermore,
the
International
Monetary
Fund “(predicts) a rebound later
this year and slightly stronger
growth next year for the world
economy.” A lot of this can be
further delayed given that the
U.S.-China trade talks continue
to make progress and will come
to a final agreement. In fact,
according to Scott Minerd, the
global chief investment officer of
Guggenheim Investments, “The
economy could grow more than
2 percent this year. I think that’s
going to be the big surprise.”
Another indicator to watch
is
the
unemployment
rate.
Similar to the yield curve, the
unemployment rate is also a
potent indicator of recession.
Historically,
whenever
the
unemployment
rate
falls
below 4 percent, a recession
occurs in the near future.
While the converse of the
statement is not equivalently
true, the recent jobs report
did indicate an unemployment
rate of 3.8 percent, keeping
the labor market below the
aforementioned
threshold.
Could it be that the same thing
investors are rejoicing about
with the jobs report will end up
being the deciding factor in the
upcoming economic downturn?
All that said, there is much
to be optimistic about the
economy at the moment. The
recent figures show the effects
of over a decade of expansion,
and the economy is rejoicing
in its success. There’s even the
strong possibility that there
won’t be a major recession at
all at the culmination of this
business cycle. The growth
can just as well end in a minor
downturn before the economy
starts back again. But I guess
we’ll have to wait until 2021 to
actually find out.
The looming economic downturn might not be as bad as you think
We need a new divestment policy
ADITHYA SANJAY | COLUMN
Adithya Sanjay can be reached at
asanjay@umich.edu.
Solomon Medintz can be reached
smedintz@umich.edu.
SOLOMON MEDINTZ | COLUMN
FROM THE DAILY
Our university’s hypocrisy on crime, safety and inclusion
O
n Feb. 1, the University of Michigan made effective a new policy
requiring faculty, staff, student employees, volunteers and visiting
scholars to disclose if they are charged with or convicted of a felony.
Immediately, there was strong criticism across campus, drawing complaints
of the potential impact this will have on members of the University
community. Moreover, upon review, the policy is vague and unclear.
Read more at MichiganDaily.com