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

