4

Thursday, June 27, 2019
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION

420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 
the University of Michigan since 1890.

 ERIN WHITE
Editorial Page Editor

Zack Blumberg
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
Erin White 
Ashley Zhang

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.

CASSANDRA MANSUETTI
Editor in Chief

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

The 
lack 
of 
adequate 
reasoning 
for 
Schlissel’s 
abstention 
from 
testifying, 
especially in a situation where 
he is not intended to be cross-
examined, is concerning. It is 
clear that President Schlissel’s 
position grants him oversight 
over the University as a whole, 
but 
it 
remains 
worrisome 
that 
he 
is 
uncomfortable 
or 
incapable 
of 
publicly 
explaining the intricacies of the 
University’s sexual misconduct 
policy; a policy that is integral 
to student safety and rights. 
These sentiments were publicly 
supported by Judge Arthur 
Tarnow, who criticized Schlissel 
for his and the University’s 
unwillingness 
to 
streamline 
the case proceedings, writing, 
“The 
University’s 
attorneys 
appear to be more concerned 
with 
keeping 
the 
President 
out of the public eye than with 
prompt resolution of this case 

and providing a fair process for 
adjudicating sexual misconduct 
claims.” 
The lack of definitive public 
figures 
surrounding 
the 
University’s sexual misconduct 
policy 
points 
to 
broader 
confusion 
surrounding 
the 
foundation of the policy itself. 
When legal representatives for 
the University offered to bring 
in a different spokesperson to 
testify about the sexual assault 
policy, they were unable to 
identify who that would be 
when prompted by the judge. 
This begs the question: Who 
is the authority who can be 
held accountable for the policy 
and 
its 
implementations, 
if 
not President Schlissel? It is 
evident that the University 
does not have a clear person in 
charge and is hoping to merely 
avoid 
confrontation 
about 
this lack of leadership. This is 
unacceptable, and we implore 

the University to point to a 
clear and reliable source on the 
matter.
Considering 
the 
current 
social 
climate 
regarding 
sexual misconduct, especially 
within institutions of higher 
education across the country, 
we feel that President Schlissel 
and 
the 
University 
should 
be considering a settlement 
meeting 
regarding 
these 
University policies to be a top 
priority. Delaying the process 
more will ultimately only serve 
to undermine the University’s 
authority on the subject going 
forward. 
The 
University’s 
President should have a clear 
idea 
of 
the 
direction 
we 
are moving in terms of our 
treatment of accusations and 
cases of sexual misconduct, and 
avoiding policy discussions like 
this is only counter-productive 
to the creation of a fair and safe 
school environment.

D

ioxane, a potentially carcino-
genic chemical that has 
leaked into Ann Arbor’s 
aquifer slowly over two decades 
from Gelman Sciences, Inc., was 
found in our drinking water on 
two separate occasions in the 
Huron River and Barton Pond. 
The plume, discovered in well 
water in 1985, has migrated in the 
groundwater over the last three 
decades and now encompasses a 
much larger area. While the fed-
eral, state and local governments 
have been entrenched in legal 
battles over this environmental 
issue, the threat to public health 
has steadily increased.
As a Masters of Social Work 
student at the University of Mich-
igan, and as someone who cares 
not only about the environment 
but also the health and well-being 
of students and community mem-
bers who drink this water, it is 
alarming that this issue has gone 
unresolved for decades. Across 
the state and country, similar 
issues have taken several years 
and an abundance of resources 
to resolve (Flint, Baltimore and 
several others). As a result of 
agonizingly slow and expensive 
undertakings, residents are left 
endangered, confused and often 
defeated, lacking a real solution. 
The longer we wait for the gov-
ernment to devise a plan, the lon-
ger Ann Arbor residents have to 
worry about their ability to feel 
safe and healthy while enjoying 
the natural resources around 
them.
While some feel powerless to 
address issues like the dioxane 
plume, I am not alone in feel-
ing the University of Michigan 
should look locally for solutions 
and start doing the necessary 
research regarding this poten-
tial health hazard. Perhaps the 
University lacks a sense of urgen-
cy — even government officials 
litigating the issue seemingly 
lack this resolve. Or maybe the 
donation made by the family of 
the founder of Gelman Sciences, 
Inc. to U -M’s Risk Science Cen-
ter creates a conflict of inter-
est and gives pause to action. 
Regardless of the root cause, the 
wealth of knowledge and poten-
tial resources from a university 
should not be held back when jus-
tice and the safety of the commu-
nity is at stake.
In social work, our mission 
is to promote social justice and 
the dignity and worth of all indi-

viduals regardless of race, socio-
economic status and background. 
This includes advocating for our 
community and its members, 
ensuring they have access to the 
resources needed to live healthy 
and fulfilling lives. Issues like 
the dioxane plume dispropor-
tionately 
affect 
communities 
of color and vulnerable people. 
Given this marked disparity, it 
is everyone’s responsibility to 
raise awareness and promote 
action around issues in order to 
serve these marginalized com-
munities that may not have the 
resources to adequately advocate 
for themselves. This call applies 
not only to social workers, but to 
all schools within the University 
of Michigan that seek to produce 
leaders within their field of study 
and continue to build the prestige 
of the University.
At the University of Michi-
gan, we claim to be “the Lead-
ers and Best.” But, is that motto 
fulfilled in our relationship with 
nearby 
communities? 
When 
we, as a University community, 
choose to bypass opportunities 
to perform research and develop 
high-impact projects that cre-
ate positive change in our own 
neighborhoods, we fail to uphold 
that 
standard. 
By 
investing 
research capabilities and skills in 
environmental safety and public 
health projects, we could utilize 
the privilege afforded to the Uni-
versity of Michigan and play an 
active leadership role in the com-
munity, laying the groundwork 
for positive community interac-
tion. Reassuringly, several stu-
dents have already taken up this 
call and have begun to pioneer 
their own initiatives to support 
their community.
The environmental and health 
impacts for the greater Ann 
Arbor area due to the dioxane 
plume worsen as time passes, 
and there is still no solution in 
sight. The University of Michigan 
should leverage its resources and 
the skills of students and faculty 
to develop innovative solutions to 
this decades-long problem and, in 
doing so, renew its dedication to 
serving its neighbors. Neglect-
ing to do so will result in further 
contamination 
and 
ill-placed 
reliance on time-consuming legal 
action.

Is the University responsible for local issues?

MEGAN VAN KOOTEN | OP-ED

Megan Van Kooten is a Masters of 

Social Work Candidate at the University 

of Michigan. 

FROM THE DAILY

The University needs to stop dragging its feet
O

n June 13, 2019, University of Michigan President Mark Schlissel 
was due in U.S. District Court in Detroit to explain the University’s 
sexual misconduct policy in a settlement conference for the ongoing 
Doe v. University of Michigan lawsuit. On June 12, this hearing was delayed 
until further notice. The stay, prompted by an emergency petition sent by 
University lawyers, was the latest in a set of actions by the University to 
keep Schlissel from testifying publicly on the matter. We as an Editorial 
Board feel that the University should stop delaying the case and encourage 
President Schlissel to appear before the court; furthermore, we find the 
University’s lack of clarity surrounding the policy in question to be extremely 
disconcerting, and it should be actively working to remedy this issue.

