Additionally, more than 
15 community members 
spoke against the 2857 
Packard Road Planned Unit 
Development 
rezoning 
ordinance, a conditional 
zoning 
agreement 
introduced in 2016. The 
zoning would shift eight 
acres of property along 
Packard road from R1C 
single-family 
residential 
to R1E, a single-family 
residential zoning which 
allows for greater density. 
The 
developer 
is 
Jim 
Haeussler of Saline-based 
Peters Building Company 
and the construction costs 
estimated at $2.6 million. 
The 
community 
members 
cited 
several 
reasons to discontinue the 
council’s support of the 
ordinance. According to 
these members, the area is 
one of the last affordable 
neighborhoods 
in 
Ann 
Arbor and subsequently 
has a diverse population. 
Members 
in 
and 
out 
of Ward 3 argued for 
environmental 
and 
historical 
preservation 
of the neighborhood and 
brought 
forth 
concerns 
over traffic congestion if 
the development were to 

be pursued. 
Community 
member 
Emily Epstein moved to 
the area several years ago 
and urged the committee 
members to reconsider the 
proposal. 
“I 
find 
it 
difficult 
to believe that elected 
servants would have such 
a poor command of current 
economic conditions, and 
your 
interrelationships 
its specific demographic 
groups, like the soon to 
be refugee middle class,” 
Epstein said. “These are 
not 
starter 
homes, 
or 
starter households. These 
homes 
house 
real 
and 
noble people. The vast 
number of retirees that 
live in my neighborhood 
will be pushed out as 
property taxes rise with 
absurd 
housing 
costs 
under this proposed PUD.” 
Councilmember 
Ali 
Ramlawi, 
D-Ward 
5, 
expressed his hesitation 
in moving forward with 
the site plan during the 
second readings of the 
ordinances. 
“The 
PUD 
should 
provide public benefit, and 
I frankly don’t see a lot of 
it,” Ramlawi said. “When 
you have 80 percent of 
area residents petitioning 
against it, that just speaks 
volumes.” 

On 
the 
other 
hand, 
Councilmember 
Julie 
Grand, D-Ward 3, said 
since the council moved 
to push the plan forward 
in the past, they must 
continue. 
Grand 
and 
Councilmember 
Zachary 
Ackerman, 
D-Ward 
3, 
expressed concern over 
the 
land 
owner 
clear-
cutting 
the 
trees 
in 
the 
area 
without 
the 
development. 

“I think it would be 
dishonest of me to ask 
for it, and then reject it,” 
Grand said. “Even though 
I understand that there’s 
a lot of really good intent 
behind wanting to keep 
the things you love about 
your neighborhood. I don’t 

think this plan, in terms of 
housing type, is actually a 
horrible plan.”
The official ordinance 
to pass the amendments 
of the plan needed eight 
votes to pass, but only 
six 
members 
voted 
in 
favor 
of 
it. 
Because 
of 
its 
contingency 
on 
the 
first 
ordinance 
passing, councilmembers 
unanimously 
voted 
against the site plan. 
The 
council 
also 
discussed the city code 
of Ann Arbor in regards 
to 
marijuana 
retailers, 
microbusinesses 
and 
designated 
marijuana 
consumption 
facilities. 
Councilmember 
Jane 
Lumm, I-Ward 2, pushed 
for 
an 
amendment 
to 
limit 
the 
proximity 
of 
marijuana businesses to 
schools 
and 
child-care 
buildings. 
“It’s not a matter of 
if marijuana is coming, 
but 
exactly 
when 
and 
under what set of specific 
regulations,” Lumm said.
Councilmembers 
later 
voted unanimously on a 
resolution 
proposed 
by 
Lumm to establish a body 
to 
review 
and 
oversee 
responsible 
marijuana 
use. 

Ewen 
first 
asked 
Foley 
about her decision to start 
the foundation after James’ 
death in 2014. Foley explained 
she 
was 
inspired 
by 
the 
government’s 
inaction 
and 
wanted her family to do 
something in his honor. She 
also commented on what has 
happened in the five years 
since 
the 
foundation 
was 
started. 
“After Jim was executed, 
I was angry, I was really 
outraged,” Foley said. “I really 
felt 
that 
our 
government 
had deceived our family and 
totally abandoned us. It just 
seemed like we had to do 
something. Here we are five 
years later and no one has 
been held accountable for 
Jim’s death, really, and the 
challenge continues.” 
The 
panelists 
also 
discussed how U.S. policy 
differs from that of European 
countries; the United States’ 
does 
not 
negotiate 
with 
terrorist 
organizations, 
whereas other countries may. 
Many of the journalists held 
with James Foley were from 
these countries and were 
eventually released by ISIS, 
as a result, Simon said.
“U.S. 
policy 
historically 
has been that the U.S. does 
not negotiate with terrorists, 
does not make concessions to 
terrorists,” Simon said. “Many 
of the other countries around 
the world look at the issue 
much 
more 
pragmatically. 
French 
hostages 
survive, 
about 75 percent of the time. 
Spain has the best record in 
the world, everyone of them 
has come home. There’s a 
25 percent survival rate for 
American hostages.”
Simon acknowledged the 
issue is difficult to solve, 
but emphasized he believes 
there are things the United 
States can learn from the 

policy and actions of other 
countries when negotiating 
for hostages. 
“I think the one thing the 
Euorpeans have done well, 
where the Americans have 
really failed, is no American 
citizen 
should 
feel 
alone, 
without the support of the 
government, when they are 
going 
through 
something 
like this,” Simon said. “I 
mean, that is cruel to leave 
families to grapple with these 
… not only does the American 
government not support them, 
but they are threatening to 
put the families in jail for 
seeking the return of their 
loved ones.” 
LSA 
sophomore 
Natalie 
White, who is interested in 
journalism but did not attend 
the event, commented on how 
she would expect the U.S. 
government to react when 
journalists 
are 
captured 
abroad. 
“Journalism 
allows 
information to spread from 
source 
to 
people, 
which 
sounds incredibly basic, but 
is truly so important,” White 
said in a statement to The 
Daily. “Journalism is what 
connects all the classes and 
what allows all people to 
have access to knowledge of 
what is going on in the world 
around them.” 
At the end of the event, 
audience 
members 
were 
able to ask questions of the 
panelists, 
both 
through 
question cards and Twitter. 
The first question asked 
dealt 
with 
whether 
the 
panelists believe Americans 
fare worse in captivity than 
people from other countries, 
as well as how governments 
paying 
ransoms 
impact 
journalists who are still being 
held. 
“I mean we are hated in 
the world, especially at this 
moment in time,” Foley said. 
“Westerners 
are 
targeted 
anyway, because of various 
western 
coalitions. 
But 

absolutely. I think once they 
found out Jim was American 
he had one of the worst 
treatments of any of the 
hostages.” 
To 
conclude 
the 
event, 
the panelists discussed how 
journalism has been affected 
by the Trump administration, 
as well as how journalists are 
treated abroad.
 
“The 
Trump 
Administration really assisted 
the 
Saudi 
government 
in 
covering 
up 
that 
crime, 
it’s reprehensible and that 
really sends a message to 
enemies of journalists and 
enemies of journalism and 
those who want to persecute 
journalists that there will be 
no consequences in terms of 
their relationship with the 
United States,” Simon said.
White 
also 
explained 
how she believes the Trump 
administration’s 
rhetoric 
regarding journalists affects 
their safety. 
“I think that the president 
telling the general public that 
any group is a threat risks 
that group’s safety,” White 
said. “I think that journalists 
often have to be more aware 
now of their situations and 
surroundings, 
especially 
when 
interviewing 
groups 
that may see them as a threat.” 
Foley reiterated her belief 
that students should continue 
pursuing journalism, despite 
job insecurity, criticism from 
the public and possible safety 
risks. 
“I would encourage them, 
(being a journalist) would be 
a very noble task,” Foley said. 
“But also be honest. It’s hard 
to make a living and it can be 
risky. So if (students) want 
to be journalists, they need 
to become highly skilled at 
protecting themselves. But 
I think it’s so important — 
we need them. It’s critical, 
journalists are so important. 
Without them we wouldn’t be 
free.” 

This is not to say that all forms 
of privilege and marginalization 
are the same, but it does mean 
that we all have some common 
experiences that we can access.”
Schlissel then took the stage to 
express his pride in the University 
progress towards achieving more 
diversity, equity and inclusion. He 
said DEI goals are integral to the 
University’s values and mission. 
“Our achievements thus far are 
a direct result of so many members 
of our community joining together 
to not only advance our values, but 
to live them,” Schlissel said. “To 
share them broadly and instill 
them in all parts of our mission as 
a public university. This includes 
thousands of people, faculty, staff, 
students and supporters, past and 
present, who care deeply about 
our University… at the University 
of Michigan, diversity, equity and 
inclusion are values inseparable 
from our excellence in research, 
education and service.”
Keynote speaker Van Jones 
began 
his 
speech 
with 
the 
assertion that being able to work 
collaboratively with people from 
all 
different 
backgrounds 
is 
integral to success. 
“The main point is this: I don’t 
care if you’re Black, White, Latina, 
Latino, Asian-American, Native-
American, I don’t care what 
faith you are, I don’t care what 
gender, 
expression, 
sexuality 
you are,” Jones said. “In this new 
century, the absolute prerequisite 
superpower for success is how do 
you perform in a radically diverse 
environment. That will determine 
your success or your failure in this 
new century.”
Jones remarked on the different 
consequences 
marginalized 
people face versus privileged 
people for illegal activities, using 
the example of his time as a 
student at Yale Law School. He 
said he saw other Yale students 
breaking more rules than people 
in housing projects, but he noted 
how the people of color and the 

poorer people from the housing 
projects are the ones that ended 
up with a criminal record. 
“We have this false view of 
reality. I saw more drugs used at 
Yale University than I ever saw in 
a housing project, period,” Jones 
said. “I saw more rule-breaking, 
I saw more norm breaking, I saw 
way worse behavior at Yale than 
I ever saw in a housing project. 
And yet, when those kids got in 
trouble at Yale, nobody called the 
cops. At best, they went to rehab, 
or Europe… But four blocks away, 
in the housing projects in New 
Haven, Connecticut, four Black 
kids doing fewer drugs, selling 
fewer drugs with less money 
almost all went to prison in the 
‘90s. And they came back 10 
years later, 15 years later, 20 years 
later. Now they’re drug felons. 
And those same Yale students 
in positions of power say ‘Well, 
I can’t hire these people, they’re 
drug felons.’”
In 2018, President Donald 
Trump signed into effect the First 
Step Act, which is a bipartisan bill 
aiming to prepare incarcerated 
people 
for 
re-entrance 
into 
society, encourage earlier release 
dates and place emphasis on 
rehabilitation 
in 
the 
prison 
system, according to FirstStepAct.
org. Jones helped pass the act 
and claimed it passed because of 
bipartisan work in Congress.
“When you have this many 
people behind bars, you offend 
the core sensibilities and the 
core values of both political 
parties,” Jones said. “At our best, 
progressives 
and 
democrats 
believe in something called justice, 
we don’t like it when majority 
groups run over minority groups. 
At their best, conservatives care 
about something called liberty, 
individual 
rights, 
individual 
dignity and limited government. 
Well, the incarceration industry is 
running over the concept of justice 
and liberty… You’ve got to learn 
how to work across ideological 
lines, racial lines, to get something 
done.”
Jones 
concluded 
his 
address by discussing how the 

University’s DEI initiatives can 
prepare 
students 
to 
succeed 
after graduating and can help 
the world by creating solutions 
through collaboration in a diverse 
environment. 
“We’re developing a capacity 
for people to at least work across 
difference, 
to 
recognize 
the 
battleground and deal with that 
effectively, but never lose sight of 
the common ground and be able 
to deal with that effectively too,” 
Jones said. “And if this University 
community is going to be able to 
have the impact it needs to have, 
central to the mission has to be 
this idea of diversity, equity and 
inclusion.”
In a panel discussion after 
Jones’ speech, LSA senior Dim 
Mang addressed how emotionally 
draining it can be to be a student 
activist and leader working on 
DEI. 
“Something to keep in mind, 
especially 
from 
a 
student 
perspective, is how much of a 
burden this work is for us, for 
people of color,” Mang said. “I’m 
a first-generation college student 
here, first-generation immigrant 
as well. And I think that a lot of 
my peers, especially in groups like 
the Arab Student Association, La 
Casa and the Black Student Union 
is that along with our school 
work, along with our personal 
relationships with family and 
friends, continuously coming in 
day in and day out, putting in this 
work trying to be representatives 
of our community is a toll and it’s 
taxing and its draining.”
Jones responded by saying 
Mang is right — it is emotionally 
taxing. It’s not fair that she and 
other student leaders have this 
burden to bear, but it will make 
them and the community stronger 
in the long run, he said.
“As tragic as it’s going to be to 
say,” Jones said. “As hurtful as it’s 
going to be to say, by you doing 
extra, just like when you go to the 
gym, and someone says ‘you have 
to pick up the 200 pounds and I’m 
going to pick up the 100 pounds.’ 
That’s not fair, but you’re going to 
be stronger tomorrow.”

During 
the 
event, 
Bagenstos talked about the 
LGBTQ+ workers’ rights 
cases that will be heard in 
front of the Supreme Court 
on Tuesday. He also gave 
a brief history of LGBTQ+ 
workers’ rights in America 
and 
discussed 
what 
arguments can be expected 
to be heard at the hearings.
The three cases being 
presented to the Supreme 
Court tomorrow all involve 
people 
who 
were 
fired 
from their jobs after their 
employers learned of their 
sexualities: a case where a 
skydiving instructor told 
a client he was gay; a case 
where 
a 
social 
worker 

in Georgia joined a gay 
softball league; and lastly 
a case in Michigan about 
a transgender woman who 
wrote 
to 
her 
employer 
about her transition.
“Because there is such 
widespread discirmination 
against gay, lesbian and 
transgender 
individuals 
in 
the 
workplaces… 
in 
recent 
years 
a 
number 
of 
individuals, 
lawyers 
and activists have sought 
to 
use 
pre-existing 
sex 
discrimination 
laws 
to 
challenge 
this 
kind 
of 
discrimination,” Bagenstos 
said. 
Bagenstos then gave a 
brief history of the pre-
existing sex discrimination 
law, 
Title 
VII 
within 
the 
1964 
Civil 
Rights 
Act, 
that 
prohibits 
racial 
discimination 

in 
employment 
and 
also 
prohibits 
sex 
discrimination 
in 
employment.
“Title 
VII 
wasn’t 
something 
that 
(government 
officials) 
were going to take very 
seriously 
in 
enforcing,” 
Bagenstos said. “It took 
a lot of work by feminists 
acitivists 
and 
litigators 
over the next several years 
to get the government to 
take 
that 
seriously 
and 
eventually by the late ‘60s, 
early ‘70s the EOC and the 
Supreme Court and the 
lower federal courts began 
to take sex discrimination 
really seriously and you see 
all sorts of major changes 
in 
sex 
discrimination 
litigation.”
After giving this brief 
history, Bagenstos opened 

the room up to questions 
regarding Tuesday’s cases. 
One 
audience 
member 
asked about the impact the 
outcomes of Tuesday’s case 
will have on the LGBTQ+ 
community. 
“What’s at stake here is 
something that is dramatic 
in terms of its effect on 
individuals 
in 
terms 
of 
saying, look, you have to not 
have the sexual orientation 
you have or you have to not 
have the gender identity 
you have if you want to 
keep your job,” Bagenstos 
said. “There’s a lot at stake 
in these court cases.” 
Public Policy graduate 
student 
Kate 
Bell, 
an 
organizer 
of 
the 
event, 
spoke to The Daily about 
the relevance of this policy 
talk in light of the pending 
LGBTQ+ cases.

“As 
mentioned, 
Michigan is one of the 
states that currently does 
not offer protections in 
the workplace for LGBT 
individuals and so this is 
something that will directly 
affect our members who 
choose to remain in this 
state,” Bell stated. 
Another 
Public 
Policy 
graduate student, Monika 
Anderson, 
commented 
on 
how 
this 
policy 
talk 
broadened 
her 
understanding 
of 
the 
Supreme Court’s role in 
decisions on certain issues. 
“The politics of political 
appointees to the court can 
really shape what direction 
we 
take 
issues 
in 
this 
country,” Anderson said. 
“Despite what the general 
public of the country may 
think, or polling numbers 

may show, there’s a lot 
of 
power 
that 
Supreme 
Court holds, that might not 
necessarily always match 
what the country is.”
Kate 
Bell 
emphasized 
why this talk and other 
policy 
talks 
organized 
by Out in Public are so 
essential to students here 
at the University. 
“Especially at the Ford 
School, 
unless 
you’re 
specifically taking a class 
on labor, labor policy, you’re 
unlikely to hear things like 
this,” Bell said. “One of the 
main goals for Out in Public 
specifically was to have a 
space for queer identifying 
folks within our program to 
come and talk about things, 
but also a place to discuss 
policies that will directly 
impact our lives.” 

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Tuesday, October 8, 2019 — 3

DEI
From Page 1

FOLEY
From Page 1

CITY COUNCIL
From Page 1

POLICY
From Page 1

The PUD should 
provide public 
beenfit, and I 
frankly don’t see a 
lot of it.

