The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Tuesday, October 22, 2019 — 3
The lawsuit Doe v. University
of Michigan was first filed
in
June
2018
by
a
male
undergraduate student, referred
to in the lawsuit as “John Doe.”
It arises from a complaint filed
by a female student against Doe
in the University’s Office of
Institutional Equity, claiming
Doe sexually assaulted her.
At the time, the University’s
sexual
misconduct
policy
operated
under
the
single-
investigator
model,
which
involved
one
investigator
who had conversations with
the accuser, the accused and
witnesses, without opportunity
for parties to confront one
another.
Doe
claims
this
procedure
violated
his
due
process rights and amounted to
gender discrimination against
male students accused of sexual
assault.
In the lawsuit, Doe denied the
female student’s allegations and
said he was not made aware of
them when he was interviewed
by the OIE investigator, leaving
him unable to fully respond to
the accusations against him.
In addition, the University put
Doe’s official transcript and
degree on hold following the
complaint, which the lawsuit
argued
put
Doe’s
academic
and professional future at risk
without full investigation. Doe’s
transcript was released soon
after the lawsuit was filed.
Three months later, the U.S.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
struck down the University’s
single-investigator model in Doe
v. Baum, a separate lawsuit filed
by Gordon against the University.
The
ruling
required
the
University’s sexual misconduct
policy to grant students accused
of sexual misconduct the option
of a live hearing and cross-
examination.
The
University
tried
to
appeal
the
ruling,
arguing
cross-examination discourages
those who have been sexually
assaulted from reporting and
disadvantages
lower
income
students who cannot afford legal
counsel. The Sixth Circuit Court
declined to re-hear the appeal,
forcing the University to release
a new interim sexual assault
policy in December 2018 that
included cross-examination and
a live hearing.
In
June,
a
week
before
University
President
Mark
Schlissel
was
prepared
to
appear in U.S. District Court
for a private, off-the-record
settlement
conference,
the
University filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, contending
the due process argument was
no longer relevant because of
changes in the new policy.
U.S. District Judge Arthur
Tarnow opened the conference
to the public and to the media
two days before it was scheduled
to occur. Sixteen hours before the
planned conference, the Sixth
Circuit Court granted a request
by the University to postpone
the meeting, a move criticized
by Tarnow. In August, the Sixth
Circuit Court ruled that Schlissel
did not have to appear in court
for the settlement conference,
determining
Tarnow
had
overstepped his discretion by
requiring so.
The University maintains the
ongoing lawsuit is irrelevant
now that the sexual misconduct
policy requires a live hearing
and
cross-examination
and
already meets the ruling of
Doe v. Baum. However, Gordon
explained she is still pursuing
the lawsuit because she wants to
obtain relief for her client, which
includes clearing his permanent
record.
Ultimately, she said she wants
the District Court to issue an
order requiring the University
to have a live hearing and cross-
examination to further ensure
the University will maintain
these due process procedures.
Gordon explained the ruling in
Doe v. Baum is a court opinion,
which only allows the University
to be sued. If there were a court
order and the University changed
its policy, it would be in contempt
of court, which imposes further
punishment.
“It’s like a University rule
you could think of it … Unless
there’s somebody that sends
you disciplinary action, the rule
doesn’t really mean as much,”
Gordon said. “You just know
you’re not supposed to violate it,
until you get a directive saying if
you do violate it you’re out.”
Gordon said she believes the
University should address sexual
misconduct by providing the
option of a live hearing and cross-
examination as it does all other
cases of student misconduct.
She disparaged the Start by
Believing campaign, a program
the
University’s
Division
of
Public Safety and Security has
signed
onto,
that
nationally
works to change the way sexual
misconduct is responded to.
“They
think
student-to-
student sexual misconduct is not
like other misconduct. Why is
that, I don’t know,” Gordon said.
“I guess it’s because they want to
be politically correct, they like
the ‘Start by Believing campaign,’
which is the antithesis of due
process … But our whole system
of justice is based upon the
concept
(of)
innocent
until
proven guilty.”
In November 2018, Secretary
of
Education
Betsy
DeVos
proposed
new
regulations
for Title IX — the federal law
preventing sex discrimation in
federally-funded
universities
often raised in discussions about
sexual assault — that would
allow for cross-examination of
victims. Some have lauded the
move as a necessary to ensuring
due process rights of the accused.
However, students at the
University
and
activists
against sexual assault across
the nation have criticized the
use of cross-examination in
cases of sexual misconduct,
arguing
it
re-traumatizes
victims and thus discourages
reporting. In addition, some
scholars suggest the practice is
actually counterproductive to
truth-finding as it encourages
manipulation and intimidation.
Lawyers
and
Title
IX
professionals also worry cross-
examination will push colleges
to facilitate courtroom-esque
hearings they may not have the
capacity to take on.
LSA
sophomore
Emma
Sandberg
is
the
founding
member and executive director
of the non-profit Roe v. Rape,
which works to help survivors
of sexual violence heal through
activism and prevent sexual
misconduct through education.
She explained she believes cases
of sexual assault should be
handled differently from other
cases of misconduct because the
former can often be very personal
and is especially traumatizing.
Sandberg also noted only
5 percent of campus sexual
assaults are reported to the
University and only 2 percent
of sexual assault accusations
nationally are false. However,
Sandberg said she knows several
students who didn’t report or
who dropped their case because
of
the
cross-examination
requirement.
“The
amount
of
students
who would be falsely accused
at the University is just so low
compared to the amount of
survivors who are prevented
from both getting justice and
ensuring
they
feel
safe
at
school,” Sandberg said. “When
a perpetrator is off the hook, it
puts all the rest of the students in
danger.”
When asked about concerns
surrounding cross-examination,
Gordon pointed to resolution
of
sexual
assault
cases
in
the criminal justice system.
According to Gordon, students
who protest cross-examination
by bringing up the trauma it can
cause are “extremely immature,”
“short-sighted,” and “focused
only on themselves.”
“Rape victims that don’t go to
the University of Michigan don’t
have these special protections,
and still the system somehow
works, more or less,” Gordon
said. “There’s nothing unique
about being a college student
that should give you more
protection than anybody else …
I realize they’re college students,
and so maybe they’re just not
thinking of the bigger picture,
but lawyers are. To me, it just
seems
really
straightforward
situation. Whatever pain you feel
and trauma is unfortunate, but
it doesn’t trump throwing aside
our justice system.”
The University has received
criticism for implementing cross-
examination in its sexual assault
policy. However, in a previous
Daily article, LSA junior Sidney
Aloisi, co-coordinator at the
Sexual Assault and Prevention
Awareness Center, noted some
may not realize the University
did not voluntarily require a live
hearing and cross-examination.
“I think that a lot of people
have the misconception that
it
was
Michigan’s
decision
completely and that’s what we
wanted, but that is a myth I am
happy to debunk,” Aloisi told
The Daily in October. “It wasn’t
our decision … We didn’t really
have a say in the hearing, and
it’s something that we’ve tried
and tried again to get the Sixth
Circuit Court to reconsider, but
repeatedly they will not.”
Many remain unsatisfied with
this explanation. Though the
Doe v. Baum decision requires
cross-examination
in
sexual
misconduct
cases,
it
allows
the option for representatives
to do the questioning, yet the
University’s policy requires the
accuser and accused to cross-
examine one another.
In January, Sandberg created
a petition — which has over
78,000 signatures at the date
of publication — calling for
the University to allow cross-
examination by a third-party
adviser instead. Last month, the
American Civil Liberties Union,
at Sandberg’s request, released
a public letter calling for the
University to change its policy.
In response to these concerns,
University spokeswoman Kim
Broekhuizen
previously
told
The Daily the University does
not allow for a third-party
representative to conduct cross-
examinations for equity reasons.
“Questioning
by
personal
advisors — often attorneys —
is not allowed at U-M out of
concern that not all students
would be able to afford counsel,”
Broekhuizen said.
However, both Sandberg and
Gordon agreed the University
should pay for legal counsel if a
student, either the accused or the
accuser, would like a lawyer but
cannot afford it. Gordon noted
she would be willing to represent
these cases pro-bono for both
sides and conjectured many
other lawyers would feel the
same. She accused the University
of intentionally preventing third-
party representatives to provide
justification for fighting the
Sixth Circuit ruling.
“I personally think they’re
doing that on purpose to make
this more traumatizing so they
can they were right all along,”
Gordon said.
Sandberg
conjectured
the
University refuses to change its
policy to discourage reporting.
“The conclusion I have reached
is that they chose this cross-
examination model because they
want fewer students reporting,”
Sandberg said. “They want less
perpetrators suing them, and
it’s about money. I find this very
concerning, that administrators
seem to be valuing the school’s
money
over
the
emotional
wellbeing of survivors.”
In messages to the University
community,
Schlissel
has
emphasized
the
University’s
hopes
to
increase
rates
of
reporting. In support of this
claim, the administration has
pointed to the implementation of
the adaptable resolution pathway
to handle sexual misconduct
cases without a live hearing or
cross-examination.
The
University
recently
released two reports on trends
of sexual misconduct on campus.
The Campus Climate Survey
found a decrease in sexual
assault rates overall since 2015
and an increase of trust in
the University’s investigation
process, and the DPSS report
showed the number of on-campus
sexual
assault
reports
have
dramatically increased.
In an email to University
students, faculty and staff last
week, Schlissel announced a new
draft umbrella policy for sexual
and gender-based misconduct.
According
to
Schlissel,
the
umbrella policy aims to clarify
the
University’s
policies
to
ensure
consistency
between
them for all University groups.
Before the umbrella policy
is implemented in early 2020,
Schlissel asked members of the
University community in an
email to submit survey feedback
through Nov. 22. He said the
University continues to work on
its goal of ensuring a safe and
respectful community for all.
“The
number
of
sexual
assaults and misconduct cases
continues to be too high at U-M,
on college campuses across the
country, and throughout our
society in general,” Schlissel
wrote. “We must do everything
we can as we strive to reduce the
number to zero.”
CASE
From Page 1
“You kind of just want to go with
the flow to get things over with,”
Ramesh said. “So, when these
problematic things happen, you just
kind of have to sweep them under
the rug. And unless your professor
makes it intentional that they’re
open to talk about things like that,
you’re not going to trust them with
that information.”
In one instance, Heard, head of
the Communications Committee
for the DEI Task Force in the
Business School, said she was the
only Black woman in a class of 60
or 70 people. She said one day, the
professor told students to promote
themselves in an elevator pitch, and
then after, had students go around
and select groups. Heard described
the immense discomfort she felt
from this exercise after having to
convince people why she deserved
to be in their group, especially
because she was the only Black
person in the room.
“I literally felt like a slave in that
instance, because I felt like I was
begging people to buy me. I feel like
the professor didn’t realize that’s
how that experience would impact
me, because there were plenty of
groups that looked at me and were
like, ‘we don’t want you, we just
don’t want you’ for 30 minutes.”
According
to
Heard,
her
experience shows the significance
of the activities and general
teaching
approaches
used
by
professors.
“I remember, I went home and
I cried and I wanted to drop the
class,” Heard said. “I didn’t end up
dropping the class, because I had
to remember who I was, but there’s
been a lot of times where I feel like
teachers don’t realize that or don’t
take into consideration that how
you teach or the examples you give
in class or anything that makes up
the class experience can impact
someone with a different identity.”
Ramesh, who is an international
student herself, took issue with the
case studies her professors used
and had students work on in class.
Often times, these studies were
US-centric, focusing on American
brands and companies, which
made it difficult for international
students to relate. Another issue
was with students and professors
having trouble pronouncing certain
students’ names in class, according
to Ramesh.
Working towards a Race and
Ethnicity class requirement in
the Business School
Unlike the University’s College
of Literature, Sciences and the Arts,
the Business School does not have a
race and ethnicity requirement for
students. In LSA, all students must
take a minimum of one course of at
least three credits which discusses
the meaning and effects of race,
ethnicity and racism in the U.S.
or across the globe in some form.
Classes also promote discussion on
social class, gender and/or religion.
According to Taryn Petryk,
director of diversity and inclusion
for the Business School, the school
is working to have this requirement
in the future. They also want to
ensure that, if and when the course
does come, students truly feel as
though it will be beneficial to them,
rather than just being an add-on
class.
Business
sophomore
Matt
Person
believes
the
Business
School has provided students with
sufficient exposure to different
backgrounds and identities thus
far, despite not having a race and
ethnicity requirement.
“At least from my perspective, I
think we’re doing a lot of that within
Ross without having a specific three
credit course solely dedicated to it,”
Person said. “So, I feel as if I have
been getting exposure.”
“I had a ... general lack of
understanding of how much
Michigan cared about DEI”
According
to
Heard,
many
students and faculty alike feel
there has been a communication
gap between the Business School
administration and the rest of
the community. While the small
percentage of people working
directly
with
administration
recognize the DEI work it has
been putting in over the past
several years, Heard said those not
involved with the administration
are unaware of these efforts.
“I think that before I was part
of taskforce, I had a very bleak
and probably just general lack
of understanding of how much
Michigan cared about DEI, but in
having these conversations through
taskforce and just being on the
administration level and talking to
them about it, they really actually
genuinely care, and that was very
surprising for me,” Heard said. “But
I feel like they’re struggling with
connecting to students as well as
communicating with students.”
As a Black woman, Heard said if
she had understood the DEI-related
actions the administration took as
an underclassmen, she would have
had an overall better experience.
This year, the Business School
has
focused
largely
on
the
development of the school’s culture
and betterment of DEI efforts,
according to Petryk. She said
Business Dean Scott DeRue’s 2019
Dean’s Report highlighted these
efforts.
“(The
report)
really
talked
about diversity and inclusion at the
center of our values,” Petryk said.
“I do think that there’s probably
been some messaging gaps or
communication gaps around what
our values are and what we aspire
to be, and that’s changing this year.
We’re really focusing on the culture
that we want to create and the
values that we hold that really do
stem from our deans.”
While the administration may
be putting in effort to promote
diversity
this
year,
Ramesh
described how its current methods
are not effective in connecting with
the student body.
“It’s like what would be the
best medium to communicate
(administration’s efforts) through,
because no one is going to read
the emails. They put together a
dean’s report, but no one is going
to read (the) report,” Ramesh
said. “So, I think there’s no good
medium, there’s no good way to
communicate it in terms of what to
say … I think that’s what we need to
focus on.”
According
to
Heard,
students should be apart of the
administration’s messaging efforts.
“I think (the) administration is
just now realizing that, ‘Hey, we’re
discussing
amongst
ourselves
about how to communicate to the
students; let’s involve students
in a conversation to figure out
how we should communicate to
the students,’” Heard said. “I feel
like once they get more students
involved with that, things are going
to just start rolling.”
“I am an IDO peer facilitator,
and, even within that, I would
say that that’s not enough”
Currently,
the
Business
School provides students with
mandatory Identity and Diversity
in Organizations workshops, which
“prepare students to interact with
people from different backgrounds
who have had different experiences
from their own.” Workshops occur
once a year and are 90 minutes long.
According to Petryk, they are run by
about 25 peer facilitators, who are
Business upperclassmen trained in
diversity and inclusion facilitation.
Though she sees the workshops
as a value to students at the Business
School, as a peer facilitator, Ramesh
said they are not sufficient enough
to fully educate students on the
necessity of cultural sensitivity.
“I am an IDO peer facilitator,
and, even within that, I would say
that that’s not enough, because I
engage with these students in a
one and a half hour workshop,”
Ramesh said. “There’s not enough
time to build that relationship, build
that trust, have those important
conversations. We need a race and
ethnicity requirement.”
The IDO workshops are solely
offered to sophomores, juniors
and seniors in the Business school,
though
certain
students
have
explained the beginning years in
the Business School are crucial for
the students’ development.
“I feel like once you’re a junior
and senior, you’re kind of set or
don’t care anymore,” Heard said. “If
we refocused a lot of this work for
freshman year, the culture would
completely shift.”
According
to
marketing
professor Carolyn Yoon, faculty
director of diversity and inclusion,
professors are moving beyond
the IDO workshops this year by
integrating curriculum regarding
identity and diversity. For example,
in Business Administration 100
and 200 courses, professors are
incorporating
workshops
to
educate students on how their
identities affect their opportunities
in business.
Both faculty and students are
aware of pushback from Business
students who do not see the value in
taking the IDO workshops, Petryk
said.
“We are also working with
some resistance which is with
students especially within the BBA
population around, ‘Why do I need
to do this? Why is it important?
How is this going to help me in
my career?’” Petryk said. “So, we
are working in multiple different
ways to make that connection
for folks who don’t necessarily
see themselves in the problem of
diversity and inclusion.”
According
to
Ramesh,
the
polarizing
views
of
Business
students regarding these IDO
workshops have stemmed from
their
different
socioeconomic
backgrounds. On the one hand,
Ramesh said white students from
privileged backgrounds might feel
uneasy having these discussions.
“I think it’s that students who
come from very white, upper class
communities are not comfortable
talking about these things, don’t
want to say the wrong thing, don’t
know how to be in that environment
because they’ve never really been in
an uncomfortable space like that,”
Ramesh said.
Ramesh
said
that
on
the
flip side, minority students are
tired of having to have the same
conversations regarding diversity.
“They’re one of two of their
identity in the entire class, and they
have to sit in this workshop where
they’re the only ones speaking
for their whole community again,
having to learn this information
that they already know, having to
teach their peers,” Ramesh said.
“So, I think on both sides it’s very
uncomfortable.”
The presence of wealth is
especially noticeable in the Business
School, even outside of the IDO
workshops, according to Ramesh.
While many people are financially
comfortable, others without the
same financial capabilities can be at
a disadvantage in regards to certain
elements of the school’s culture.
“I think SES is very noticeable
in the way people dress and the
way people show up,” Ramesh said.
“Even I think just small things, like
we do a lot of team projects and
they encourage team bonding, and
people tend to want to eat out, etc.
and that’s not always accessible to
a lot of people. Even recruiting, I
know someone was talking about
having to fly out for an interview,
and you have to pay for your flight
and they’ll reimburse you, but if you
don’t have that money in the first
place, it’s an obstacle.”
“The burden is always falling
on the same people to do the
work”
The taskforce, BBA Council
and certain faculty members have
worked to further improve the
culture of Ross by trying to make
it a more inclusive environment
for international students and
minorities as a whole.
Business senior and BBA Council
President Liza Hochberg said the
DEI taskforce has worked with
faculty to expand the conversation
on case studies to include a more
diverse range of topics. Business
senior Robbert Massie, BBA Council
vice president of leadership and
ethics, said in one of his courses, his
professor now encourages student
feedback on the cases he chooses
and asks whether students feel they
are inclusive for everyone.
The taskforce also encouraged
the introduction of name tags with
phonetic pronunciations, which
the Business School implemented
schoolwide this semester.
People like Petryk and Yoon
have led initiatives with the
faculty to raise awareness around
unconscious biases and how to
promote more of an inclusive
classroom
environment.
For
instance,
they
run
several
workshops per year for faculty
within
the
Business
School.
Within the past two years, faculty
evaluations also explicitly ask
professors questions about what
they are doing in terms of inclusive
teaching practices and promoting
DEI.
“That signals and lets the faculty
know that this is an important part
of their professional development
and it matters,” Yoon said. “And
the vast majority of faculty really
care and they do show up to
these workshops, and many have
thought very carefully about how
to incorporate that into their own
teaching or pedagogy.”
Ramesh said though great work
is being done, more people need to
be involved in efforts to better DEI
at the Business School. Plus, those
who are currently involved should
get the recognition they deserve.
“The burden is always falling on
the same people to do the work, and
there is so much work to do that it
cannot just be them anymore, and it
cannot be them doing this work and
then upper administration getting
credit,” Ramesh said. “I mean, if
our diversity numbers go up, or
students of color are landing these
amazing job offers and things like
that, it doesn’t fall on the programs
that put them through this. It’s not
often that those programs and the
amazing people that lead them will
get credit.”
DEI
From Page 1