The University aims to reduce
scope one and scope two carbon
emissions to 25 percent below 2006
levels by 2025.
According to the report, the
Commission is entering the second
phase of its work, which will center
around compiling the findings of
the internal and external teams and
presenting recommendations to
the commission for decarbonizing
the campus. This phase will
continue into the spring of 2020,
with the third and final phase
focusing on the delivery of the
report to president Schlissel by fall
of 2020.
While the report provides ample
evidence of the Commission’s
progress towards achieving carbon
neutrality, activists on campus
remain critical of the Commission.
Rackham student Sasha Bishop,
an
Ecology
and
Evolutionary
Biology student and an organizer
for Climate Action Movement,
criticized the Commission for not
acting urgently, and for a lack of
transparency with the general
public.
“The Commission is simply not
acting with the urgency that this
issue warrants,” Bishop said. “One
of the major complaints coming out
is that there’s really no path right
now for implementing community
or student input. They’re at this
point not responding to any
community requests to meet. They
make claims of having a student
advisory panel in the report, but
there’s no indication that they’ve
met with the student advisory panel
for the last 8 months (10 months)
since its formation… there’s no
indication of integration or follow
up of the recommendations in
those public forums.”
Zaynab
Elkolaly,
a
student
at
Washtenaw
Technical
Middle College and cofounder
of Washtenaw Climate Strike,
took issue with the University’s
investments in fossil fuels and
what she characterized as a lack
of a response to the community’s
input.
“The work that the commission
has done so far is a step in the
right direction, but it is not
enough,” Elkolaly said. “With the
president claiming to spearhead
this initiative, the situation looks
rather laughable because of the
fact that the university has yet to
divest from fossil fuels… I’m glad
that there’s dialogue, but that’s
all it is: dialogue. What I’m seeing
here is community outreach and
administrative strategy, not the
radical change that we need to be
seeing from the commission in
order to truly align with the goal of
fighting change.”
Weinstein said these stories
are crucial for those who are
still discovering their identities
because they can read these
articles and see they are not
alone.
Beyer went to a high school
with
very
few
openly
gay
students. He explained that if he
wanted talk about queer issues, it
was always a test to see how far
he could go before his teachers
said they didn’t understand his
comments or before they became
uncomfortable.
Writing about his personal
experience in The Michigan
Gayly was empowering for him
because he was able to speak
about the LGBTQ+ community
in a way he had never been able
to before.
“When I first sat down to
write, I was like, ‘Oh my god,’”
Beyer said. “It was kind of crazy
just staring at it. I could just
actually say what I felt. It was a
little overwhelming to have that
unrestricted opportunity, but it
was really fun.”
Rackham
student
Daniel
Salas-Escabillas, opinion editor
of the newspaper, wrote an
article about his experience
being an ethnic minority as a
Pacific Islander, while also being
in the LGBTQ+ community. He
said he intended the story to
serve as a resource for others
who may have a similar story but
feel alone.
“It’s
very
motivating
for
somebody to read (my article) and
be like, ‘Oh, yeah, I see myself in
that,’” Salas-Escabillas said. “If
they want to contact me, that’s
okay. If not, that’s also okay. Just
knowing that somebody else has
gone through what you’ve gone
through and hopefully giving
you some motivation to go out
there and do you, basically.”
Weinstein said these articles
are
crucial
in
spreading
awareness among LGBTQ+ allies
as well.
“I think that if you’re trying
to be the best straight ally you
could be or best cisgender ally
you could be, knowing those
things and understanding how
your words affect people in
marginalized
communities
is
really
important,”
Weinstein
said. “So if we can educate people
about that, then maybe we’ll just
be able to have an impact on how
people speak and maybe just
thinking more carefully before
they talk about LGBT issues in
front of people.”
For
people
who
do
not
personally
know
any
queer
or trans people, the LGBTQ+
community can seem vague
or
abstract,
Weinstein
said.
TMD: One University as
well as the Climate Action
Coalition released a joint
statement calling for carbon
neutrality
and
financial
equity across the University’s
three campuses. How do you
hope they respond to this
progress report?
MS: Well I have both
respect
and
empathy
for
the
Climate
Coalition.
We’re pulling in the same
direction. I think if there are
disagreements,
it’s
simply
how fast we can go and what
we’re willing to say that we
don’t yet know how to do.
So one of the main requests
is to make a commitment
to be carbon neutral by a
certain day. And as Jennifer
just described, we’re still
defining what carbon neutral
means, what do we include.
We just decided to include
the
Flint
and
Dearborn
campuses,
which
hadn’t
been the case before. We’ve
decided to consider scope
three emissions. In other
words, things people use and
commuting because of work
that the university doesn’t
own those sources.
TMD:
Recently
the
Semester in Detroit program
released
a
statement
criticizing the University’s
participation in the Detroit
Innovation
Center.
They
compared
involvement
to
colonialism and even accused
the University’s investment
of indirectly supporting Dan
Gilbert in tax evasion. How
is
this
partnership
with
Gilbert not an instance of
private
interests
utilizing
the University at the expense
of
the
general
public?
More broadly, how will the
University
recognize
the
concerns of local residents
when
implementing
the
center?
MS: To be honest, I was
really surprised and a little
bit
disappointed
because
Semester in Detroit is one of
many spectacular things we
do in the city that I’m very
proud of. The leadership that
spoke out were expressing
their own beliefs. They don’t
speak for the University —
they speak for themselves,
which is absolutely fine. The
Detroit Center for Innovation
is
the
most
recent
and
significant scale thing we’re
doing in Detroit, but there
are hundreds of things we’re
doing in Detroit.
So we’re functioning at
many
different
levels
in
the city doing research and
teaching,
which
is
what
we do, but with the goal of
helping the future prospects
of the city of Detroit. The
Center for Innovation is just
the latest in this series of
projects. It was brought to us
as a proposal by the mayor’s
office and one of our alums
and donors Steve Ross and
then joined by Dan Gilbert
saying ‘Would the University
be willing to anchor a Center
for Innovation in Detroit
if they build it?’ So the
first thing to clear up, as
I mentioned earlier, is the
University is not building
the buildings. They’re being
built
by
developers
and
donors and will be gifted to
the University. I recognize
that Dan Gilbert has gotten
adverse publicity around this
issue of opportunity zones.
The zone we’re building in has
long been identified as a zone
that needs development and
qualifies as an opportunity
zone. It wasn’t the one that
got caught up in lobbying
that was referenced in these
articles about Dan Gilbert
recently — and we’re not
providing resources to him.
What we would do is provide
the teaching and research
workforce to help provide
advanced-level
education
that would provide a pipeline
of employees for businesses
in
the
city,
particularly
businesses
infused
with
technology, something we’re
very good at.
One
thing
we’re
involved
in
now
is
working
collaboratively
with
community
groups,
particularly
in
the
neighborhoods near this site,
explaining what we envision,
hearing their thoughts and
ideas, discussing ways the
community
may
become
involved in some of this
project, whether the facilities
we
build
can
be
made
available to the community
for all kinds of purposes and
to do it collaboratively. So
I’m not quite sure where the
criticism came from, to be
honest.
TMD: Given the recent
student protests in response
to your comment about peer-
to-peer cross examination,
some
have
said
the
University’s policy is skewed
towards
individuals
from
higher socioeconomic status
backgrounds because those
individuals would be able
to hire lawyers. Would you
agree? Why or why not?
MS: This is definitely a
challenging area. And I’m not
sure we’re getting it right.
I’m sure we’re trying to get
it right, but as directed by
some court decisions, we do
have to provide the ability of
a person who’s been accused
of misconduct to be able to
question their accuser in
some kind of hearing that’s
been mandated by a court.
So we follow the law. Then
the challenge is: How do you
set up a hearing that is as
respectful to this individuals
involved, sensitive to the
risks of retraumatizing a
complainant, but yet satisfies
what the court is demanding
we do? So one way to do it
would be to allow advocates
for
students
to
do
the
questioning. Another way to
do it is to have the students
themselves do it.
The
reason
that
we’ve
decided on an interim basis
to
try
having
students
themselves do it is because
we thought that might be less
traumatizing
than
having
an
advocate,
because
an
advocate in some instances
is likely to be a lawyer, and
lawyers are really, really
good at being really, really
tough on witnesses. And one
of the reasons many people
don’t take these complaints
to the police is they don’t
want to be up on a witness
stand and have a lawyer
representing a respondent go
through their sexual history
in a public session. That’s a
very difficult thing.
The way we’ve set this up,
the questioning is occurring
in real time, but from a
remote location. And there’s a
hearing officer that’s a retired
judge who understands how
to manage questioning and
the testimony. And we’ve
been doing this for almost a
year.
Our policies on all student
disciplinary
proceedings
allow you to have an advocate
with you. And often that
advocate is mom and dad,
or a friend or a sibling or
grandma. But you can bring
a lawyer. And what we’re
concerned about is that if
one person has a lawyer and
the other person has a family
member or friend, that may
not be a fair circumstance.
So if we do go to a situation
where advocates are allowed
to question individuals, we
would think very seriously
about
having
to
provide
lawyers
for
everybody.
But we’d have to hire a lot
of lawyers and now we’re
becoming a court taking on
all those expenses.
TMD: The University has
been encouraging students
to go out and vote through
initiatives
like
the
Big
Ten Voting Challenge and
Turn Up Turnout. U of M’s
student
voter
turnout
in
the 2018 midterm elections
tripled compared to the 2014
election. 2020’s election is a
big one, especially with one
of the presidential debates
being
held
on
campus.
What
accommodations
is
the University planning on
making for student voters
and will classes be cancelled
on election day to promote
everyone to vote?
MS: So we don’t cancel
classes, we have to add a day
some other time. And we have
considered this with several
of the recent elections such
as most recently, we worked
with one of the previous
CSG
administrations
to
look at this. And we need
a certain number of class
days. So although the idea of
cancelling class, making it
easier to vote, is a reasonable
idea, what we would have
done to do that is taken away
one of the days of the four-
day weekend, the Fall Break
weekend.
And
it
turned
out,
overwhelmingly,
that
students did not want to lose
a day of fun. And we need the
same number of each day of
the week. So, for instance,
if we give up a Tuesday, we
need a Tuesday. So it would
have been quite perfect to
give up one day of the four-
day weekend and, maybe not
surprisingly, people weren’t
interested enough to give up
a day of vacation to have a day
to vote.
When you’re in the real
world and you have a job, or
you’re a graduate or a medical
student or something, you’re
not going to get a day off
to the year, you will get a
flexible schedule during that
day. But the polls are open at
seven in the morning until
seven or eight at eight in the
evening. And during those
hours, it’s part of your civic
responsibility to vote. I don’t
know anybody that’s in class
from seven in the morning
to the evening. It is a pain,
you’re busy. You’re not busier
than me and I go to vote. You
may be as busy as me. I don’t
want to be insulting, but…
you make the time to vote. So
I don’t think that’s really an
excuse for not voting.
We’ve been putting some
valid call pressure but we’ve
been lobbying the state, the
Secretary of State to figure
out how to get more voting
booths, more voting units
in the Union, which will be
open again, thank goodness,
and at the other polling place
on campus, so that the lines
move more quickly.
TMD: Additionally, would
you consider automatically
registering students to vote
when they register as a
student at the University?
Why or why not?
MS: So that’s a really
interesting idea. I’d have
to think and talk to others
about
that.
Automatically
registering
someone
to
vote a condition of being a
student at a public university.
That might be a little heavy
handed. And one of the cool
things about our democracy
is you get to choose whether
to participate. There isn’t
a law that says you must
vote. There is a you know,
constitution that says you
have the privilege of voting.
And turning that into a
requirement by linking it to
your ability to get educated
just feels heavy handed to
me, I’d want to think about it
more. My goal alternatively is
to make it as easy as possible
for people to register and that
as easy as possible for people
to vote, but you still have to
take personal responsibility.
TMD: In 2017, after months
of
bargaining
sessions
and sit-ins, the Graduate
Employees’
Organization
and the University reached
a contract agreement that
agreed to GEO’s demands for
pay caps on mental health
services, the creation of DEI
Graduate Student Assistant
Positions
and
protections
for
international
graduate
students.
However,
this
contract
will
expire
this
coming May. Last Wednesday,
the GEO’s bargaining team
began contract negotiations
with
the
University
for
their
upcoming
contract
and hosted a rally on the
Diag
in
anticipation
of
this process. Some of their
demands include expanded
transgender
healthcare
coverage,
opening
more
gender
neutral
restrooms
and reducing pay inequality
between graduate students
on the University’s three
campuses. How does the
University plan to respond to
GEO’s demands?
MS: Unions are great. They
changed the United States,
they created the middle class,
they protected all kinds of
people through our nation’s
history
from
being
taken
advantage of. Without a doubt,
they’re a public good. What
unions do with employers is
they negotiate. So demands
aren’t negotiation — they say
’you must do this.’ The idea is
to spend time understanding
each others’ goals and figuring
out which ones are the most
important, since no one ever
gets everything they want in
a negotiation, and then you
sit down and work. And it’s
hard work. And they’ll meet
a couple of times a week for
many months trying to figure
out what’s a win-win. There
are some things GEO is going to
want that they just aren’t going
to get. There are other things
they want that are reasonable
and they will get them. There
are things the University wants
and won’t get and vice-versa. So
couching it as demands before
negotiations have even started
to me isn’t a healthy approach.
Our
graduate
“While
Professor
Emily
Lawsin is currently employed
by the university, our own
administrators have violated
her
lecturers’
contract
in
attempts to fire her,” UAAO
wrote
in
the
statement.
“Professor
Kurashige
was
forced out of his position as
director of A/PIA Studies and
has had his job applications
completely
disregarded,
despite
being
the
current
president of the American
Studies
Association.
The
University has not presented
valid reasons for these actions
against both professors.”
UAAO
added
they
will
continue
to
fight
against
discrimination
at
the
University
and
they
wholeheartedly
support
Lawsin and Kurashige.
“For
as
long
as
the
university’s
administration
routinely engages in secret
and illegal acts to undermine
civil
rights
and
Title
IX
investigations,
UAAO
will
continue to fight to change
this
system,”
UAAO
said.
“We cannot and will not work
for the best interests of the
university if the university
will not work for the best
interests of us.”
In
an
interview
earlier
today,
University
President
Mark
Schlissel
told
The
Daily the University is taking
this case to trial instead
of settling, as it does for
many discrimination claims,
because they don’t feel they
have done anything wrong.
“The University, when it
does something wrong, we
take
pride
in
recognizing
and rectifying it,” Schlissel
said. “We settle many, many
lawsuits when we think that
the claimant has a reasonable
claim and we should’ve done
things differently or better.
In this instance, the case
that’s going to trial, we don’t
think
that’s
the
case.
So
we’ll litigate to protect the
University against claims that
we just don’t think are fair or
correct.”
Schlissel said he did not
feel comfortable commenting
on the particulars of the case,
but he said the University will
follow to whatever the court
ends up deciding.
“I could sit here and go
through
the
particulars
because I’ve been briefed on
things that reach this level,
but I’d rather not because
I’m
afraid
of
getting
it
wrong,” Schlissel said. “I’m
not the lawyer representing
the University. But we only
litigate things where we think
the University is being treated
unfairly. And we’ll see the
outcome and we’ll certainly
follow what the court says.”
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Tuesday, December 3, 2019 — 3
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
TRIAL
From Page 1
SCHLISSEL
From Page 1
GAYLY
From Page 1
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
REPORT
From Page 1
As
an
alumni
of
the
University of Detroit Mercy,
Page said he believes the new
Innovation building will be the
catalyst for other universities
to create other initiatives in
Detroit.
“Wow,
look
at
what
Michigan
is
doing
here,”
Page said. “And the students
that Michigan attract come
from all over the world…
So I think it’s great,” he
added. “Michigan State has a
presence and I expect them to
try to have a bigger presence. I
wouldn’t be surprised if one of
the big private schools, maybe
from around the world, say
we want to have a presence in
Detroit now too. Detroit has
the land and things like that —
I wouldn’t be surprised if one
of the Ivy League schools do
something.”
Page also told The Daily he
believes more good will come
out of gentrification than bad.
“When I moved back here, I
mean, we didn’t have a tax base.
We didn’t have a functioning
city government. It was really
astonishing
and
incredible
to me that this investment
hadn’t
taken
place.
Now
you have a tax base, a rising
tax base, that allows things
like good bus service, better
police response, and getting
roads paved in Detroit,” Page
said. “All of those things are
positive. So I look upon: who’s
the beneficiaries of that? Is it
the gentrifiers or the people
that were there? If you look
at it, the gentrifiers can live
anywhere. It’s the people that
really benefit that might not
have the resources to leave.”
In an interview with The
Daily on Monday, Schlissel
clarified that the Center is
only one of many ways the
University is involved with
in Detroit. He also noted the
University is not involved
in the construction of the
center, but rather is providing
the education and research
workforce.
Schlissel told The Daily
the University is currently
working with groups in the
community to receive their
input and thoughts about the
project.
“One thing we’re involved in
now is working collaboratively
with
community
groups,
particularly
in
the
neighborhoods near this site,
explaining what we envision,
hearing their thoughts and
ideas, discussing ways the
community
may
become
involved
in
some
of
this
project, whether the facilities
we build can be made available
to the community for all
kinds of purposes and to do
it collaboratively,” Schlissel
said. “So I’m not quite sure
where
the
criticism
came
from, to be honest.”
DETROIT
From Page 1
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com