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