On March 8, 2010, professor
Edward P. St. John was removed
from his teaching position in the
School of Education. He had 24
hours to notify his students and
no means to appeal his removal.
St. John believed his removal
stemmed
from
disagreements
he had with the policy opinions
of his dean, Deborah Ball, in the
Provost’s Achievement Gap Task
Force, a University-wide advisory
panel on diversity in higher
education. He had two options
going forward: He could accept his
removal or challenge it in court.
On June 4, 2010, St. John sued
the University for denial of due
process, violation of whistleblower
laws
and breach of contract among other wrongdoings.
St. John told The Daily the University
began making verbal settlement offers to his
lawyer. Each potential settlement contained
a confidentiality clause, a non-disparagement
clause, a settlement of St. John’s lawsuit and a
proposed payment to his bank account.
This confidentiality or non-disclosure clause
would have permanently prevented St. John from
speaking of the terms of the settlement. The non-
disparagement clause would have further limited
St. John’s speech, permanently preventing him
from speaking poorly of the University or his
experiences there.
After rejecting two offers of increasing
monetary value, St. John was offered $500,000.
He alleges the University described this amount
as the most that could be paid without the Board
of Regents being notified.
This proposed settlement agreement is not
unique. An investigation by The Daily into
agreements reached between the University
and former employees from November 2018
to April 2019 uncovered 10 such agreements
across different schools and departments. These
settlements do not appear in public University
documents.
These agreements include “gross lump sum”
payments by the University totaling more
than $1,265,000. Of this sum, approximately
$1,016,000 was paid to former employees.
$149,000 was paid to law firms representing
these employees.
“Any settlement where you get money is
going to be money for silence,” St. John said in
an interview with The Daily. “(They) are buying
silence.”
University
spokesman
Rick
Fitzgerald
disputed St. John’s characterization of these
agreements as “buying silence.”
“If you sign an agreement and you still
think the University has done
something wrong and you
wanted to file a complaint …
with (the University’s Office
for Institutional Equity) or
the (federal) Department of
Education or the (State of
Michigan’s)
Department
of
Civil Rights, there is nothing in
that agreement that precludes
you from doing that,” Fitzgerald
said in an interview with The
Daily. “It says disparagement, it
doesn’t mean you can’t disagree
with University policy. People
do that every day around here.”
In an email to The Daily,
a former employee currently
in an agreement with the
University supported St. John’s
characterization
of
these
agreements.
This
employee
declined to be identified for fear
of legal damages; their agreement
is not part of the ten reported in this
article.
“Misconduct by my superiors caused me
to seek counsel, and eventually we arrived
at a separation agreement including a non-
disparagement clause,” the employee wrote.
“Coming out of an adversarial situation, such
language can only be seen as silencing. There is
no way I could recount my experience with my
former school, comment on its procedures, or
speculate on its motives without risking that the
University find it ‘disparaging.’”
From their first day as students
at the University of Michigan’s
College of Engineering, students
are introduced to the Engineering
Honor Code, a set of standards
in place to discourage academic
dishonesty.
The Engineering Honor Code
has been in place at the University
for more than 100 years. By
following the principles of the
Honor Code, the document says,
engineers at the University will
become successful.
“The standards for personal
integrity demanded by the Honor
Code are a reflection of the
standards of conduct expected of
engineers,” the Honor Code reads.
“These standards allow fairness
among students to ensure that no
unfair advantage is gained and an
equal learning opportunity is given
to all students.”
George
Sprague,
assistant
director of retention and academic
support services in the College of
Engineering, said the Engineering
Honor Code defines academic
dishonesty under four categories:
seeking
an
unfair
advantage,
copying
and
plagiarism,
inappropriate use of resources and
inappropriate collaboration.
One unique aspect of the
Honor Code allows examinations
in the College of Engineering to
be unproctored. Sprague said
students have told the College of
Engineering that this practice
makes them feel trusted by the
University.
“It
makes
(students)
feel
that they have more real world
experience, whereas they don’t feel
as though somebody is hovering
over a button in terms of how
that has been juxtaposed to other
units,” Sprague said. “They say it
hasn’t been that that’s a negative
experience elsewhere as much as
they enjoyed the positive aspects
that they have here.”
Engineering
sophomore
Madeline Horvitz said she has
noticed the difference in the
way exams are proctored in LSA
and Engineering. With these
differences, she said the Honor
Code grants students a level of
trust that she appreciates.
“All of my math and physics
exams were proctored, and for
engineering, the professors are
like, ‘All right, I’ll be sitting outside
of class if you guys have any
questions, but until then just go
ahead,’” Horvitz said.
LSA sophomore Victor Li is
double majoring in Cognitive
Science and Computer Science
through LSA. Though he is not
in the College of Engineering, Li
has taken classes at the College
to fulfill his Computer Science
requirements.
Horvitz and Li both said they
have not seen anybody cheat even
with no supervision during exams
because most people focus on
completing their own exam.
“If someone wants to cheat, it’s
probably easier for them to cheat
because no one’s looking at them
to see if their eyes are on other
people’s exams,” Li said.
GOT A NEWS TIP?
Call 734-418-4115 or e-mail
news@michigandaily.com and let us know.
INDEX
Vol. CXXIX, No. 43
©2019 The Michigan Daily
N E WS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
O PI N I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
CL A SSIFIEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
S U D O K U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A R T S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
S P O R T S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
michigandaily.com
For more stories and coverage, visit
After
doctors
at
Michigan
Medicine took 14-year-old Bobby
Reyes off life support on Oct.
15, Reyes’ mother Sarah Jones
is working to pass legislation
cementing the rights of parents in
similar situations.
Jones is currently working with
state Rep. Joseph Bellino, R-District
17, on a bill that could require
doctors to gain parental consent
before removing minors from life-
sustaining treatment. It would also
likely guarantee families the right
to find other facilities and request
a transfer, as well as to file a stay
in court. They bill, which they are
calling “Bobby’s Law”, is modeled
after similar legislation in Arizona,
known as “Simon’s Law.”
Reyes suffered an asthma attack
on Sept. 21 while driving with
his mother and went into cardiac
arrest before arriving at C.S. Mott
Children’s Hospital. After being
airlifted to the hospital, doctors
declared Reyes brain dead.
William Amadeo, the family’s
attorney,
filed
an
immediate
request for a 48-hour stay before
doctors could revoke life-sustaining
treatment. During this time the
family was working to find another
hospital willing to facilitate a
transfer of Reyes.
Washtenaw
County’s
22nd
Circuit Court initially ordered
Michigan Medicine to delay taking
Reyes off life support. Weeks later,
Trial Court Judge David Swartz
ultimately
allowed
doctors
to
conduct a second test confirming
their status and to remove life
support, citing a lack of jurisdiction
over the case.
Michigan
Medicine
Spokesperson
Mary
Masson
explained the decision to remove
Reyes from life support.
“Our
health
care
team
at
Michigan Medicine continues to
extend our deepest condolences to
the family of Bobby Reyes in this
heartbreaking situation,” Masson
told The Daily in an email. “By
law in Michigan, an individual
is dead who has sustained either
irreversible cessation of circulatory
and
respiratory
functions
or
irreversible cessation of all function
of the entire brain, including the
brain stem. Continuing medical
interventions is inappropriate in
these cases from both a clinical and
ethical standpoint.”
Grant Meade manages policy
development for Bellino and said
the firm does not expect the bill to
face much opposition if it reaches
the floor. He also explained how
the law currently stands and why
Reyes’ parents were not able to
prevent him from being taken off
life support.
Mother works on
‘Bobby’s Law’
after son’s death
GOVERNMENT
Legislation would solidify parents’ rights
in situations with life-sustaining treatment
Follow The Daily
on Instagram,
@michigandaily
BARBARA COLLINS
Daily Staff Reporter
ILLUSTRATION BY JACK SILBERMAN
See HONOR, Page 2
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
SAMMY SUSSMAN,
ZAYNA SYED &
SAMANTHA SMALL
Daily Staff Reporters
EMMA RUBERG
Daily Staff Reporter
U-M students, faculty reflect on
century-old engineering honor code
Community members recommend updates to system for violation investigations
See SILENCE, Page 3
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
michigandaily.com
Ann Arbor, Michigan
ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-NINE YEARS OF EDITORIAL FREEDOM
U-M spent $1.26 million over six months in confidential
agreements with employees attempting to speak out
ILLUSTRATION BY CASEY TIN
Buying Silence: