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:

