The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Monday, August 31, 2020 — 5
LSA senior Dylan Gilbert
was sitting in a class discussion
with
the
other
20-or-so
members of her class, when her
English professor Scott Lyons
read out loud the N-word from a
short story by American writer
William
Faulkner.
Gilbert,
uncomfortable
with
the
situation, left the discussion
that day.
Though the class carried on,
the professor’s choice to read
the racial slur and the student’s
protest ultimately raised an
ongoing
academic
debate:
whether or not the use of racial
slurs from academic text is
appropriate in the classroom.
In June 2020, around a year
later, Gilbert told her story on
Twitter, where she received
an outpouring of support from
fellow University of Michigan
students, alumni, faculty and
staff, many condemning the
professor and the University
for tolerating the behavior.
“I
was
just
kind
of
exhausted,” Gilbert told The
Daily. “I don’t feel like I should
have to sit in a room and have
a non-Black person keep saying
the N-word in front of me. So I
just quietly packed up my stuff
into my bag, walked out of class
and did not say anything.”
Details
of
the
incident
surfaced
amid
a
renewed
national commitment against
systemic
racism,
thereby
calling
into
question
the
impact classrooms have on
perpetuating racial injustice.
“The
environment
wasn’t
comfortable anymore,” Gilbert
said. “I felt targeted in the
environment, and I felt unsafe
in the environment, and I
didn’t feel like I was learning
the way I needed to learn. So
when you use racial slurs in the
classroom, you’re taking away
some sense of equality in the
classroom because now a group
of your students aren’t feeling
the way they should be feeling
to properly learn.”
Gilbert’s
tweets
also
included screenshots of email
exchanges between her and
Lyons after the class, in which
Lyons did not offer an apology
but
committed
to
“avoid
uttering the word for the rest
of the term.” For the next class
period, according to Gilbert,
Lyons
assigned
an
article
defending the use of the word.
“I’m not sure I understand
the
distinction
between
assigning a work with the
n-word (written by a non-black
writer and read by mostly non-
black readers) and reading it
out loud -- imagination versus
exhaulation? -- but I do take
your point,” Lyons wrote in the
email exchanges.
The Daily reached out to
Lyons multiple times for a
comment, but was referred to
University
spokesman
Rick
Fitzgerald.
“Students have a variety of
ways to raise concerns about
their classroom experiences,”
Fitzgerald wrote in an email to
The Daily. “In this case, these
concerns are being addressed
through
the
appropriate
channels.”
This
incident
does
not
appear to be an isolated one,
either.
Universities
across
the country have struggled to
address how professors should
approach teaching racial slurs.
Some institutions have taken
to
suspending
professors
for using racial slurs in an
academic environment, while
others have defended their use
based on academic freedom.
English
professor
Susan
Parrish often teaches texts
from
Southern
literature,
which can include epithets
against various groups. She
explained how voicing these
slurs can harm the ability for
students to learn effectively
and feel respected in the
classroom.
“The classroom is a space
of analysis and a space of
mutual learning and of (the)
responsibility to (not only)
take care of each other while
challenging each other, but
(also) challenging each other
equally and fairly to increase
our understanding,” Parrish
said. “I also feel like epithets
against any group … makes
a
classroom
situation
feel
unequal and feel potentially
hostile, and then it decreases
certain students’ possibility to
learn and to feel welcome and
to feel like they belong.”
Parrish
said
she
usually
addresses the use of offensive
language at the start of the
semester with her class. But
ultimately,
the
violent
and
historical weight that many
slurs
against
groups
carry,
Parrish explained, does not
warrant saying the word.
“I think where I ultimately
come down is that you can’t
have
a
student-by-student
decision about this, it has to
be something we set up at the
beginning that if there are
(slurs) in the text that have
been associated with violence,
suppression or oppression, we
should not spread those words,”
Parrish
said.
“Students
do
have to look at them as they’re
doing their reading, but there’s
no reason that we have to give
breath to those words in live
time together.”
According
to
Vershawn
Young, an African-American
studies
professor
at
the
University
of
Waterloo
in
Ontario, Canada, banning the
use of the N-word in classrooms
is also not a solution.
After witnessing a similar
situation in which a University
of Waterloo professor used
the N-word during class, the
University of Waterloo released
a statement in a June 2020
article, saying the university
“unequivocally believes there
is no place for the use of the
N-word in class, on campus or
in our community.”
In response, Young wrote an
article describing the harmful
effects of completely banning
the use of the N-word in the
classroom, explaining that it
censors his language as a Black
man and scholar. Prohibiting
the use of the N-word, Young
further
explained
in
an
interview
with
The
Daily,
provides a disservice to the
cultural complexity of the word.
“If you ban the word and
in text, especially African-
American cultural text, you
are not only diminishing one
way in which the word is used,
but six or seven ways in which
the word is used,” Young said.
“You cannot get to an accurate
interpretation or a deep cultural
understanding if you ban the
word or if you only say that
the word can be the ‘N-word,’
because the ‘N-word’ itself does
not capture the various ways
in which the word functions in
African-American culture.”
Young further noted that
censorship of any kind should
not be enforced without careful
consideration of its impact on
not only particular groups, as
well as the very meaning the
author was trying to convey.
“I believe that there is an
easy answer,” Young said. “The
easy answer is yes, the word
should be allowed to be used in
very careful, pedagogical ways
and not in casual conversation.
But I think in instructional
conversations and texts where
the word appears, it should
not be erased because when
you erase it, it is not true to
the author’s intentions, is not
true to the author’s text and it
changes the meaning.”
The University of Michigan’s
Board of Regents passed the
administration’s 2020-21 budget
in a 5-2 vote during a special
meeting
Monday
night,
days
after a 4-4 vote at their June 25
meeting had appeared to sink
proposed
increases
in
tuition
and fees. The approved budget
includes a 1.9 percent increase in
tuition for the Ann Arbor campus;
a 3.9 percent increase for UM-Flint
and UM-Dearborn; a 1.9 percent
increase in room and board fees
and a $50 COVID-19 student fee.
Regents Paul Brown (D), Jordan
Acker (D), Ron Weiser (R), Mark
Bernstein (D) and Michael Behm
(D) voted in favor of the budget,
with Brown and Acker changing
their votes from Thursday. Regents
Shauna Ryder Diggs (D) and Denise
Ilitch (D) voted against the budget.
Regent Katherine White (D) was
not present, though she called in to
vote for the proposed budget at the
previous meeting.
After the budget initially failed
to pass on June 25, University
President Mark Schlissel said he
anticipated the budget proposal
the executive team would present
at the July Regents meeting would
diminish or eliminate a tuition
increase for the Ann Arbor campus.
Schlissel explained that the
Board called for the special meeting
on Monday because, without a
budget, the University would not be
able to operate and continue paying
employees in the new fiscal year,
starting July 1. Half of the revenue
from the tuition increase will go
toward increasing financial aid to
address the pandemic, according to
Schlissel, and the new budget also
doubled the funds provided to Flint
and Dearborn campuses from $10
million to $20 million.
Schlissel defended the proposal
and cited the University’s ongoing
efforts to protect students and
families from the pandemic and
economic
recession
including
COVID-19 testing, hiring freezes,
the suspension of nonessential
travel and spending, and the use of
$400 million from the endowment.
“We’re committed to do
our very best to make sure that
the COVID-19 pandemic does
not result in a lost generation
of students who are unable
to continue or complete their
Michigan education because of the
circumstances we find ourselves
in,” Schlissel said.
Students have criticized the
University for trying to increase
tuition, claiming their learning
experiences will not be the same
with online classes and more
students
are
now
struggling
financially due to the recession
sparked by the pandemic.
After Schlissel’s introduction,
most of the meeting was devoted to
Regents explaining their support
for or disapproval of the budget.
Weiser, who supported the
budget last Thursday and on
Monday,
addressed
demands
made by students and activists to
use the endowment to balance the
budget and cover financial losses.
He said much of the endowment
funds are restricted to particular
units of the University and thus
cannot be redirected legally.
“While we are a university
that’s
blessed
by
having
an
endowment that’s gonna give
us 400 million dollars this year,
most of that money is restricted
to certain areas,” Weiser said.
“… It’s not a 12 million (sic) dollar
endowment where we can take
the income and spread it, put it
any place we want. We have legal
and moral and federal policy and
law obligations about how we can
spend it.”
In opposition to the budget,
Ryder Diggs criticized the proposal
for continuing the trend of raising
tuition when the public health
and economic circumstances have
deteriorated.
“The administrative leadership
team believes that tuition should
always increase annually,” Ryder
Diggs said. “The principle is that
students should share the burden
of increased costs from payroll,
energy,
infrastructure,
food
and housing, and even in health
crises such as the coronavirus
pandemic. I do not agree. Now
I’ve consistently voted in favor of
tuition increases, but this year is
unlike any other in our lifetimes.
When a global health crisis evolves
into an economic crisis, we should
not increase our tuition.”
Ilitch, who voted against the
budget, said the value of a mostly
remote education is diminished.
She
added
the
University’s
administration projects a 50-50
chance “(we) will not complete
this semester.”
“With this uncertainty, why
would we raise prices on our
students and families during this
crisis?” Ilitch said.
Ilitch also read from an email
sent to the Regents by Rackham
student Sarah Bork, president of
Rackham Student Government, in
partnership with Amanda Kaplan
and Sav Nandigama, president and
vice president of Central Student
Government. The email called
for a cost of attendance freeze,
removal of the proposed COVID-
19 fee from the budget and the end
of the $500 international student
fee passed in last year’s budget.
Acker said he voted yes on the
budget because it contains new
pledges to eliminate uncertainty
and will not increase tuition for
in-state students whose families
make less than $120,000 per year.
Though
regular
Regents
meetings
include
scheduled
public
comment,
Monday’s
special meeting did not. Acker
said, however, that his vote was
not an endorsement of the special
meetings process taken to pass the
budget before July 1.
“I am extremely disappointed in
the process over the last few days,”
Acker said. “I feel it is extremely
important to take public comments
… The one thing that Regent Ilitch
and I as (incoming) vice chair and
chair have to really work on is to
make sure the process is better
going forward, with more public
input, with more conversations
about what the budget does, and
most importantly, meeting the one
area we must really improve next
year, which is communication.”
In Bernstein’s statement in
support of the budget, he said
the University’s sticker price is
misleading, as most students do
not pay the full price of tuition.
He said one in four in-state
undergrads — over 4,100 students
— pay no tuition, and 100 percent
of students with demonstrated
financial need will not see their
tuition and fees increased.
“So who does pay tuition?”
Bernstein said. “Students who
can, and therefore, in my opinion,
should, and are getting one of
the great bargains in higher
education, paying about half of
what out-of-state students pay
… Fundamentally, I believe that
lower
income
students
who
struggle to pay tuition can depend
upon those who can to reduce the
cost of their college education.”
Though Brown objected to the
budget presented on July 25 out
of concern that the Dearborn and
Flint campuses would not receive
adequate support, he said he was
reassured after conversations with
Schlissel and other staff members.
He noted the increase in funding
to Flint in Dearborn also impacted
his decision to vote “yes.”
“I
am
an
enthusiastic
supporter of this budget,” Brown
said. “I believe the investment of
20 million dollars in our Flint and
Dearborn campuses aligned with
the chancellors’ strategic plans
(and) created an unprecedented
opportunity for those campuses
to only increase the world class
education
provided
at
those
schools so we can continue to say
we are truly the leaders and best.”
WilmerHale investigation finds two decades of
Philbert misconduct, several ‘U’ officials knew
WilmerHale
released
its
88-page report of its independent
investigation of allegations of sexual
misconduct by former University
of
Michigan
Provost
Martin
Philbert Friday. The report found
“significant evidence” that Philbert
violated the University’s Sexual
Harassment policy. It identified
numerous times when University
personnel
and
administration
received
information
about
Philbert’s sexual misconduct.
“Two things are clear: First,
there is significant evidence that
Philbert engaged in a wide range
of sexual misconduct, including
sexual harassment, for at least
fifteen years,” the report reads.
“Second,
neither
OIE
(Office
of Institutional Equity) nor the
senior leadership of the University
understood the seriousness or
the pervasiveness of Philbert’s
misconduct.”
WilmerHale
began
its
independent
investigation
in
January 2020. After six months,
WilmerHale
investigators
interviewed
128
people,
some
multiple times, including current
and former employees, former
students and current and former
University administrators.
The report finds that Philbert
normalized
his
inappropriate
behavior and intimidated women
who may have sought to report him.
“Philbert
had
expressly
threatened some of them—one
witness, who in fact was in a
relationship with Philbert, told us
that he said: ‘If you ever tell anyone
about us, I will make sure you go
down. I will destroy your career,’”
the report reads.
The report alleges Philbert
sexually
harassed
multiple
members
of
the
University
community while he was an
assistant professor, an associate
dean, School of Public Health dean
and provost. In his early years at
the University, Philbert allegedly
harassed women who worked in
his research lab, making comments
about their bodies, redirecting
conversations toward sex and
insisting on getting hugs. The
report found Philbert engaged in
simultaneous sexual relationships
with at least two University
employees, and sometimes more,
during his tenure as Provost. He
stored nude photos of these women
on University-owned devices and
had “sexual contact” with them in
University offices often.
The report was released to both
the University and the public at
the same time. In an email to The
Daily, University spokesman Rick
Fitzgerald said the University is
reviewing the results from the
report.
“We have just begun to carefully
review the full report and take
all of its findings into account,”
Fitzgerald wrote. “Yet, it is clear
in the executive summary that
the WilmerHale report – released
publicly today at the same time it
was shared with university officials
– contains a shocking description
of improper and unacceptable
behavior by a university officer as
well as failings by this institution.
We will do everything in our
power to prevent such misconduct
from ever happening again at the
University of Michigan.”
In 2003, a male lab employee,
Tom Komorowski, was terminated
by
Philbert.
He
reported
to
University officials he was fired
over a female lab employee because
of her and Philbert’s close, personal
relationship.
A
senior
Public
Health School faculty member
questioned Philbert about the
alleged relationship and did not
find any indication of an improper
relationship. A 2004 lawsuit by the
male employee also did not find any
such evidence.
In 2005, specific allegations
of
sexual
harassment
against
Philbert arose in the Public Health
School. One of Philbert’s research
assistants reported Philbert had
“asked her for sex, to marry him,
to run away together and to ‘have
caramel colored babies’ with him.”
The alerted Public Health professor
relayed the information to multiple
University
officials,
including
the then-Public Health dean Ken
Warner; Lori Pierce, vice provost
academic and faculty affairs and
Anthony Walesby, director of the
Office of Institutional Equity.
As the director of OIE, Walesby
was responsible for investigating
sexual
harassment
complaints
against faculty. According to the
report, when he tried to speak
with the women, however, both
declined for fear of retaliation from
Philbert. Another member of the
Philbert’s lab — a graduate student
— reported Philbert had a “bad
reputation with women” and that
he asked another student for sex.
Walesby determined OIE could not
investigate further since women
would not speak with him, the
report says.
In 2010, Philbert was in the
running to become the Dean of
the Public Health School. During
the process, Paula Lantz, the chair
of the Search Committee, became
aware of the 2005 allegations and
informed the Provost’s Office of
the allegations. After meeting
with
Warner,
Lantz
did
not
inform the committee because
“the investigation revealed no
wrongdoing.” At the same time,
then-Provost Philip Hanlon also
learned of the 2005 allegations and
had more information than Lantz,
after meeting with multiple people
to further question.
Both Lantz and Hanlon, along
with the Search Committee were
aware of a confidential survey
in which a participant said “I
was subject to inappropriate and
unwanted sexual comments and
suggestions,” according to the
report. The report concludes that
both Lantz and Hanlon should have
turned the survey results to the OIE
for further investigation.
In 2017, Pierce was a member
of the Provost Search Committee,
which was chaired by University
President Mark Schlissel. The
report finds that the committee
and Schlissel did not learn any
information about Philbert’s alleged
mistreatment of women during the
search process, even though Pierce
was one of the University officials
Walseby reported the 2013 incident
to.
CALDER LEWIS &
ARJUN THAKKAR
Summer News Editor &
Daily Staff Reporter Reporter
KRISTINA ZHENG
Summer News Editor
CALDER LEWIS &
KRISTINA ZHENG
Summer News Editors
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
Regents approve tuition
hike after initial rejection
‘U’ community examines
use of N-word in classroom
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com