“This time is for us to come
together and say, ‘Well, the
University’s cruelty is on full
display, we gave them every
opportunity not to be cruel, they
have every opportunity not to
be, it’s a choice, in a big way,’”
Peterson said. “These people have
real power: President Schlissel
has real power, Provost Collins
has real power, Anne Curzan has
real power, the regents have real
power. So that all of them pander
to us by saying they care and then
make the choice that they did was
quite devastating.”
Several
undergraduate
students attended the vigil to
express
their
disappointment
with
the
administration’s
handling of COVID-19.
Engineering
junior
Joshua
Sodicoff said his disillusion began
in March when students were
sent home from campus, adding
that he has since gotten involved
with an activist coalition that
works with GEO.
“Since March, I have been
incredibly disappointed in the
University’s response to the
coronavirus — that started with
their plan to send everyone
off campus once they brought
a whole petri dish of students
back after spring break, and
extended as they kicked people
out of dorms without giving
them a fair refund,” Sodicoff
said. “Throughout the whole
summer, a pretty large coalition
of groups have been working on
trying to get their demands from
the University. Everyone thought
that there really wouldn’t be that
many concessions to people’s
health and safety.”
LSA junior Trenten Ingell
said he was displeased with the
University’s response to the
GEO’s demands for public health
and safety, claiming that the
University’s decision to reopen
was driven solely by profit.
“The University has still not
met a lot of GEO’s demands when
they canceled the strike, their
anti-policing demands and even
a lot of their COVID demands
were completely rejected,” Ingell
said. “Their intentions for profit
have been very clear — how they
really only understand what
makes them money, and they
have no idea how to care for
people, how to provide a safe
environment for campus.”
The students at the vigil
aren’t
the
only
people
on
campus with a shortage of trust
in the University’s leadership.
Members of the Faculty Senate
held two votes of no confidence
in
the
administration
on
Wednesday, one focused on the
University’s reopening plan for
fall semester and the other on
Schlissel’s role as president. The
first failed narrowly, while the
second passed. The symbolic
measure means faculty members
do not have faith in Schlissel to
execute his job as head of the
University.
“I as Senate Chair, along
with the Senate Secretary, and
SACUA have conclusively and
unanimously determined that
the University Senate Rules on
voting using Robert’s Rules of
Order for interpretation leads
all of us to the same conclusion.
Abstentions should not have
been counted as votes, and
Motion 6 should have passed,”
Conway wrote. “We ask for your
patience and understanding
while we not only discussed
how abstentions should be
handled, but we also discussed
in depth our concerns about
the lack of accessibility to
voting experienced by some of
our colleagues.”
David
Potter,
interim
secretary
of
the
Faculty
Senate and professor in LSA,
confirmed the motion passed
in an email to The Daily.
Conway said the vote of no
confidence was the first in the
University’s history.
When
asked
about
the
result of the vote, University
spokesperson Rick Fitzgerald
told The Daily Schlissel had no
further comment.
At the Wednesday meeting,
957 members voted in support
of the motion with 953 voting
against and 184 abstentions.
While more people in the
Faculty Senate said they did
not trust Schlissel’s leadership
than those who said they did,
Potter initially announced that
the motion had failed because
it did not receive a majority
of all votes cast, including
abstentions.
More than 2,200 Faculty
Senate members participated in
the meeting. The body, which is
part of the University’s central
faculty governance system, has
approximately 4,300 members
and is made up of professors,
executive officers and deans,
among others.
Potter’s
ruling
sparked
confusion among the faculty
members. Conway declined to
announce a decisive result.
Faculty Senate leaders later
clarified they would need a
few days to review the matter.
In an email to The Daily after
the vote Wednesday, Potter
said the Faculty Senate Office
would “speak to the issue” of
abstentions in a few days.
“As I was counting the votes
I was seeing four categories,
three that registered (yes, no
and abstain) and then that
there were people present in
the meeting who elected not to
participate in the vote, hence
my statement that motion 6
was not successful,” Potter
wrote in the Wednesday email
about the vote of no confidence
in Schlissel. “It is possible that,
after further exploration of the
issue we will reach a different
understanding.”
The Faculty Senate’s rules
do
not
explicitly
answer
whether abstentions count as
votes. In this case, the Faculty
Senate defers to Robert’s Rules
of Order, a set of guidelines
for parliamentary procedure
that date back to the 1800s.
According to Robert’s Rules,
the vote of no confidence
should have passed because
abstentions do not count as
votes.
Among
other
claims,
the vote of no confidence
accuses Schlissel of ignoring
scientific evidence regarding
the risks associated with the
University’s reopening plans
for the fall semester. According
to the resolution, Schlissel did
not take into account a report
by the Ethics and Privacy
Committee when crafting the
school’s
reopening
protocol
and did not respond to the
committee’s concerns.
In a rare move, Schlissel
addressed members of the
Faculty Senate at the start of
the meeting, emphasizing his
dedication to the University.
He elaborated on his reasoning
for allowing some classes to
be held in person despite most
being offered online or in
hybrid formats and discussed
efforts to expand surveillance
testing
of
asymptomatic
individuals.
He
also
acknowledged
concerns
about
the
administration’s
shortage
of
engagement
with
the
community
and
lack
of
transparency.
“Criticisms and challenges
are
qualities
that
make
universities great,” Schlissel
said. “They also provide an
opportunity to create solutions
that
benefit
from
multiple
perspectives. We can and must
work together as a university
to solve problems.”
The
motion
also
states
that Schlissel fell short in
his response to allegations
of sexual misconduct against
former
Provost
Martin
Philbert.
At
the
virtual
meeting
Wednesday,
Information
Professor
Kentaro
Toyama
pointed to the multiple high-
profile
sexual
misconduct
charges
uncovered
during
Schlissel’s tenure, including
the
accusations
against
Philbert and former Music,
Theatre & Dance professor
David Daniels. Both men were
removed from their positions
as a result of the allegations.
Toyama blamed Schlissel’s
leadership in part for the
University’s failure to address
systemic problems and prevent
institutional failures.
“Schlissel was the president
of the University during all of
these issues,” Toyama said.
“The buck stops with him,
and that’s why I’m voting no
confidence.”
Stephen Ward, an associate
professor in LSA, submitted
the no-confidence motion. He
also criticized the University’s
response to the COVID-19
pandemic
and
Schlissel’s
handling of the allegations
against Philbert.
“The
president’s
actions
and
inactions,
particularly
over the last six months, but
perhaps over the last six years,
are setting a precedent that
we cannot and should abide,”
Ward said at the meeting
Wednesday.
Engineering professor Peter
Washabaugh spoke in support
of Schlissel at the meeting.
“I’ve seen this president
take the correct path, even
though it might be difficult or
uncomfortable,” Washabaugh
said, adding that he believed
Schlissel had “demonstrated
thoughtfulness
and
caring
actions.”
At a University Board of
Regents
meeting
Thursday,
Regent Denise Ilitch (D) read
a
unanimous
statement
of
support for the administration
and the University’s reopening
plans. She said the board,
which acts as the University’s
governing body, knows the
administration
needs
to
communicate better with the
broader community.
“Our
Board
supports
President Schlissel and the
administration as they continue
to lead our University through
these tremendous challenges,”
the statement reads. “We know
that the president and the
administration will continue to
listen and adapt through these
challenges, honor our common
values and advance the mission
of the University.”
In his statement to The
Daily, Fitzgerald noted the
results of a sentiment ballot —
a vote made available to faculty
members who were unable to
attend the meeting Wednesday.
The majority of voters who
participated in the sentiment
ballot
said
they
did
have
confidence
in
Schlissel.
A
total of 1,092 faculty voted
against the measure, while
942 supported the vote of no
confidence and 109 abstained.
Before the official vote at
the meeting Wednesday, Ward
highlighted what he described
as a failure of leadership at the
highest levels of the University,
particularly
the
president’s
office.
“He has engaged in evasion,
misdirection, distortion and
falsehoods,” Ward said.
Managing News Editor Leah
Graham and Daily News Editor
Alex Harring can be reached
at
leahgra@umich.edu
and
harring@umich.edu.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Wednesday, September 23, 2020 — 3
VOTE
From Page 1
“He
really
believed
and
really pushed the fact that when
you do research with African
Americans, it is okay to look
at in-group analysis,” Taylor
said. “Before his first major
survey, we were unable to do
that. So every comparison was
between African Americans
and whites. But when you do
that, you don’t learn much
about African Americans.”
Taylor said Jackson will
also be remembered for his
mentorship of students and
postdocs. Taylor compiled a
list of dozens of Black students
and alumni of the PRBA who
have gone on to become deans,
chairs
and
administrators
at
schools
including
Yale
University, the University of
Chicago and the University of
California, Berkeley.
In Ann Arbor, nine former
PRBA students became full
professors, one became an
endowed professor and one is
the chair of the Department
of Health and Behavior and
Health
Education
at
the
School
of
Public
Health.
Taylor said these lists reflect
Jackson’s
commitment
to
his students’ success and the
impact the PRBA had on those
he mentored.
“He’d
help
people
fill
their potential,” Taylor said.
“There’s a lot of people who
would have left their doctoral
programs
if
they
hadn’t
started working with James in
the PRBA.”
Cleo
Caldwell,
professor
and chair in the School of
Public Health, is a former
student of Jackson’s. She said
without him, she would never
have ended up in academia.
Caldwell recalled that as her
research
mentor,
Jackson
urged her to gain valuable
teaching experience despite
her initial skepticism.
“I said, ‘James, I don’t need
teaching experience because
I’m not going into academia,’”
Caldwell said. “But he looked
at me and he said, ‘You don’t
know where you’re going to
be, so what you need to do is
to give yourself degrees of
freedom so you can end up
doing what it is you want to
do.’ So for that year I taught,
wonderful experience, and I
left, and then I came back to
academia.”
Jamie Abelson, a senior
research
associate
at
the
PRBA,
said
Jackson’s
mentorship style had a ripple
effect across the academic
world and created generations
of
scholars
who
became
mentors themselves.
“He was renowned for his
optimism
and
his
energy,
which helped propel everyone
forward,” Abelson said. “And
not only are all the people who
ever worked with him grateful
but
they
all
acknowledge
that they learned from him
how to be a better mentor, so
generations after those (who)
worked directly with him have
benefited from him.”
Abelson
said
70
PRBA
alumni joined a Zoom call the
night of Sept. 14 to gather and
remember Jackson’s legacy.
“James was a powerhouse,
even
at
age
27,”
Abelson
said. “One of the renowned
researchers … was on the call
and was saying, ‘Picture what
you were like at 27, or what
your children were like at 27.
And just think, that this man
was doing such important
stuff at that point.’ He hit the
ground running.’”
Angela Dillard, professor
in
the
Department
of
Afroamerican
and
African
Studies and the Residential
College,
said
Jackson
was
funny and brilliant.
“He
was
enormously
generous with his time and
with advice,” Dillard said. “He
was a really warm, collegial
person, and a real role model
about how to do first-rate
academic
scholarship,
and
then how to take on these
administrative and leadership
roles and really do them well.
So I know that people say
things like this when people
die — they’re like, he’s a great
person — but he really was
incredibly warm, really funny,
terrific smile, and is a kind of
person who had the ability to
really put you at ease.”
University President Mark
Schlissel
expressed
his
condolences for those who
knew Jackson and noted how
his research changed the way
race is studied in the United
States.
“Condolences to all who
knew and learned from @
UMich Prof. James Jackson,”
Schlissel
wrote
on
social
media. “He was a top scholar,
leader, mentor, colleague &
advocate for equity. He made
our world better and smarter
with groundbreaking research
on the influence of race on the
lives and health of African
Americans.”
Caldwell said that while it
would be impossible to list all
the areas where Jackson made
an impact, he is remembered
for his work in fields spanning
from social science to health
science to social work.
“He was a giant in aging
and physical health research,
research on discrimination
and social identity, research
on mental health of Black
Americans, political studies,
neighborhood studies –– it’s
so much, you can’t cover it all,”
Caldwell said. “But with all of
that, it was looking at Black
populations, which allowed us
to learn a lot.”
Above all, Taylor remembers
Jackson for his warmth.
“One of the things that
stands out was how warm he
was to everyone,” Taylor said.
“Anybody who visited James
at the PRBA, James Jackson
was one of the first people
to come out and greet them
and say hello. It didn’t matter
who they were or where they
were from, he was always very
warm and very positive and
very helpful.”
JACKSON
From Page 1
Regarding
the
accepted
proposal,
GEO
spokesperson
Leah Bernardo-Ciddio said the
end result wasn’t the union’s
preferred position.
“At this moment, we are all
feeling a little bit upset and
frustrated and devastated that
we were backed into a legal
corner, and we had to choose
between our demands and the
future of our union,” Bernardo-
Ciddio said. “The commitment
we made last night was to keep
pushing in other ways while
making sure our union survives
and that it can continue to
protect our most vulnerable
members.”
However,
Bernardo-Ciddio
said the union’s strike did allow
for more progress on some of
their key issues than they would
have made otherwise.
“We did achieve more than we
would have if we hadn’t gone
on strike or if we had accepted
the offer last week,” Bernardo-
Ciddio said.
Under the accepted proposal,
GEO did not win the universal
right
to
work
remotely
or
partial diversion of funds from
the Division of Public Safety
and Security, two of their
major demands. The proposal
does, however, offer increased
allocations for child care funding
and the right to cancel class if
students refuse to comply with
the campus-wide mask mandate.
The University also agreed
to assemble a task force that
GEO will be involved with
to evaluate policing at the
University. The University will
also create a panel composed of
a representative from GEO, the
University and one mutually
agreed upon person to review
requests to work remotely.
At the meeting Wednesday,
1,074 GEO members voted to
accept the offer, 239 members
voted to reject and 66 abstained.
The majority of the GEO steering
committee supported accepting
the offer, citing concerns of
retaliation and the possible
harm the injunction could cause
to the union.
The
University
sought
a
court injunction and temporary
restraining
order
to
get
graduate students to resume
teaching earlier this week. In
the complaint, the University
claimed
it
has
suffered
irreparable injury as a result of
the strike, including disruption
of vital functions and a hit to its
reputation.
The
University
requested
relief against GEO in excess
of $25,000 for “any and all
additional
costs,
expenses,
salaries and other economic
damages
suffered
by
the
University
as
a
result
of
GEO’s breach of the collective
bargaining agreement.”
University
spokesperson
Rick
Fitzgerald
said
the
University worked with GEO
to address all of their demands,
claiming
GEO
membership’s
overwhelming
acceptance
of
the second proposal is proof
that it was widely considered a
fair offer. Fitzgerald also said
the University never threatened
criminal action or monetary
damages against individuals.
“The whole point of this —
the whole negotiations and all
throughout — the University’s
commitment was to getting
GSIs back in the classroom,”
Fitzgerald
said.
“We
were
able to accomplish that by
listening
carefully,
I
think,
and responding appropriately
to almost every issue that was
raised by GEO.”
Because GEO members voted
to accept the new proposal,
the University said it will not
retaliate against the union or
individual students. Had the
proposal
been
rejected
and
the court decided against the
graduate students, GEO would
be held in contempt of court,
meaning GEO would be required
to call for an end to the strike and
any members still participating
could
potentially
face
fines
of $250 per day of additional
striking or arrests.
The decision to accept the
plan came down to if the union
could afford to keep picketing
amid the injunction, Rackham
student Ryan Glauser said. One
of his main concerns was GEO’s
ability to fight an injunction,
which raised the possibility that
the union could be financially
drained if the court sided with
the University.
“The Graduate Employees’
Organization is more important
as an institution than winning
small things in the short term,”
Glauser said. “Once we lose our
union, the University is going
to take those small things from
us, because they don’t have our
trust.”
GEO’s strike gained traction
on social media, which the union
used as a way to circulate their
message. The union presented
the strike as a way to make
everyone on campus safer, both
in terms of protection from the
coronavirus and from policing,
as a national reckoning about
racial justice surfaced following
the death of George Floyd.
The strike served as a catalyst
for other groups on campus.
More than 100 resident advisers
went on strike Sept. 9 — the
day after GEO announced its
strike — to demand additional
personal protective equipment,
enforcement of public health
policies and hazard pay. Dozens
of MDining student employees
organized a work slowdown
for two hours on Friday, with
plans for a potential strike in the
future. A hundred theatre and
drama students signed a letter
saying they would not attend
class until School of Music,
Theatre & Dance leadership
agree
to
their
demands
regarding pandemic procedures.
GEO received a litany of
support from different corners
of
campus,
including
the
University’s chapter of College
Democrats, labor unions whose
members were commissioned to
work on construction projects
on campus and some faculty
members.
Central
Student
Government, the largest student
government at the University,
encouraged students to stand
in solidarity with GEO and not
attend classes for the duration of
the strike.
Members said they went into
the meeting Wednesday night
excited and anxious to see what
the University had offered the
second time around. They said
they felt like awareness and
support of the strike was rising
and that the University would
feel greater pressure to meet
their demands as a result.
But as the new proposal came
to light at Wednesday’s meeting,
Rackham
student
Katherine
Wright said she realized the
University
had
not
made
significant changes to what they
proposed a week prior. The vote
to accept the proposal, according
to Rackham student Caitlin
Posillico, was a result of “serious
threats, not serious wins.”
Wright, Posillico and other
members
agreed
that
the
University’s injunction became
a game-changer for members.
They
described
strong-arm
tactics used by the University
to corner them into accepting a
plan they didn’t feel adequately
addressed their demands.
“I realized that the University
wasn’t going to budge on issues
that we needed them to budge
on, and that if we continued,
we would be potentially putting
ourselves in danger and our
union in danger,” Wright said.
“It just didn’t seem like that was
the best course of action, given
that there are other ways that
we could push them to do the
work that would be less risky for
the union.”
Ultimately, Wright said she
felt resignation upon hearing
the offer from the University,
but she also felt pride. She,
and other GEO members, said
they felt like they used their
power to hold the University
accountable and ensure a safe
environment for all members of
the community.
While there was a divide as to
whether GEO should continue
the strike, members agree that
this proposal isn’t the end.
STRIKE
From Page 1
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
VIGIL
From Page 1
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com