In light of the administration’s
initiative
announced
last
fall
to assemble a task force to help
diversify the names of campus
spaces,
an
analysis
by
The
Michigan Daily of 103 on-campus
buildings at the University of
Michigan found that only one —
the Trotter Multicultural Center
— is named after a person of color.
Trotter is named after William
Monroe Trotter, a newspaper
editor and activist for Black civil
rights. This leaves 99.3% of the
buildings included in The Daily’s
analysis named for or endowed in
the names of white people — the
large majority of whom were white
men.
A vast majority — 78.2% — of
these buildings are named after
men. Only 9.9% of the buildings
analyzed by The Daily are named
after women, while 11.9% were
named for couples.
The Daily’s analysis found that
28% of buildings were named
for former administrators, while
24% of the buildings were named
for donors to the University. In
addition, 25% of buildings were
named for alumni and 10.6% after
professors.
The University announced in
the fall that a task force of faculty,
staff, students and administrators
would convene this winter to
develop a more diverse pool
of names for campus spaces,
according
to
the
University
Record.
The goal is for more named
campus spaces that reflect the
breadth
of
backgrounds
and
perspectives of people who have
vitally shaped U-M’s teaching,
research and service missions,”
the Record article states.
In 2016, the University planned
on naming a new building to
house
the
William
Trotter
Multicultural Center after Regent
(D) Mark Bernstein and his wife.
Students pushed back against
the University’s decision, citing it
would erase the legacy of William
Trotter, a prominent Black activist
and co-founder of a 1905 civil
rights
organization.
Bernstein
withdrew his pledged $3 million
donation to center after the
naming controversy.
Some of the buildings are
named after controversial figures.
W.K. Kellogg, the namesake for
the Kellogg Eye Center, was a
known eugenicist who advocated
for “racial purity.” Angell Hall is
named after the third University
president
James
Angell,
who
championed accessible education
but also drafted the predecessor
treaty to the Chinese Exclusion Act
of 1862, which barred immigration
of Chinese workers. The Taubman
College of Architecture is named
for billionaire Alfred Taubman,
who was convicted on two counts
of price-fixing in 2002.
In 2018, the University’s Board
of Regents voted to remove
Clarence Cook Little’s name from
the science building named for him
after sustained student protest
against the name — the building
was renamed the North University
Building. Little, president of the
University from 1925 to 1929, was
also the former president of the
American Eugenics Society and
believed in restricting immigration
and in forced sterilization.
A
review
of
University
demographics
data
compared
to the demographics of building
namesakes
revealed
a
wide
gap between the diversity of
the
campus
population
and
the demographics of people its
buildings are named after.
Tracking enrollee
demographics
Records
in
the
Bentley
Historical Library contain limited
enrollment data from the 19th and
early 20th centuries. Most years do
not contain any demographic data
based on race/ethnicity or gender.
In an email to The Daily, Brian
A. Williams, assistant director and
archivist for University History,
wrote that the University did
not track data on students’ races
until the late 1960s. Williams
is currently leading a project to
identify every Black student that
attended the University from
its founding to the Black Action
Movement in 1970.
According to records in the
Bentley Historical Library, Samuel
Codes Watson, a medical student
admitted to the University in 1853,
is known as the first Black student
to be admitted to any school or
college within the University.
Because the University was not
required to track students’ races
until the 1960s, it is possible there
was another Black student who
attended before him.
In
1870,
Madelon
Louisa
Stockwell became the first woman
to be admitted — Stockwell Hall is
named after her. Mary Henrietta
Graham, the first Black woman
to attend the University, was
admitted in 1876.
Gender breakdown of enrollees
In 1922-1923, the first year on
file where gender data of enrolled
students at the University is
recorded, women made up 33.8%
of total enrollment. In 1930, 37.0%
of the University’s total enrollment
was female.
From 1942-1945, women made
up 52.4% of total enrollment — the
steep rise likely came as a result
of the Second World War. In 1955,
this number dropped to 32.3%.
From 1966-1967, the most recent
year of historical data available
until 2009, female students were
36.7% of the University’s total
enrollment.
The Michigan Almanac, which
provides enrollment demographics
from 2009 to the present, shows
a near 50-50 male to female
ratio in the University’s current
undergraduate enrollment.
The report shows there was
a less even gender split among
graduate and professional students
from 2009 to 2015, with males
making up 10% more enrolled
students. This ratio has evened out
in past years and was equally split
among men and women in 2019.
White
undergraduate
enrollment decreased from 65%
to 55% from 2010 to 2019, while
Asian American undergraduate
enrollment
increased
by
5
percentage points to 15% over the
past decade.
Black
undergraduate
enrollment remained at 3-5% over
the decade. These numbers sharply
decreased after Michigan voters
passed Proposal 2 in 2006, which
effectively
banned
affirmative
action in the admissions process.
In the year before Proposal 2 was
passed, Black students made up
13% of total student enrollment. In
2019, Latinx students made up 7%
of the student body, with Native
American and Hawiian students
both making up 0%.
Racial and ethnic distribution
of
graduate
students
at
the
University from 2010 to 2019 saw a
decrease in white enrollment from
52% to 45%, and slight increases
in Latinx and Black enrollment.
Black enrollment remained around
3%, consistent with undergraduate
numbers.
In a recent interview with
The Michigan Daily, University
President Mark Schlissel said
the University must elevate its
commitment to Black students in
the months and years to come.
“We’ve worked hard and we’ve
only been modestly successful
increasing the representation,
not just of African Americans, but
of many other underrepresented
groups on campus,” Schlissel
said.
While
the
University
instituted the Summer Bridge
Scholars
program
and
the
Community
Scholar
Program
decades ago to help incoming
Black
students
adjust
to
campus life at the University
of Michigan, the program has
become significantly more white
in recent years. The Go Blue
Guarantee, which offers full
tuition to Michigan residents
whose families make less than
$65,000 per year, has increased
the number of lower-income
students at the University but
increased
Black
enrollment
has
not
followed
since
its
establishment in 2018.
U-M community discusses
racial and gender disparities
in the naming of campus
buildings
LSA senior Thomas Vance,
president of the Black Student
Union, said he was not surprised
to hear that these disparities
in
the
diversity
of
building
namesakes exist because of the
lack of racial diversity among the
student body.
Vance said there needs to be
greater consideration of how
the people that the University
names buildings after impacted
the
University.
For
Vance,
automatically naming buildings
after former presidents is a
misguided approach.
“We can’t just keep naming s---
after old white guys because of
their status,” Vance said. “I think
we should give the students who
were there at that time a little bit of
say. Whether they fill out a form to
talk about their experiences at the
University under that president,
whether it’s direct interactions
with whoever they want to name
the building after.”
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
4 — Wednesday, March 24, 2021
ADMINISTRATION
Daily research finds only one ‘U’ building
named after person of color, 12 after women
On-campus structures mostly named for donors, alumni or employees
Graphic by Naitian Zhou
CHRISTIAN JULIANO &
JARED DOUGALL
Daily Staff Reporters
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
According to the report, offsets
and carbon sinks would be used as a
tool to achieve carbon neutrality by
2025. While the University would
not be emitting zero carbon by 2025,
they would be sequestering as much
carbon as they are outputting at
that point, according to the report.
The PCCN recommended that the
University prioritize achieving net-
zero Scope 1 emissions without
offsets by 2040.
According to the report, the use of
offsets to achieve net zero emissions
would significantly reduce the social
cost of University emissions. The
commission notes that, assuming
the social cost of carbon emissions
is $50 per metric ton of carbon
dioxide equivalent, offsets from the
University would save $325 million
in avoided climate change damages.
“An
important
assumption
underlying this recommendation is
that the use of offsets to help meet
this goal is financially responsible,”
the report reads. “Expected carbon
offsetting costs for U-M to achieve
a Scope 1 carbon neutrality goal
are relatively low compared to
carbon reduction capital costs and
the expected benefits from climate
mitigation.”
The report specifies that a
majority of commissioners are in
favor of using carbon offsets. The
minority of commissioners who
oppose carbon offsetting believe the
administration should prioritize the
reduction of direct emissions and
accelerate progress towards actually
eliminating emissions on campus
rather than dedicating financial
resources to offsets.
The Climate Action Movement
released a statement in response to
the final report, pointing at plans
for stustainable housing, discussions
of
accountability
mechanisms,
and
attention
to
envornmental
justice as improvements from the
preliminary report. However, CAM
also highlighted “critical flaws” in
the report, including the reliance on
carbon offsets and a lack of specificity
on energy procurement. The 2040
carbon neutrality date is “far-too-
late,” according to the statement.
“Thus, while the report takes
some steps in the right direction, it
falls far short of what the science
tells us is necessary: a radical, swift
transition to a resilient, carbon free
economy, centering the basic needs of
our most marginalized community
members,” the statement said. “The
University of Michigan needs a
climate justice plan, not just a carbon
neutrality plan.”
Plans to reduce Scope 1, 2 and 3
emissions
The
report
outlines
several
specific strategies for the University
to implement to achieve Scope 1
and Scope 2 neutrality with carbon
offsets by 2025. Many of the draft
recommendations
carried
over
into the final report, including
an estimated $3.37 billion plan to
transform the University’s heating
and cooling infrastructure.
The plan would replace the
existing
systems
on
all
three
campuses with a geo-exchange
system that would provide heat by
using the natural temperature in
the ground. If implemented, this
project would be one of the most
costly strategies and would be the
largest of its kind at any university,
significantly cutting campus-related
Scope 1 emissions.
Regarding Scope 2 emissions,
the
commission
recommends
the
administration
decarbonize
the University’s electrical grid by
shifting from fossil fuel energy to
renewable energy and purchasing
Renewable
Energy
Certificates.
These certificates would amount to
investments in renewable energy
that
are
generated
off-campus,
essentially allowing the University
to offset the entirety of its electricity
through renewables.
Beyond
energy,
the
PCCN
recommends that the University
move
toward
completely
decarbonizing their transit fleet,
which
includes
buses,
vans,
trucks and cars. The report also
recommends that the University
establish new building standards
with more progressive emissions
targets.
Though the report proposes a
timeline for Scope 3 emissions to
be reduced to zero by 2040, targets
for each category within Scope 3
emissions should be established
by 2025, according to the report.
One such category is commuting
emissions. The commission proposed
increasing investment in electric
vehicle charging stations, which
would
theoretically
incentivize
campus employees to use electric
vehicles, thereby reducing emissions.
Due to recent breakthroughs
in video conferencing capabilities
and
their
widespread
adoption
during the COVID-19 pandemic, the
commission recommended that the
University de-emphasize traveling
long distances for meetings that can
be conducted remotely. The report
also includes a recommendation
to continue using the expanded
virtual infrastructure and keep some
employees working remotely.
Additionally,
the
commission
recommended that the University
should attempt to lower the impact
of Scope 3 emissions by offering a
more plant-forward approach to
their MDining menus and reducing
animal proteins, which are more
carbon intensive.
The
commission
did
not
make any recommendations that
addressed divestment from fossil
fuel investments, a point frequently
mentioned by climate activists at the
University. When Schlissel initially
created the commission, the issue of
divestment was excluded from the
scope of work.
The Board of Regents announced
a pause in pursuing investments in
fossil fuel companies in February
2020. At the February 2021 Regents
meeting, Regent Mark Bernstein
(D) said the Board of Regents would
provide an update on making the
University’s investment policy more
sustainable in March.
New administrative and
academic positions and priorities
Since the draft report was
released in Dec. 2020, student
activists have expressed concern
that the administration will not
fully
implement
the
proposed
recommendations. In a previous
interview with The Daily, Rackham
student
Matt
Sehrsweeney,
a
member of the campus activist group
Climate Action Movement, said the
commission needed to ensure the
administration pursued the report’s
recommended
carbon
neutrality
program.
“There needs to be some sort
of mechanism of accountability
to make sure that all of these
recommendations are actually put
into place, because if there isn’t, then
these are meaningless,” Sehrsweeney
said.
To
hold
the
University
accountable to implementing their
recommendations,
the
PCCN
asked the University to create
an
administrative
“executive
leadership” position. This position
would be responsible for reviewing
PCCN
recommendations
and
prioritizing their implementation,
advising the president on carbon
neutrality,
representing
carbon
neutrality interests in executive
discussions
and
developing
assessments of progress towards key
carbon neutrality goals.
In
an
interview
with
The
Daily, Forrest discussed how this
position could help create a culture
at the University that values the
importance of climate action.
“It was not so clear in our draft
report that really leadership does
everything,” Forrest said. “We’re
not just talking about the leadership
at the very top, but a web of leaders,
all the way through the campus with
all demographics of the campus
at all levels, so that whoever is
the president, or whoever are the
Regents, or whoever are department
chairs and students, that this culture
is embedded deeply within the
University, because this is a decades-
long project.”
The
commission
also
recommended that a community
advisory committee be set up to
report on progress towards neutrality
goals to the public and act as liaisons
between them and the University.
“A key purpose of a community
advisory committee is to ensure
that the perspectives of diverse
stakeholders are well-represented
and fully considered as U-M develops
and implements its carbon neutrality
plan,” the report reads.
Representatives
on
this
committee would include at least
one graduate student and one
undergraduate student, members
from all three campuses, those from
communities
disproportionately
affected by climate change and
faculty and members of business or
nonprofit organizations with direct
ties to environmental justice and
climate change.
The PCCN also proposed ways
to better educate students and hold
them
accountable
for
reaching
carbon neutrality goals. The report
suggests the University create a
required orientation module to
familiarize incoming students and
community
members
with
the
University’s climate action goals and
commitments to carbon neutrality,
as they do for sexual misconduct and
alcohol and drug use.
The report also urges all academic
units to create a course on how
climate change can impact their
area of study and provide a list of
existing courses that relate to carbon
neutrality efforts.
Environmental justice and
accountability
The
final
recommendations
focus heavily on campus culture,
organizational accountability and
environmental
justice.
During
the PCCN’s earlier stages, the
Commission often faced criticism for
perceived neglect of the latter.
Now, a letter from the commission
at the beginning of the report explains
that evaluating the recommendations
for reduced carbon emissions from
an environmental justice perspective
must be integral to the process.
“We affirm that the climate
crisis poses the most harm to
communities that are historically
and unfairly disadvantaged and
disenfranchised,” the report states.
“Each
of
our
recommendations
brings with it a different set of
environmental justice considerations.
Accordingly, environmental justice
must be comprehensively interwoven
throughout U-M’s climate action plan,
rather than being a supplementary
step.”
The report defines environmental
justice as “the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national
origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation and
enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations and policies.”
The
commission
underscored
the importance of engaging with
environmental
justice
experts
and
communities
which
are
disproportionately affected by the
climate crisis. Each recommendation
with an appendix has a section titled
“Equity and Justice Considerations”
to factor environmental justice into
the proposed change to campus
operations. Related to calls for more
consideration
of
environmental
justice are matters of accountability.
“Achieving
carbon
neutrality
will
require
coordinated
action
and accountability by all units and
individuals throughout the university,
and
success
requires
that
the
structural and cultural architectures
align with university goals and the
associated work,” the report reads.
Carbon neutrality in the state of
Michigan
In 2018, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change published a
report that concluded the damage of
natural disasters could be mitigated
if global warming were limited to
no more than 1.5˚C. The IPCC said
humans would have to decrease
emissions to 45% below 2010 levels by
2030 and ultimately achieve net zero
emissions by 2050 in order to keep this
warming below 1.5˚C.
Local and state governments have
taken several actions in response to
the climate crisis. The city of Ann
Arbor launched the A2Zero plan
in March 2020 to achieve carbon
neutrality in the city by 2030.
Last month, Mayor Christopher
Taylor was also appointed to serve
as a special adviser on the Global
Executive Committee on Climate
Action, an international body seeking
to enhance sustainability within local
governments.
In September 2020, Gov. Gretchen
Whitmer announced the state of
Michigan would set the goal of going
carbon neutral by 2050.
Haverkamp said the release of the
recommendations does not mark
the end of the University’s efforts to
achieve net-zero emissions, but rather
a beginning to that journey.
“It’s both the culmination of our
commission’s work and the first step
for the University’s implementation of
carbon neutrality,” Haverkamp said.
Daily
Staff
Reporters
Arjun
Thakkar and Christian Juliano can
be reached at arjunt@umich.edu and
julianoc@umich.edu
PCCN
From Page 1