100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

May 20, 2021 - Image 5

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

4.2% of men experience nonconsen-
sual sexual touching on campus; 34.3%
of undergraduate women remain most
at risk for experiencing nonconsen-
sual touching and penetration on cam-
pus; 17% of undergraduates, 26.4% of
women, experience unwanted kissing
and sexual touching prior to coming to
the University; 6.7% of undergraduates,

10.6% of women, experience unwanted
penetration or oral sex prior to coming
to the University.

5

Thursday, May 20, 2021

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

Beyond empty promises: The pursuit of systemic change to the University’s

toxic environment of gender-based violence

Beyond empty promises: Why I signed onto the class

action lawsuit against U-M for students affected

OPINION

CECIEL ZHONG | SOPHOMORE DUAL-DEGREE

JOSIE GRAHAM | JUNIOR

Content Warning: This article dis-

cusses gender-based violence, which
includes but is not limited to sexual vio-
lence.
E

ngaging in student activism
was not part of my plan in 2019,
but like many others, to stay

calm was to ignore the horror and
anger caused by the new interim sexu-
al assault and misconduct policy. This
policy, among other things, allowed
direct cross-examination for survi-
vors who came forward. Despite the
outcry, the University of Michigan did
not change its procedure, insisting to
wait for former Secretary of Education
Betsy Devos’s new regulations to come
out. The University’s position drifted
with the unstable political climate and
in turn, allowed survivors of sexual
violence to be re-traumatized through
this interim policy.

Administrators claim that they

“take allegations of sexual miscon-
duct very seriously.” The words seem

clear: “Sexual misconduct will not be
tolerated in the University of Michi-
gan community.” However, in the past
two years, it is hard to count the times
when high-profile cases on campus
arose with one hand. The University
administration has made its stance
well known through words and state-
ments, but how has institutional
change truly been implemented so far?

To look at that we need to under-

stand that sexual assault is about power
and control. The University, as an insti-
tution, exerts institutional power that
ostracises survivors through inad-
equate report addressments, resulting
in institutional betrayal. This pattern
has been exemplified through high-
profile cases at the University such
as Robert Anderson, Martin Philbert,
and David Daniels, to name a few.
Institutional betrayal created a mass of
known perpetrators spreading across
schools and departments, including
SMTD, EECS, Michigan Athletics,

Michigan Medicine, and OIE itself, a
place that everyone was told to go to if
an incident occurs. Meanwhile, cam-
pus organizers witnessed an apparent
disconnect between the administra-
tors and the people whom the policy
directly impacted. What was consis-
tent among the headlines is that the
University knows of perpetrators at
the institution, but continues failing
to act promptly and comprehensively,
both in retrospect and in foresight.

To “act” would be a series of

steps toward justice, which includes
both individually and systemically
addressing where the failure occurred,
rethinking and transforming the
institutional structures and power
relations that enabled harm. In the
class-action lawsuit against former
University of Michigan athletic doctor
Robert Anderson, that abuse occurred
years ago is not an excuse for fractional
justice and no change.

Appropriate actions extend beyond

providing verbal support to adopting
institutional courage, which means
cherishing the whistleblower, creating
a culture of transparency, and using
institutional power to protect commu-
nity members, not assaulters. Despite
the long-standing myths of false
reports ruining one’s life, “the alleged”
seldom face expulsion from the Uni-
versity, as reflected by OIE’s Annual
Report in 2016, 2017, and 2018. In the
workplace, three out of four sexual
misconduct cases go unreported, and
over 60% of people who committed
sexual assault are repeated offenders.
This reality is played out in Philbert’s
rise in ranks despite years of rumors
and Anderson’s decades of abuse,
which harmed hundreds of students.

Statistics and numbers numb me,

as do all of the released “official state-
ments.” Actions, not words, are the
true criterion of our community values.
When protecting survivors is solely
treated as a checkbox to maintain fed-

eral funding and reputation, the cam-
pus climate will not improve. When
the Sixth Circuit Court discouraged
personal confrontation — recom-
mending agents, not students them-
selves to conduct cross-examination
— but the University’s interim policy
still maintained to not provide rep-
resentatives for students who need
them, we ask, how could we count on
the procedure to be trauma-informed?
When a professor with pending sexual
misconduct lawsuits was appointed
to teach a large course in the upcom-
ing semester without considering the
community, we ask what the Univer-
sity has learned from the WilmerHale
report that was released not long ago?

Ceciel Zhong is a sophomore dual-degree

student in the School of Information and the

College of Literature, Science, and the Arts.

She can be reached at xizhong@umich.edu.



Read more at michigandaily.com

Read more at michigandaily.com

AMBIKA TRIPATHI | OPINION CARTOONIST
CAN BE REACHED AT AMBIKAT@UMICH.EDU.

Content Warning: This article dis-

cusses gender-based violence. Gender-
based violence “ … refers to harmful
acts directed at an individual based
on their gender. It is rooted in gender
inequality, the abuse of power and
harmful norms.”
I

write this article in honor of the
survivors of gender-based violence
filing the class-action lawsuit

against the University of Michigan for
allowing Robert E. Anderson former U
of M athletic doctor’s decades of abuse
to continue unabated and for all other
survivors of gender-based violence.
This story belongs to them and to all
of the survivors who go unheard and
continue to be failed by oppressive
systems, which perpetuate violence
and inequity against marginalized
groups, on this campus, in this country
and across the globe.

I am no expert; I do not hold all

the answers to solve this complex,
nuanced issue. I write this, first and
foremost, to call for justice for survi-
vors, a form of justice defined solely
by them and what they need to heal,
varying on a case-to-case basis. They
deserve better.

To all survivors, thank you for pro-

tecting all of us in filing this suit. The
University knew of its abuse and failed

all of you and the rest of our commu-
nity by enabling it. If the University
cares about its students, it would take
responsibility for this unimaginable
injury and validate these survivors.

Second, I write this as a call to

myself and all of us to continue to reck-
on with the reality of gender-based
violence, a reality we construct and
maintain and to start to think of and
pursue solutions to deconstruct it. I
hope this op-ed encourages further
debate, reflection and action when it
comes to addressing and dismantling
the oppressive systems that create
gender-based violence.

* * *

Zoom In.
Case I: Former U-M provost Martin

Philbert sexually harassed multiple
people over two decades throughout
his entire career at the University, ris-
ing in ranks from professor to Dean
to Provost, the head of the office that
oversees cases of gender-based vio-
lence. University officials, including
President Mark Schlissel, knew of the
rumors, now proven true, circulating
about Philbert’s misconduct and failed
to launch investigations until the 2018-
2019 school year.

Case II: More than 150 survivors

have come forward in filing indi-

vidual lawsuits and a class-action
lawsuit against the University in
response to the University’s handling
of sexual abuse of students by former
athletic doctor Robert E. Anderson
dating back to the 1960s. The Uni-
versity received over 460 complaints
against Anderson, starting this Feb-
ruary. Worst of all, former football
coach Bo Schembechler and former
athletic director Don Canham knew
about Anderson’s actions and failed
to do anything in response at the time.
Anderson worked until his retirement
in 2003, despite being demoted for his
behavior in 1979.

Case III: The Michigan Daily

uncovered 40 years of harassment and
sexual misconduct allegations against
SMTD faculty Stephen Shipps.

Case IV: Employees at Clinc, an AI

start-up, made allegations of sexual
misconduct against Clinc’s CEO and
EECS professor Jason Mars; some fac-
ulty wrote a statement calling for Mars
to take a leave of absence. He taught an
undergraduate course during the Win-
ter 2021 semester.

Case V: In 2019, the University

conducted a survey on sexual miscon-
duct. Critical results include: 12.4% of
women and 1.7% of men experience
rape on campus; 20.4% of women and

Josie Graham is a junior in the College of

Literature, Science, and the Arts and can be

reached at josiekg@umich.edu.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan