“I would hope that they would realize that they have not
been transparent,” Yeager said. “They have not considered
anyone they say that they’re considering in these plans and
… I would like to see (the University) reassess their insistence
that everyone be in person because saying everything’s in
person when we’re all (individually) switching to remote is
just ridiculous.”
At the start of the Fall 2020 semester, GEO went on strike
for two weeks in response to the University’s reopening
plans amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Yeager later told The
Daily in an email that the organization’s members do not
plan to go on strike right now and would rather continue
teaching, but in a safer manner.
“Graduate students come to this university in part
because we want to teach, which is what we’re currently
doing right now, even if we’re doing so virtually,” Yaeger
wrote. “So GEO’s current focus is not a job action, but
supporting graduate students who are teaching, no matter
what modality they choose.”
Yeager said in order for GEO to go on strike, a majority of
members currently employed by the University as Graduate
Student Instructors or Graduate Student Staff Assistants
would need to vote to do so.
LSA junior Annie Mintun, speaker of the Central Student
Government assembly, said at the press conference that
she sees the e-pivot as an opportunity for students to have
access to learning during an uncertain semester. Mintun,
who is currently quarantining due to a COVID-19 exposure,
said the e-pivot would be one of the only ways she could
participate in her classes.
“The only confidence I had that I would actually be able
to actually participate this (week) was when I heard that
instructors were coming together to provide online options
for students like me who are in quarantine,” Mintun said. “I
hope that the University will not punish these instructors
who are taking it upon themselves to try and protect their
students.”
Valle said while there have been no documented cases of
retaliation against faculty members who decided to e-pivot,
there have been emails from faculty discouraging remote
instruction. Valle also said if COVID-19 conditions continue
to deteriorate, there is potential for the e-pivot to extend
beyond two weeks.
“The decision to make this a two week e-pivot was made
democratically, rising out of faculty concern,” Valle said. “If
we are in largely a similar situation two weeks from now,
I imagine similar democratic processes might extend the
e-pivot.”
University President Mark Schlissel and University
Provost Susan Collins also sent an email to the U-M
community Monday — two days before the start of the
semester — reiterating the University’s commitment to an
in-person start on Jan. 5 and reminding students to continue
masking indoors and self-report the mandated COVID-19
booster shots.
“We expect these first few weeks of the semester to be
challenging and ask everyone to care for yourselves and for
one another by staying safe and practicing kindness during
what will be a stressful time for many,” Schlissel and Collins
wrote. “Cases are very likely to increase, regardless of
decisions we make about in-person work or classes.”
In reference to Schlissel and Collins’ email, Silke-Maria
Weineck, professor of comparative literature and German
studies, told The Daily that the two narratives of taking care
of each other while also teaching in person do not seem to
coincide, and many faculty members will choose to prioritize
their health and safety over in-person classes.
“We got an email from Schlissel (on Wednesday) that
said, ‘please be kind to each other, support each other, do
what’s good for you, but also teach in person,” Weineck
said. “It seems these two directives are incompatible. And I
think many of us will choose to take the second part of the
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
4 — Wednesday, January 12, 2022
OVER 1,800
From Page 1
Wellman also expressed his commitment
to the faculty mentorship process.
“But it’s also important to realize we do
not discard people the first time they make
mistakes, but rather we attempt to correct the
problems,” Wellman continued. “In this case,
the system we put in place to mentor a new
faculty member to address identified concerns
worked.”
In an email on June 24, 2021, a Georgia
Tech faculty member stressed the importance
of getting Genkin to sign Georgia Tech’s offer
letter for a tenure-track faculty position.
“Michigan is also trying to make things
better for him and we should not give them
unlimited time to work on him to stay,” the
faculty member wrote to DeMillo.
On August 9, 2021, Genkin wrote in an
email to a Georgia Tech administrator that he
was “being pushed to resign UM” and that he
“had his lab packed up.”
Genkin’s email in which he said that he was
“being pushed to resign.”
Wellman said that he did not push Genkin
to resign.
“As I said, we made clear to him that he
needed to correct the problematic behavior,”
Wellman said. “We provided advice and
mentoring about how to improve as a research
advisor, including how to eliminate all the
problematic behavior, how to reduce the stress
that he was perceived as imposing on students.
And we also introduced vigilant monitoring of
his lab and paid attention to the well-being of
students.”
Angel Rodriguez was an undergraduate
researcher in a cybersecurity lab when
Genkin joined UMich in 2018. According to
Rodriguez, Genkin was intriguing: young and
eccentric with a flashy research history.
“He basically disrupted the whole security
field,” Rodriguez said in an interview with
The Daily.
A few months after arriving at UMich,
Genkin allegedly approached Rodriguez
about working for him in exchange for a spot
in the PhD program.
“I knew that I had a harder chance of
getting into the PhD program because I didn’t
have the grades for it,” Rodriguez said. “He
told me that he could basically guarantee that
I’d get in.”
Rodriguez said he was enthusiastic about
his “trial run” working for Genkin during the
summer of 2019. But by the end of the summer,
Rodriguez had reported Genkin to OIE twice.
Genkin’s alleged bullying began with
inappropriate comments. Rodriguez said he
witnessed Genkin insult the speaking skills
of non-native English speakers. Genkin
allegedly called Rodriguez, an African
American man, a “monkey” and allegedly
made frequent comments about his weight.
Once, Rodriguez said he watched Genkin
keep a student feeling ill in the lab until
the student started crying. In an interview
with The Daily, Rodriguez said he filed his
complaint with OIE because of this alleged
incident.
“I think that was the straw that really
pushed me to report,” Rodriguez said to The
Daily. “ (The student) really was afraid of
leaving early because if (Genkin) saw … he
would go into the office and then criticize
(them) and belittle (them).”
On July 20, 2019, Rodriguez sent an
anonymous email to OIE, a copy of which
was obtained by The Daily. He asked about
protections of students who report about the
behavior of professors.
“I have witnessed concerning actions from
a faculty members that have made myself and
others uncomfortable,” Rodriguez wrote.
“Myself and others have refrained from
reporting them because of the risks imposed
on the students and faculty working directly
or indirectly under them.”
Rodriguez’s anonymous email to then-OIE.
Elizabeth Seney, then-Senior Associate
Director of then-OIE & Interim Title IX
Coordinator, wrote back that the University’s
policy “prohibits retaliation against an
individual for reporting or otherwise sharing
information about concerns of discrimination,
including discriminatory harassment, on
the basis of any protected class identified in
the University’s Nondiscrimination Policy
Notice.”
Seney’s reply to Rodriguez’s anonymous
email.
Nine days after that, Rodriguez responded
with a detailed anonymous complaint about
Genkin’s alleged behavior.
“Daniel will frequently insult, belittle, and
generally not be conscious of the negative
effects his words and actions have on the
feelings of wellbeing, safety, and respect, of
his peers and underlings,” Rodriguez wrote to
Seney. “I respect his work, but I do not respect
the hostile work environment he has created.”
Seney replied, thanking him and writing
that OIE would address the concerns which
fall within OIE’s scope.
Filing the anonymous complaint did
not seem to improve Rodriguez’s working
conditions, Rodriguez said. Genkin persisted
in making “unreasonable” demands on
Rodriguez’s work hours and research output,
Rodriguez told The Daily. On August 12, 2019,
Genkin questioned the 80 hours Rodriguez
reported working over a two-week period in a
message on Slack reviewed by The Daily.
Later that week, Rodriguez said he went
to Genkin’s office to ask him to approve his
timecard. Rodriguez said that Genkin showed
him what he claimed to be an unapproved
lock on his door. Rodriguez said he cautioned
Genkin against doing things he shouldn’t be.
“If you tell anyone about it, I’ll get in trouble,
and I’ll hang you,” Genkin allegedly replied,
according to the second OIE complaint
Rodriguez later filed.
“I look back on it now and I still feel like I
under-reacted to a lot because of how much I
had on my plate at the time,” Rodriguez told
The Daily.
On Nov. 4, 2019, Rodriguez sent a message
to graduate students about a new concern:
Genkin was allegedly encouraging colleagues
to falsify data before a fast-approaching
academic paper deadline. Copies of this chat
were obtained by The Daily.
With Rodriguez’s approval, Bernhard
wrote to Noble about this pressure to falsify
data. Three other graduate students, four
faculty members and one administrator were
cc’d on this email, obtained by The Daily.
Rodriguez responded in the email chain
that Genkin often pressured others to bend
the rules. He wrote of the “numerous times”
Genkin pressured him and his colleagues to
circumvent “the safety committee … to cut
costs and save time.”
On Dec. 10, 2019, Rodriguez replied to the
previously anonymous complaint to Seney
by claiming it as his own. He included new
allegations against Genkin in his reply.
Rodriguez’s email to Seney in which
he identified himself as the author of the
anonymous OIE complaint.
“I kept feeling a deep fear that I was
burning bridges I may need during or after
my undergraduate career,” Rodriguez wrote
in his email to Seney. “The news of this report
reached Daniel, and I strongly believe he
knows it was me. I fear for retaliation.”
Five days later, on Dec. 15, Rodriguez
decided not to apply to the PhD program.
Five days after that, on Dec. 20, Genkin
submitted an application to a tenure-track
faculty position in Georgia Tech’s School of
Cybersecurity and Privacy.
By April 2019, Bernhard was becoming
wary of Genkin’s alleged behavior in the
student office space he shared with Genkin’s
advisees. He met with then-CSE chair Brian
Noble to discuss this on April 19, 2019.
“The first meeting, I felt good,” Bernhard
said in an interview with The Daily. “I sort of
laid out…my concerns about the department
were not just Daniel-based. It felt good to have
someone who seemed at the time like they
were listening.”
After that meeting, Genkin allegedly
followed Bernhard out to his car to find out
what information had been shared with Noble.
“I couldn’t tell at the time if it was just total
lack of awareness of social norms or … like, ‘I’m
going to physically intimidate you and follow
you around until you tell me what you’ve been
telling other people’,” Bernhard said.
Bernhard later initiated email chains,
obtained by The Daily, with multiple graduate
students and faculty members to discuss
concerns about Genkin in Sep. 2019.
One of Bernhard’s emails regarding his
concerns about Genkin’s alleged behavior.
Genkin’s
alleged
conduct
severely
disrupted the graduate student workplace,
according to Bernhard’s email chains. In
one instance, he allegedly used the shared
graduate student office to drill into his Segway
battery, filling the space with noxious fumes,
Bernhard wrote in the emails.
In another instance, Bernhard wrote in
the emails that he witnessed Genkin yell at
a graduate student until they cried. When
Bernhard spoke with Genkin about this,
Genkin allegedly replied that, “I can either go
in there and scream at (the student) until (they
cry) and then (they’ll) do the thing, or I can just
do it myself.” (Italics in original text)
In the same conversation, Bernhard wrote
in the emails that Genkin allegedly said, “The
only thing that gets professors fired is sexual
impropriety and academic dishonesty.”
In early Sept. 2019, Bernhard heard rumors
of Rodriguez’s OIE complaint.
“He’s been asking people if they want to go
hunting for rats, apparently,” Bernhard wrote
in a message to a peer obtained by The Daily.
Over the next four months, Bernhard
repeatedly met with Noble and other CSE
faculty. Bernhard said that they consistently
declined to take substantive action to address
student concerns.
In one specific instance, Noble responded
to Bernhard’s email to ask if any of Genkin’s
behavior could be proven with something in
writing.
Noble’s response asking if anything was in
writing.
“The most common response from (Noble)
was that his hands were tied,” Bernhard told
The Daily. “Legally, (he) couldn’t do anything.
There was nothing he could do to stop
(Genkin) from abusing us. It’s just the system.
It’s not really his fault, which was the one that
really got to me.”
Bernhard recalled to The Daily that Noble
established rules in one of these meetings that
Genkin would have to follow going forward.
One of these rules was that Genkin could not
enter the shared graduate student office space.
After Genkin allegedly continued to enter
the graduate student office space, Bernhard
wrote to Noble. Noble responded via email to
say that he had not yet spoken to Genkin.
After months of meetings but little
improvement in Genkin’s behavior, Bernhard
told The Daily he and other graduate students
had lost confidence in the department’s ability
to address Genkin’s alleged bullying.
“By this point, we were pretty upset that
not only have we had to go through these
fairly traumatizing experiences, but also
that nothing was done,” Bernhard said. “The
University as a whole didn’t seem to care.”
Nevertheless, Rodriguez and Bernhard
continued to make administrators aware
of Genkin’s alleged conduct. In Feb. 2020,
Rodriguez had individual meetings with
Noble and Alec Gallimore, Dean of the College
of Engineering.
Rodriguez followed up with an email to
Gallimore listing his recommendations to
improve reporting to OIE.
“Thank you for coming in and for this
message,” Gallimore wrote in an email reply.
“I’m also sorry. The behavior you describe has
no place at Michigan.”
In March 2020, Bernhard forwarded then-
chair Peter Chen the previous emails between
him, Noble, other faculty members and other
graduate students regarding Genkin. Chen
replied that he was “trying to get up to speed
on this situation as fast as I can.”
In a video chat later that month, Bernhard
said that Chen acknowledged he wasn’t sure if
he could do anything to help the situation with
Genkin.
“He seemed receptive,” Bernhard said. “It
was obvious he was in fact finding mode. I felt
really good after my one conversation with
(Chen). And then nothing happened as per
usual.”
Even prior to his time at UMich, Genkin
faced allegations of bullying.
In 2017, Genkin worked in UPenn’s
Cryptography and Information Security
department as a postdoctoral researcher.
According to emails sent by a student in
the department between Jan. 2017 and
Sept. 2017 and obtained by The Daily,
Genkin was allegedly “passive-aggressive,”
“manipulative,” “disruptive,” “toxic” and an
“intellectual bully.”
The
UPenn
Office
of
University
Communications did not respond to repeated
requests for comment by The Daily. Current
CSE chair Wellman denied knowing about
these allegations during Genkin’s hiring.
“I had heard about (the UPenn emails)
recently that some students were saying that
there were these known allegations, but we
never received those and I can tell you as
someone involved in the hiring, there was
nothing in the record about that,” Wellman
said in an interview with The Daily.
The term “academic bullying” has been
increasingly applied to conduct in higher
education institutions in recent years.
Researchers say that bullying thrives in
research settings.
In 2019, the Max Planck Society in
Germany conducted a survey of workplace
harassment of over 9,000 employees, 17.5% of
whom said they had experienced bullying in a
period longer than 12 months. Also in 2019, the
science journal Nature reported that roughly
20% of the 6,000 PhD students surveyed said
they experienced bullying. Of those, 57% said
they felt “unable to discuss their situation
without fear of personal repercussions.”
In an interview with The Daily, Wellman
said that Genkin’s alleged behavior had
changed.
“We did not receive any reports of incidents
or problematic behavior of this sort after 2019,”
Wellman said.
Bernhard told The Daily he believes that
the remote research requirements of the
pandemic prevented Genkin from engaging in
further alleged bullying.
“We were all remote so it’s not like (Genkin)
could have done the things he was doing,”
Bernhard said. “It’s hard to say, was it even
really a problem anymore?”
Bernhard and Rodriguez both graduated
from U-M CSE with their respective degrees
in the spring 2020.
Nov. 17, 2021, Rodriguez requested a copy
of OIE’s investigative report regarding his
complaints, according to details obtained by
The Daily. Rodriguez was told via email that it
would take up to 45 days for him to receive this
report. He has not yet received a reply.
Though Bernhard contacted Georgia
Tech administrators July 6, 2021, Genkin had
received his first offer letter in May. Genkin
signed a second offer letter on June 26.
Wellman confirmed that he spoke with
DeMillo, the Georgia Tech interim chair, on
July 13, 2021, as indicated in emails obtained
by The Daily.
“So I had a phone call with the chair of
the department that hired him, and I guess
what I’ll say is that we did not withhold
any information about his situation or his
performance at Michigan,” Wellman said. “I
answered any questions that he had.”
Georgia Tech completed a background
check on Genkin on May 24, 2021. The
background check, reviewed by The Daily,
included a standard screening of any history
of criminal, credit, driving or substance abuse.
Records of Georgia Tech’s background
check as obtained by The Daily.
In response to continued concerns over his
previous alleged behavior, Genkin wrote to
The Daily that his current students are happy
with his mentorship style.
“The allegations raised are in stark contrast
to positive feedback from students that are
currently in my research lab,” Genkin wrote.
DAILY
From Page 1
LSA junior Kristina Wendling – who lives off-campus
in a 10-person house – tested positive for COVID-19 on
Tuesday, the day before classes resumed. Wendling has
been quarantined in her room since she has been unable
to utilize University-provided accommodations and is
unable to return to her permanent residence, creating an
uncomfortable living situation with her nine roommates.
“Usually I’ll check everyone’s class schedules and see
when the least amount of people are around and that’s
when I’ll plan when I’m going to go make food or when I’m
going to take a shower, things like that,” Wendling said.
Wendling said her roommates all attend in-person
classes and while none have tested positive for COVID-
19 yet, she’s concerned about putting her roommates and
other students at risk.
“I just wish I could have gotten better help with the
isolation housing because I’m just in a weird little bedroom
here and I still share common spaces,” Wendling said. “So
I’m just nervous.”
LSA senior Bella Karduck lives in an off-campus
residence where she shares a room and multiple common
areas with other students. After first testing positive for
COVID-19 in December 2021, Karduck stayed in Q&I
housing.
When Karduck tested positive with new symptoms
on Jan. 3, she was denied University-provided
accommodations and was told to reach out to the Dean
of Students Office, which encouraged her to stay in her
apartment.
“The response I got from The Dean of Students Office
was ‘Omicron is mild and highly-transmissible. So you can
clean and try the best you can so your roommates don’t get
sick,’” Karduck said. “So I posted in the Facebook pages
looking for a place to stay kind of out of desperation so I
didn’t have to drive home.”
Karduck said she wishes the University offered more
options for off-campus students who test positive for
COVID-19 and can’t relocate to their permanent residence
or isolate in their off-campus residences.
Resident Advisors also discussed students living in
residence halls who struggled to obtain access to Q&I
housing after testing positive for COVID-19, according to
messages obtained by The Daily.
“A resident of mine came to me telling me that their
roommate tested positive and when UHS finally got back
to them, they told her that they had around a 300 call
backlog and that Q&I housing is at capacity,” one message
read.
Another message said Hall Directors had been directed
to inform Resident Advisors to refrain from speaking to
the media, particularly regarding housing-related issues. A
Resident Advisor in another residence hall confirmed the
information in a subsequent message.
A Resident Advisor who agreed to speak with The Daily
on the condition of anonymity for fear of professional
retaliation said the increase of COVID-19 cases in residence
halls has made it difficult to continue with day-to-day RA
duties. The Resident Advisor will be referred to as Charlie.
“It has kind of made me scared to go on duty,” Charlie
said. “Specifically, just going to the bathroom because
certain residents who have community bathrooms that
have tested positive have not been taken to quarantine
right away. One resident in particular has been (taken to
quarantine) but it took more than 24 hours. A positive test
was reported yesterday around 10 a.m., and they just got
taken today at around 1 p.m.”
Charlie said their residents have elected to self-isolate
when in close contact with a COVID-positive student
despite University guidelines which do not require students
with a COVID-19 booster shot who are asymptomatic to
quarantine.
“I think that students are probably going to be suffering
because they’re trying to be more responsible than the
University is,” Charlie said.
Addressing circulating rumors of limited Q&I housing,
University spokesperson Rick Fitzgerald wrote in an email
to The Daily about the current situation of Q&I housing.
“Q&I housing is not full,” Fitzgerald said. “Today we
are at about 12 percent of a total capacity of more than
400 beds. And the university is working to increase that
overall capacity. There are delays in responding to students
who have tested positive, but on-campus students will be
relocated to Q&I housing as soon as possible.”
The 12% referred to Thursday morning’s update. As of
Friday, that number was revised to 35%.
Xu also said the safety policies in the dorm were loosely
enforced, making him feel uncomfortable. Prior to the
winter 2022 semester, students were not required to
wear face masks in their own residence halls, including in
common areas. In December, the policy shifted, requiring
all students in residence halls to wear face masks through
at least Jan. 17, regardless of vaccination status.
“In classes, I feel very safe because everybody wears
masks,” Xu said. “I feel less safe in the campus housing
because people are just not wearing masks when they
should.”
Xu said because his roommate — who has not tested
positive for COVID-19 — and himself are both unable to
find alternative housing, they must coexist in their dorm
room while wearing masks at all times except for sleeping.
During a RHA meeting on Thursday, members
expressed concerns regarding COVID-19 positive students
remaining in the dorms for extended periods of time after
receiving a positive test result.
Members of the student body have also taken to social
media to share their difficulties with being transferred
to Q&I housing. Some students have said their MCards
were frozen, denying them access to dining halls. Others
have said that Q&I housing had forgotten to prepare meals
for students in their residency. Broekhuizen denied both
rumors of COVID-positive students’ MCards being frozen
and that Q&I housing is forgetting to prepare meals for
students.
LSA
junior
Isabel
Rodriguez
critiqued
the
administration’s approach to the Winter 2022 semester and
said that it didn’t account for the stress it put on students.
“(They’re) just kind of saying, well, like ‘You guys can
handle it. You’re young. You won’t get sick from it because
you’re vaccinated’, which isn’t necessarily true,” Rodriguez
said.
‘I FEEL DISRESPECTED
From Page 1
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com