Graduation Edition 2022 — 5
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
D
ear President Schlissel,
If you’re reading this
message, walk outside
your door and talk to Jonathan
Vaughn.
In
case,
President
Schlissel, you don’t know who
that is, you may want to check
out the student, local, statewide
and national press coverage that
his courageous statement has
attracted. He is one of more than
2,000 students and athletes who
survived the abuse of Dr. Robert
Anderson, and he would like to
talk to you. Now that you must
know who Jonathan Vaughn is,
walk outside your door and speak
to him.
If you’re still reading at this
point, President Schlissel, and
not outside talking to Jonathan
Vaughn, then I have to imagine
there must be some problem
preventing you from talking
to him. Let’s brainstorm some
solutions.
Maybe you’ve been looking for
Jon all over campus but can’t find
him to speak with him! Finding
your
way
around
campus,
especially with changing bus
routes, can always be tricky.
Thankfully, he’s right outside
your house! If you’re still having
trouble finding him, send me an
email about directions, and I’d
be happy to walk you the 10 steps
out your door to the sidewalk.
If
you’re
still
reading,
President
Schlissel,
then
it must not be a problem of
directions. Maybe you’re staying
inside because you’re worried
about catching COVID-19? A
reasonable fear, given that we are
living in an ongoing pandemic.
If you are staying inside because
you’re concerned about catching
COVID-19, don’t you think it’s
a little hypocritical that you
aren’t giving faculty the same
opportunity? You provided a
ringing endorsement of “Work
Connections” in the face of
faculty members telling you the
current process is a failed system.
While I can’t cure hypocrisy, I can
say that it does breed discontent.
Studies have shown outdoor,
masked and vaccinated meetings
have incredibly low chances of
COVID-19 transmission. Put on a
mask, walk outside your door and
talk to Jon.
If you’ve gotten this far,
President Schlissel, then it must
not be directions or a COVID-
19 worry that’s stopping you.
Perhaps you’ve lost your voice
and are worried Jon won’t be able
to hear you if you go outside to
speak with him. I know my voice
would undoubtedly be hoarse if I
spent even half the time making
empty promises of accountability
and transparency as you do. To
your credit, it is astounding you
found the words to keep your
job scandal, after scandal, after
scandal, after scandal, after
scandal; we’ve all been waiting
for years for the other shoe to
drop. If your voice is sore from
all of the platitudes, as someone
who works with singers as part of
my degree in the School of Music,
Theatre & Dance, I suggest warm
water with honey and lemon, a
humidifier for your bedroom and
vocal rest. Drink some tea, walk
outside your door and talk to Jon.
If
you’ve
made
it
here,
President Schlissel, then it must
not be directions, COVID-19 or
a sore voice that’s preventing
you from doing, quite literally,
the bare minimum for these
survivors. Perhaps your schedule
is
too
busy;
maybe
you’ve
penciled in too much time to
think about how you’re going
to spend your early removal
package! If that’s how much a
failed presidency costs, I can’t
even imagine how much we’ll
have to spend on a successful one.
But look, I get it, especially at this
point in the year, things just pile
up. I’d suggest budgeting time a
little differently; why don’t you
take some of the time you spend
ignoring the Faculty Senate and
use it to talk to Jon? Make some
free time, walk outside your door
and speak to Jon.
If
you’ve
read
this
far,
President Schlissel, I can’t say it
is looking good for you. I would
like to think I’m an intelligent
guy, but truthfully, I’m running
out of solutions for you. Suppose
it’s not about directions, COVID-
19, losing your voice or a packed
schedule. In that case, the only
remaining problem I can think of
is that you’re a selfish, cowardly
embarrassment to the University
of Michigan. We’re supposed
to be the “Leaders and Best”
around here, remember? If you
can’t muster up the courage to
go outside your house and talk to
someone who is far braver than
you, then you don’t deserve to
be the head of this University.
Being the “Leaders and Best” is
not a passive description of who
we are, but a higher calling we
are charged to pursue in all we
do; if we don’t have that in the
highest office, what are we as an
institution? If you can’t do this
one small act that would make a
large impact in the lives of these
survivors, and survivors of other
scandals under your tenure, then
I suggest you close this article,
gather your personal belongings
and resign immediately instead
of in June 2023 as planned. Make
sure you sneak out the backdoor
so you don’t risk bumping into a
real “Leader and Best.”
If you feel, President Schlissel,
that none of these possible
problems address your neglect
of Jonathan Vaughn, feel free to
reach out. I’m sure we can think
of something.
Dear President Schlissel,
talk to Jon.
From The Daily: Schlissel is
gone, now what?
W
hen the Regents of
the University of
Michigan
decided
to terminate former University
President Mark Schlissel, they
released 118 pages of Schlissel’s
communications along with
their announcement. These
documents,
containing
emails, text messages and
images, while important in
the name of transparency,
were promptly snapped up by
a ravenous student body. One
reddit
comment
remarked
that “Never had this many
undergraduates been so keen to
do primary source research on
a Saturday night.” The emails
were memefied immediately,
with merchandise coming to
the market within the week,
making fun of our lonely
president m. This transparency
is refreshing and Schlissel’s
indiscretions
were
serious,
but one naturally wonders,
especially
considering
the
predictable student reaction,
whether this dump of salacious
documents is anything other
than an attempt to shield
the Board of Regents — not
necessarily the University as
an institution — from blame
and embarrassment.
It was no secret that Schlissel
was not particularly popular
on
campus;
discussions
regarding
Schlissel
were
frequently
filled
with
frustration or disappointment.
These grievances have led
students to often question his
decisions. However, many of
the trademark bad decisions
made
by
Schlissel
were
directed, or at least directly
influenced, by the board.
Take
the
unpopular
decision to prematurely bring
students back to campus for
the fall 2020 semester — prior
to the development of COVID-
19 vaccines. This was not a
unilateral decision by Schlissel
and his administration but was
a subject of major frustration
for students who felt they had
no voice in this decision. One
board
member,
University
Regent Ron Weiser (R), who
has a financial stake in off-
campus housing, even donated
$30 million to the University
days before its announcement
to reopen. No one can quantify
the impact of the regents,
especially those with vested
interests, on these decisions
conclusively,
but
we
must
reflect on their influence.
While
Schlissel’s
actions
were both damaging to the
University’s reputation and
an abuse of the power he
held over U-M employees,
numerous faculty accused of
sexual assault and harassment
were allowed a far more
graceful exit.
When
former
American
Culture
lecturer
Bruce
Conforth
was
reported
to
University
officials
for
attempting
to
engage
in
sexual
relationships
with
three
students
in
2008,
he was allowed to retire
otherwise unpunished in 2017
— inarguably a much more
private departure than that of
Schlissel.
Former
Music,
Theatre
&
Dance
professor
David
Daniels was fired by the
board
for
allegations
of
sexual misconduct in March
of 2020. Not only did the
board not include a similarly
large disclosure report, they
began the process of formally
firing Daniels over a year
earlier, in July of 2019, based
on allegations made public
in August of 2018. Schlissel
was
reported,
investigated
and terminated in under two
months.
In the well-known case
of
former
Provost
Martin
Philbert, the board released
an 88-page report based on
an
investigation
into
his
sexual misconduct. However,
releasing
118
pages
of
memeable emails does not have
the same effect that releasing
a dense WilmerHale report
does. Hundreds of jokes were
not inspired by this in-depth
report, only a fraction of which
consists of Philbert’s actual
communications.
Secondary
sources like this report tend
to obscure the actual nature of
the relevant content, as actual
words
inherently
convey
more than descriptions. The
Regents’ decision to release
a mass of personal messages
deviates from its customary
form of transparency about
its activities, which typically
consists of formal reports like
the one regarding Philbert.
In their official release, the
board said they were releasing
Schlissel’s
communications
“In the interest of full public
disclosure.” Was this kind
of visibility not necessary in
those previous cases? Was the
speed with which the board
investigated
and
removed
Schlissel not necessary before?
This is not to criticize
the Board’s decision to be
transparent. If the board is
going to adequately combat
the
ongoing
and
historic
issues of sexual assault and
harassment in the University,
as they should, a consistent
approach is necessary. This is
to say that releasing important
documents related to similar
allegations should be the norm
— not exclusive to figures with
a negative public image like
Schlissel.
But apart from Schlissel’s
strained
relationship
with
students and faculty, it is
worth noting that he fell out
with the Board of Regents
in the past year too. In light
of the severity with which
Schlissel’s case was treated
in
comparison
to
other
aforementioned cases, it is
clear that the board chose to
use Schlissel’s actions as a
means to (rightfully) remove
an adversary of theirs. While
these emails were insightful
and
undeniably
humorous,
this is a politicization of the
process of dealing with sexual
misconduct that will serve to
taint
future
investigations
with the stench of bias. Only a
consistent protocol will ensure
that this does not occur.
The
board
and
administration must release a
comprehensive plan of action
for any future sexual assault
or misconduct reports against
professors,
administration
officials or any employed
University official. Such a
comprehensive
plan
will
ensure that every case is
treated seriously and with
consistency to ensure that
transgressions
are
treated
with
the
seriousness
and
transparency they deserve.
A system where allegations
of misconduct are treated on
a case-by-case basis allows
for
certain
individuals,
like Conforth, Daniels and
Philbert to get away with their
behavior for years. Sexual
misconduct can occur at any
level of the University. Only
taking strong, public action
against the most recognizable
figures fails to address the
broader issue.
While firing Schlissel is a
step in the right direction, the
Board of Regent’s choice of an
interim replacement, President
Emerita Mary Sue Coleman,
is
not
untainted
herself.
Coleman
was
reportedly
aware of allegations against
Martin Philbert during her
tenure as president. Despite
the allegations and Coleman’s
knowledge,
Philbert
was
allowed to continue serving
as Dean of the School of
Public Health for the rest of
Coleman’s term and nearly six
years afterward.
If Coleman’s appointment
was meant by the board as
a return to normalcy, to the
“scandal free” era before
Schlissel, it just shows how
deeply tolerance of sexual
misconduct is ingrained in the
University’s administration.
The
flood
of
sexual
assault
and
harassment
allegations against faculty
and administrators during
Schlissel’s term was by no
means unique. The issues of
sexual
misconduct
within
this university have been tied
to Mark Schlissel; losing him
means losing a figurehead to
rally against and replacing
him with a less controversial
former president who people
remember fondly. Once the
jokes about these emails die
down, we will still be left
with an administration that
turns a blind eye to sexual
misconduct, but this time one
that commands less scrutiny
from the public. This cannot
become the case. We have
to
remain
vigilant
about
this issue. To avoid further
negligence and complaisance,
we must hold the board
accountable for consistent
and fair actions when faced
with such situations.
ANDREW GERACE | 2021 COLUMNIST
Andrew Gerace can be reached at
agerace@umich.edu.
Roommate woes
Design by Opinion Cartoonist Madeline Leja