 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

