T
he University of Michigan’s
reopening
has
been
fraught with challenges
and has met much criticism
from faculty, students and Ann
Arbor residents alike. Messaging
from
upper
administration
and University President Mark
Schlissel throughout the summer
months leading up to reopening
has been remarkably inconsistent.
From saying that the assertion
that
students
won’t
follow
safety protocol is “offensive” to
analogizing student violations of
distancing guidelines to the HIV
epidemic,
Schlissel
especially
has come under severe scrutiny,
resulting in the consideration of a
vote of no confidence by the Faculty
Senate. Reports of precautionary
guidelines
being
unenforced
during undergraduate move-in and
unlawful student gatherings have
only compounded on an increasing
lack of faith in the University’s
flawed reopening strategy.
We are calling on University
leadership
to
re-evaluate
its
current plan for the fall 2020
semester. Provisions must include
better contact tracing and the use
of alternate testing methods, such
as weekly wastewater testing in
residence halls to monitor possible
outbreaks and saliva testing, which
is less invasive than the traditional
nasal swab and expedites results so
contact tracing and quarantining
can be administered rapidly. The
University must also follow the
guidelines they have already put
into place, ensuring that Student
Life staff enforce mask guidelines
and no-guest policies in dorms,
as well as outlining the protocol
for repercussions for violations.
To ensure the efficacy of this
enforcement, the University must
provide quality personal protective
equipment to University faculty,
staff and Student Life employees.
The innumerable flaws in the
current fall 2020 reopening plan,
along with its execution, have
been impacting the Ann Arbor and
University community unequally.
We acknowledge that there are
those who rely on some U-M
classes being held in person, but
the lack of robust planning to allow
for those necessary classes to take
place will only serve to weaken
the institution even further in
the long term. The University
has been overworking Student
Life
staff
without
providing
adequate protection. Leadership
has acknowledged but pushed
against
calls
for
widespread
and
alternative
testing.
Last-
minute announcements and lack
of adequate protections overall
have
put
students,
especially
international students, students of
color and low-income students, at
risk since the partial closure of the
University in March.
The University has failed to
come up with a response sufficient
for the scope of the problem in some
of the most basic ways, particularly
where housing is concerned. Not
only are dorms operating at 70
percent capacity right now despite
the percent of strictly online
undergraduate classes being 78
percent, but they’re also operating
in such a way that they fall under
the CDC’s “more risk” category — as
do all University spaces, currently.
Guidelines like staying six feet
apart and not sharing objects
are the minimum precautions an
institution can take right now.
Many
comparable
universities
have done far more to minimize the
number of bodies on campus. Less
than 10 percent of University of
Washington undergraduate classes
are in person, compared to our 31
percent; Harvard University and
University of Chicago dorms are at
40 percent capacity, compared to
our 70 (and everyone gets their own
room); Georgetown University is
housing 2,000 students, dwarfed
by
our
on-campus
freshman
count alone; Brown, Princeton,
Columbia, Stanford and Yale are
all alternating based on year which
students can be on-campus, rather
than welcoming everyone back at
once.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
From The Daily: The University can do
more to protect its community
Graduation Edition 2023 — 11
Opinion
THE MICHIGAN DAILY
EDITORIAL BOARD
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.
From The Daily: Schlissel is gone, now what?
THE MICHIGAN DAILY
EDITORIAL BOARD
A
s
we
collectively
face
midterms, it has become
increasingly
clear
that
many students are experiencing
burnout, pandemic fatigue and
an increase in mental health
issues. These issues can easily
be compounded by the growing
exposure of sexual misconduct
spanning decades on campus,
tension over COVID-19 policies
and
recurrent
issues
with
landlords.
While
delineating
the variety of stressors students
are facing is important, it is also
critical to analyze resources the
University of Michigan provides
and pressure the University to
adequately support students who
are struggling with stress and
mental illness.
The
University
offers
Counseling
and
Psychological
Services
(CAPS)
for
students
dealing with mental health crises,
but the program is limited. There
is not a solidified framework for
long-term help, as CAPS has a
goal of ‘graduating’ students in
4 to 8 weeks. What’s more, the
CAPS waiting list usually grows
during high-stress times, meaning
students can’t access help when
they need it most. Since so many
of students’ stressors stem from
issues related to the University,
the University has both the
responsibility and the capability
— with a $17 billion endowment —
to establish an adequate support
system.
Some
students
don’t
have
healthcare
access
outside
of
University Health Services, so
they
cannot
receive
therapy
outside of the University. Other
students have to consider leaving
their regular therapists if they
can no longer afford a copay for
each session, but currently CAPS
cannot substitute the depth and
breadth involved in longer-term
therapy
programs
offered
by
professionals. While short-term
care is beneficial for some students,
many students have chronic stress
that cannot be resolved in 4 to 8
weeks. The University has not
responded to this specific reality in
a comprehensive and effective way.
As of now, CAPS best serves as an
intermediary step toward longer-
term help.
However, for some students,
having a longer-term relationship
with CAPS could be beneficial;
specifically,
CAPS
counselors
have extensive experience with
student issues and are accessible
due to their on-campus location.
Therefore, the University should
explore programs that would allow
students with the most need to
continue to see CAPS counselors
for a longer period of time.
University spokesperson Kim
Broekhuizen discussed the status
of CAPS and other mental health
resources in an email to The
Michigan Daily.
“CAPS
has
been
adding
counselors and other resources to
their service offerings for several
years now,” Broekhuizen wrote.
“All of CAPS services are free to any
student enrolled at U-M. The same
is true for Wellness Coaching.”
She also shared data on the
rates of individual counseling
sessions. Of students who came to
CAPS seeking counseling, 81.1%
of students only received one to
five sessions. Only 18.9% of cases
received additional counseling,
with only 0.7% of cases receiving
over 21 sessions.
According
to
Broekhuizen,
these 0.7% of cases often include
students who “do not have any
insurance or are underinsured or
insurance is not provided in the
state of Michigan … do not have
transportation or schedules that
allow for off campus referrals.”
This small fraction of cases
represents
that,
while
some
students are receiving long-term
support, there should likely be an
expansion of access for these types
of cases.
From The Daily: UMich should consider
expanding long-term counseling through CAPS
THE MICHIGAN DAILY
EDITORIAL BOARD
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
FILE PHOTO/Daily
O
n March 7, 2023, University
President Santa Ono was
inaugurated as the 15th
President of the University of
Michigan, and was immediately
greeted with a crisis inherited
from presidents past. Promptly
after his inauguration ceremony,
freshly minted President Ono was
met by hundreds of students in
front of Hill Auditorium. Among
those present were members of the
Graduate Employees’ Organization
carrying signs with their demands
for the University, ranging from
increased compensation to better
healthcare coverage and childcare
benefits. This picket comes on the
heels of another unfruitful month
of bargaining between the labor
union and the University. On many
occasions, GEO and the University
have been able to come to a
compromise — but at this moment
in time, a strike is imminent.
GEO last went on strike in
Fall 2020; for nearly two weeks,
thousands of graduate student
instructors didn’t show up to
work. Discussion sections went
unattended,
some
professors
canceled class in solidarity and, for
some students, education ground
to a halt. Despite allegations by
the University that the strike
violated the bargaining agreement
the union signed — a claim the
University is making again — GEO
was successful: They were able to
achieve better childcare options,
greater support for international
graduate students and a safer
working environment at the height
of the pandemic. This strike,
although
generally
disruptive
to the learning environment of
the University and its students,
increased the visibility of graduate
student conditions and inspired the
action of other student employees.
Strikes are rarely a positive thing
for the reputation of the aggrieving
employer. Several times in its
history, GEO has protested against
the University, and each time these
protests have negatively harmed the
University’s reputation. Canceled
classes, increased media attention
and many dissatisfied members of
the U-M community could prove
unpredictably damaging to the
foundation of the institution, and
could even dissuade parents of
high school seniors from sending
their children to the University of
Michigan. In an ideal world, the
University would be able to take
GEO’s concerns into consideration
without taking damage to its public
image. However, the University’s
lackluster
reactions
to
GEO’s
demands and proposals have all but
necessitated this drastic turn.
These
consequences
are
revealing. If GSIs can turn the
campus upside down it is proof
of the critical role that graduate
students play in the University’s
operations. GEO is well within
their right to strike and, in using
that power to attempt to change
the framework of campus, they are
making their platform and purpose
at the University known. Whether
they are in classrooms or lecture
halls, labs or offices, graduate
students play pivotal roles in the
functioning of the University and
undergraduate students’ lives.
Undergraduate students will be
one of the primary groups affected
by the strike. Many undergrads
interact with a Graduate Student
Instructor
almost
every
day,
whether that be in a lecture hall,
office hours or in a GSI-taught class.
Although
many
undergraduate
students support GEO’s cause,
they are nervous about what a
strike will mean for their academic
experience, especially as the end
of the term nears. The campus is
looking down the barrel of a full
fledged disaster, a dissolution of
trust built between students and
the University — between students
who picket and students who will
eventually cross the picket line.
In addition to upset undergrads,
the domino effect of disaffected
parents and donors could cause
the University an even greater
headache in the long term.
It is important to recognize,
however, that this point could have
been avoided by action on both
sides. There have been moments
where
GEO’s
demands
have
seemed superfluous in comparison
to their core grievances, and there
is a chance that if they had been
left out, an agreement would have
been reached by now. But it is the
University that has, more often
than not, prevented progress: the
U-M administration has failed to
handle these negotiations artfully,
downplaying the necessity of their
solution and conclusion. GEO’s
most important demand, a $14,500
raise (about 60%), was initially met
with a paltry $481.10 (a 2% raise)
in the first year. After months
of negotiations, the University
increased their counterproposal to
$721.65 (a 3% raise) in the first year.
From The Daily: A strike would be bad
on your record
THE MICHIGAN DAILY
EDITORIAL BOARD
GRACE BEAL/Daily
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
ANNA FUDER/Daily
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
ARTS
over the
YEARS
APRIL 16 — The emergence of COVID-19
sparks conversation about previous
pandemics throughout U.S. and global
history. A desire for better preparation for
medical professionals and greater political
response is popular among citizens.
SEPTEMBER 7 — The University begins
classes amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Still, flaws persist in how the University
approaches not only the pandemic, but other
health-related concerns for students.
JANUARY 22 — Following Winter Break,
students discuss its length, timing, and
efficacy. Weeks later, the University’s
Board of Regents votes to extend Winter
Break to promote student mental
health.
MARCH 22 — The Graduate Employees’
Organization goes on strike following
stalled contract negotiations with the
University, raising concern.
2021
APRIL 19 — Gun violence continues to run
rampant across the country in the form
of mass shootings. Many members of the
public make pleas for better gun control
regulations and measures.
OCTOBER 27 — Amid many stress-
inducing events on campus and beyond,
there is a push by students to expand
mental health service coverage on campus.
Opinion
over the
YEARS
2022
2023
2020
JANUARY 24 — Former University President
Mark Schlissel is terminated by the
University’s Board of Regents. His departure
leads to new conversations about how
the University must approach matters of
sexual misconduct and public scrutiny.
JULY 21 — Following the release of the
movie adaptation of her renowned novel,
controversy from Owens’ past emerges.
There are growing talks regarding the
consumption of inherently racist media and
how to avoid “white savior” attitudes.