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.