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.

