I am writing in response to the opinion piece that appeared on March 6: “It’s time to stop dreading ‘Michigan Math.’ ” In the piece, the author describes what she perceives to be the shortcomings of MATH 115, including the grade distribution, the active learning format and the fact that many sections of the class are taught by Graduate Student Instructors. 

I agree with the author’s observation that more than 75% of students earn grades of A and B in MATH 115, but I am less sure that this is an indictment of our grading or of student learning in the course. The grade distribution in MATH 115 is similar to that of some comparable introductory STEM courses offered here. Moreover, at many institutions, far fewer students earn As and Bs in calculus classes, and the proportion of students earning Ds, Es and Ws is far higher. I acknowledge, though, that this could be part of a larger conversation about the meaning of grades and how they are given. 

The author noted further that many (about half) of the sections of MATH 115 are taught by GSIs. This is true, and many of them are fantastic teachers. Their average teaching evaluation scores are consistent with those of lecturers and regular faculty teaching other STEM courses; the best are among the best in our department. Not only that, but we simply couldn’t staff these courses exclusively with faculty: Because of their small size, we run about 230 sections per year of MATH 105/115/116. We have about 60 tenure-line faculty. The GSIs may be less experienced, but we do provide significant training for them (and for all new instructors teaching these courses), with the explicit goal of allowing them to be as effective as possible in the classroom. Our commitment to and model for training our developing teachers is, in fact, nationally recognized. 

We teach our introductory courses with a heavy emphasis on collaborative learning and problem solving because there is an extensive body of research that shows that this teaching style improves student learning and success. This emphasis on active learning is considered a best practice in post-secondary mathematics education. This doesn’t mean that students are teaching themselves; we expect that about half of the class time will be devoted to “mini-lectures” on the course material. However, we do expect students to have prepared before class, so that in lecture they are able to focus on harder material and can engage with the material in a deeper and richer way. The author cites an article that notes that this “flipped classroom” approach is more work (for the instructor), but which otherwise suggests that the approach we take is consistent with instruction that improves student learning. The way we teach our courses is also part of the national recognition Michigan Math has received for successful Calculus instruction. 

Where does this leave us? I think we are doing a lot of things right, even as I acknowledge that there is a lot that we continue to improve. There is tremendous evidence that small, active learning classrooms such as ours are exactly the way to best promote student learning. This evidence, and the fact that we expect students to develop a deep, conceptual understanding of the material we teach, is a fundamental characteristic of calculus instruction at the University of Michigan. I believe the fact that our expectations are high and that the course appears correspondingly more difficult than many of those offered at other institutions is a positive statement about the academic level of the course, the Math Department and the University. I hope that the students in our courses and at the University believe so too. 

Kristen Moore is an Associate Professor of Mathematics, she can be reached at ksmoore@umich.edu.

The post Letter to the Editor: Michigan Math has your best interests at heart appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

The Central Student Government elections for the upcoming school year just concluded, with Public Policy junior Meera Herle and LSA sophomore Bipasha Ray of the Forward Together party emerging as the winning ticket. But, even though Herle and Ray won, this election cycle centered around another ticket: MPower. The MPower campaign was an independent bid for the president and vice president candidacies by Engineering senior Zaynab Elkolaly and LSA senior Salma Hamamy, both of whom are Arab and Muslim. 

Elkolaly and Hamamy offered what they described as a “revolutionary” platform, earning the endorsement of groups such as Young Democratic Socialists of America and the Graduate Employees’ Organization at the University of Michigan. However, the endorsement that brought the MPower campaign to the forefront of campus politics was that of The Michigan Daily Editorial Board. 

Once they were in the spotlight, the smearing began: Elkolaly and Hamamy received numerous accusations of antisemitism for their openly pro-Palestine platform. Their platform called for the University to endorse the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement and to end all University-sponsored trips to Israel due to the country’s ongoing record of human rights abuses and discriminatory policies against Palestinians. The labeling of pro-Palestinian individuals as antisemitic did not come as a surprise; in fact, it was the expected immediate response to any criticism of the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians. Instead, in this instance, the antisemitic accusation served as a reminder of the blatant Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment that exists on this campus. 

The backlash against Elkolaly and Hamamy’s platform centered around their support for Palestine, ignoring the rest of their platform, a tactic often used to dismiss Arab and Muslims as a monolith with their eyes set on only one goal. Comments on The Daily’s Instagram posts labeled them as “open antisemitic candidates,” offering no proof other than the insinuation that, as Muslims and Arabs who support Palestine, they must hate Jewish people. Another comment claimed that their “awesome proposals” were “bogged down by their openly clearly pro-arab platform at one of the most Jewish schools in the nation.” This comment perpetuates the stereotype that Arabs and Jews are mortal enemies, inherently pitted against each other; it perpetuates the notion that a pro-Arab agenda must obviously come at the expense of Jewish students. One other comment said that “no one who embraces terrorism… should be deemed a leader in the Western World,” playing on the stereotype that Arabs and Muslims are terrorists unfit for the West.

One user, feigning support for Elkolaly and Hamamy, repeatedly posted comments showcasing actual antisemitism, but would then take to DMing actual MPower supporters and deride them for their support with xenophobic comments such as “you can’t be openly gay and exist in an Arab state.” Another student shared on their Instagram story an email they were sending to The Daily voicing their disappointment of its aforementioned endorsement. They claimed, with no basis in fact, that Elkolaly and Hamamy “plan to limit the ways in which Jewish students like me can further immerse themselves in their culture and religion.” Someone else shared a private DM conversation with someone who supposedly went to high school with Elkolaly and claimed that they “are some of the worst most anti semitic people I’ve ever met,” again with no proof to back up this claim. The now-elected Forward Together ticket posted on their Instagram story that they were “aware of some harmful rhetoric circulating in the platforms of some of our opponents” on the final day of the election. Of course, no one could point to this “harmful rhetoric,” but it existed as long as nobody questioned it. 

All of these blatant attacks against Elkolaly and Hamamy show that, as long as you are Arab, Muslim or both, no evidence is needed to accuse you of horrible, evil beliefs like antisemitism. The vilification of Arabs and Muslims knows no bounds and needs no concrete support so long as they belong to a presupposed, inherently vile group, even on the apparently “liberal” and “progressive” campus of the University of Michigan. 

This double standard has been showcased outside of campus over the past few weeks, as Israel has experienced massive, historic protests and international criticism over the Netanyahu government’s attempted judicial overhaul. There is no need to defame the protestors of the Israeli government in this instance, as they have been noticeably Arab and Muslim free. 

The Islamophobic and anti-Arab sentiments on campus emerged in this election as a reminder of their omnipresence. The vilification of Elkolaly, Hamamy and the MPower platform also sent a message to the marginalized groups they inspired and aimed to help: Should you so much as think of challenging dominant narratives in hope of a better world for you and yours, you will also be attacked, smeared and broken down.

The author of this piece requested anonymity for reasons of personal safety, The Daily chose to honor this request, in line with our current precedents for granting anonymity. Any questions can be forwarded to opinion@michigandaily.com.

The post CSG elections: Islamophobia, anti-Arab sentiment and double standards appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

On Tuesday, The Michigan Daily Editorial Board formally endorsed the MPower ticket for president and vice president of the University of Michigan’s Central Student Government. The Daily’s support for MPower’s candidates demonstrates their apathy towards the 5,000 undergraduate and nearly 1,500 graduate Jewish students at the University. Given MPower’s insensitive rhetoric, The Daily must claim responsibility for their misguided endorsement. 

Specific parts of MPower’s platform are troubling, specifically the complete ban on all University-sponsored trips to Israel and the call to battle Zionism on campus. We have included direct quotations from their platform below: 

(1) “We pledge to staunchly fight … antisemitism (and) Zionism …”

(2) “End the Central Student Government’s trip/all University-sponsored trips to Israel” 

It is not antisemitic to criticize Israel. In fact, criticism of Israel is essential — it sparks conversation, ignites cooperation and inspires change. Marginalizing any group through the denial of their right to self-determination is wrong. The Anti-Defamation League defines Zionism as “the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people.” The outright rejection of self-determination directed exclusively toward the Jewish people, simply on the basis of their religion, is antisemitic. More importantly, it imposes the same ideology that these candidates so proudly advocate against. To claim that you stand for “community and coalition building” while denying any group’s religious rights is disappointing and hypocritical at best. 

We appreciate the mention of adding Kosher options to campus and the commitment towards fighting antisemitism. However, MPower has yet to hold or attend events to engage with Jewish students and their communities. Merely mentioning issues that “appeal” to a Jewish student body without engaging in discussion is tokenizing and disingenuous. How can you fight antisemitism without engaging in discussion with Jewish voices? You can’t. 

The greatest way to spur conversation and spark progress is through open dialogue and cultural exchange. MPower’s decision to demand the University eliminate trips to Israel is short-sighted and unproductive. Additionally, CSG does not offer, plan or fund any trips to Israel, and the previous administration actively avoided any mention of foreign policy. If anything, the University should fund educational programs in the region. Cooperative trips will not only bring a larger community to the conversation but will increase partnership and foster positive student relationships. 

For nearly a century the University has proudly served as an ally for the Jewish community. In the wake of the 20th century’s “Jewish Problem” — a sentiment aimed at significantly limiting and reducing the amount of Jewish students at elite institutions — the University refused to partake. It is paramount that the U-M community continues to actively defend and advocate for the rights of Jewish people and all marginalized groups. 

A student government under the leadership of the MPower platform will create an environment of hostility for Jewish students; leaders who promote these sentiments should not be endorsed by one of the University’s most prominent student organizations. The Daily has a storied history covering issues that matter to U-M students. This comes with a noble goal of striving “to uphold impartiality, fairness and the complete truth (and to seek) equitable coverage in our representation of all communities, identities and groups.” Sharing a piece from the Editorial Board on the day of an election that misrepresents the extent to which MPower has engaged with the larger campus community is not convincing, impartial, fair, nor representative of the complete truth. Many members of the undergraduate Jewish population strongly disagree with The Daily’s endorsement — we encourage The Daily to reconsider its endorsement and invite the Editorial Board to engage with the larger Jewish community. 

The four authors of this piece requested anonymity for reasons of personal safety. In light of comments made surrounding the original piece, The Daily chose to honor this request. Any questions can be forwarded to opinion@michigandaily.com.

The post Letter to the Editor: A misguided CSG endorsement appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

I was frustrated and saddened to see the recent opinion piece in The Michigan Daily about “Michigan Math.” As a current Graduate Student Instructor in the Math Department who has taught MATH 115 and is currently teaching MATH 116, I would like to try to address some of the points made in this article. Many of us in the Math Department would have been happy to talk to the author, and I’m disappointed that they didn’t reach out to hear from us. 

The author focused on the idea that math courses at the University of Michigan follow a “flipped classroom” model, and pointed to a meta-study that found little benefit to flipped classrooms. While MATH 115 instructors indeed expect students to read the textbook before class, the intention is not that this takes the place of all direct instruction during class. We are told to give small lectures during class to explain key ideas, clear up points of confusion and provide extra examples. Since every MATH 115 course relies on the course lecture content, it is debatable whether the MATH 115 setup even qualifies as a flipped classroom. Further, asking students to read outside of class and to answer a few questions before class is a standard practice across many subjects (imagine an English class where you didn’t have to read outside of class).  

The Hechinger Report cited by the author finds that the success of a flipped classroom relies on what actually happens during class. The University’s introductory math program is rare in higher math education because it actually tries to put in place decades-worth of research, much of it from U-M scholars. The research shows that doing group work for the majority of class time is not only better for the learning of all students, but also provides even stronger educational gains for women, non-binary folks and students of Color. While I agree that flipping a classroom does not necessarily lead to better learning on its own, the research is definitive that using class time to have students work collaboratively to solve problems with the support of an instructor will lead to higher quality, more equitable education.

The author referred several times to the idea that students have to teach themselves outside of class, implying that the time spent in class working on problems is not “teaching.” This is problematic for a number of reasons — chiefly because an effective teacher employs numerous pedagogical strategies, not just lecturing, and they are all part of teaching. This denigration of teaching, which is present in many spaces throughout education in general, can have a multitude of harmful effects, many of which are contributing to the low pay and poor working conditions that characterize the profession in many different institutions. Personally, I think this comes from a lack of understanding of all that goes into teaching — it is not just lecturing.

Where I did find common ground with the author was in their frustration that math GSIs receive little training before they are sent in to teach MATH 115. You might be stunned, as I was, to learn that your MATH 115 instructor generally has one week of training before they arrive in your classroom. We receive a small amount of additional training throughout our five to six years here in the form of course meetings, but these tend to focus more on logistics than pedagogy. I think it is important to note that, from speaking to colleagues from doctoral programs at more than 25 peer institutions, this amount of training is standard, and so your math lecturers and even your math professors don’t have any more training than us.

The author is calling for a major overhaul of a program that serves tens of thousands of students, is driven by the work of hundreds of GSIs and lecturers and is rooted in the research of hundreds of well-regarded scholars. I would encourage the author to solicit information from sources other than a few fellow students and a single research study. Certainly there is work to do, but let’s not waste time pointing in random unhelpful directions.

Katie Waddle is a Rackham student and a Graduate Student Instructor for the LSA Math Department. She can be reached at waddle@umich.edu.

The post Letter to the Editor: ‘It’s time to stop dreading “Michigan Math” ’ misses the mark appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

The Michigan Daily recently published an opinion piece that contains significant misinformation about the Graduate Employees’ Organization and our campaign for affordability and dignity. The piece was met with considerable criticism — suggesting that most readers understand that the piece was not an accurate representation of our ongoing negotiations. Given the importance of our campaign to graduate workers, we wanted to set the record straight about our platform.

The article parroted a favorite talking point of the administration: that graduate student workers only work part time, and therefore are not entitled to a living wage. This claim simply does not reflect the reality of graduate workers’ daily lives. Graduate workers are expected to work far more than 20, or even 40, hours per week — whether it’s teaching, research, mentorship, service or unpaid DEI work. Taking on additional jobs is not possible for many of us. Indeed, doing so would violate the visas of international students, and the University is currently refusing to include a provision in our contract guaranteeing our right to take on additional work. Moreover, when graduate students are on fellowship — getting paid the Graduate Student Instructor salary, but working solely on our research — we are expected to work on our research full time and then some! 

We don’t pay rent part time, we don’t buy groceries part time. The salary we get as GSIs must cover our entire cost of living, not half of it. It’s also ludicrous to consider tuition waivers — money that workers never see, but is merely shifted from one U-M ledger to another — as part of graduate student workers’ compensation. The IRS doesn’t consider this taxable income, and neither should our employer. To be clear: the idea that graduate students work part time erases much of our labor — labor that generates millions of dollars for the University — while excluding graduate workers without intergenerational wealth.

It is also simply incorrect to characterize “the abolition of the Division of Public Safety and Security” as one of our “non-academic demands.” Neither GEO nor our Abolition Caucus has passed a demand to Academic HR that calls for the abolition of DPSS. Instead, we have proposed that the University fund a public safety alternative to DPSS: the Coalition for Re-envisioning Our Safety’s community- and evidence-based unarmed, non-police crisis response program. This kind of unarmed response program is based on existing models all over the country, has been endorsed by over 50 community organizations and was supported by 93% of the Ann Arbor community in a recent poll — hardly an extremist position. We are disappointed that The Daily’s opinion piece did not bother to investigate our public safety proposals, which have been developed in collaboration with allies and community members from across the campus and the wider community.

While the essay misrepresented GEO’s platform, we’ve made our positions clear. As GEO’s Abolition Caucus wrote in The Daily last year, adding more police is not a public safety solution. The Abolition Caucus writes, “Rather than rebrand the same old police reforms, we believe in envisioning an unarmed, non-police emergency response in Ann Arbor, including the University’s campus.” As the caucus advocated in The Daily last month, “DPSS’s more-than-$35-million budget can be put toward alternatives such as the Coalition for Re-envisioning Our Safety’s, as well as toward other beneficial ends, including better wages for staff and student workers, better health and mental care, better support for survivors of sexual violence and housing for the unhoused.” We remain vehemently opposed to the violence of policing and will continue to work toward a world where police have become obsolete.

Finally, the article presents some misconceptions about our 2020 Strike for Safe Campus. The University did not have “rigid safety measures” in fall 2020. The University did not have the capacity for randomized testing, which is why a demand for such testing was part of our platform. In an open letter, more than 800 U-M students, staff and instructors protested the “absence of a clear plan based on science.” Indeed, the safety measures that were in place were so inadequate that Washtenaw County had to issue a stay-in-place order for U-M students by mid-October. (The initial version of the article also referred to fall 2020 as being “after the COVID-19 pandemic.” More than 350,000 Americans died of COVID-19 in 2020).

Graduate students went on strike because it was obvious to us that the University wasn’t taking the pandemic, the health of U-M students and workers or the concerns we raised with their reopening policies seriously. Only after graduate students took action in large numbers did the real negotiations begin. Our strike for a safe and just campus connected the pandemic to the latest evidence that policing is “a public health crisis”; it’s a connection we’ve continued to invoke in our contract negotiations this year. 

Graduate student workers are the backbone of this University. We are often the main point of contact for undergraduates, contribute to over $1 billion in annual research revenue and teach thousands of hours of classes each term. On top of that, the teaching we do brings in over $200 million in profit for the University each year — by a conservative estimate — and nearly $350 million according to the “best estimate” of Howard Bunsis, a professor of accounting at Eastern Michigan University. The University of Michigan could easily afford to pay us a living wage, fund a non-police response and implement every one of our proposals. If anything, our proposals don’t go far enough!

The stakes of this campaign are too high, and the needs of graduate workers on this campus far too serious, for us to tolerate misinformation and fear-mongering around our platform. Graduate workers know what our work is worth, and we hope that every member of our campus community will stand with us as we fight for a fair contract and equity and dignity at the University. 

The Graduate Employees’ Organization at the University of Michigan can be reached at UMGEO@geo3550.org. 

The post Letter to the Editor: GEO’s contract demands are reasonable and necessary appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

Most people who hear of Central Student Government do not have the most positive things to say. And you can’t blame them. There are definitely instances of bureaucratic waste, needless and unproductive debate and probably far worse in the annals of University history. However, one thing this current iteration of CSG has is leaders who are committed to the student body’s success.

CSG business has been all over the map this year, with representatives from a broad spread of backgrounds ensuring that both their constituents and students at-large are included in conversations. One of the newest pieces of business CSG passed was the “Laundry Cost Transparency” resolution, which aims to begin tackling the widespread issue of hidden costs on campus.

The Editorial Board of The Michigan Daily recently commented that this proposal is “well-intentioned, but wasteful,” and made numerous claims that inaccurately portray both the text of this resolution and the general functions of CSG. On the whole, the Editorial Board raises valid concerns about the climate effects of usage in a flat-fee system. However, there are a few misconceptions to clear up that would enhance a discussion on the climate impact of a reformed laundry system, show how the CSG proposal is climate conscious and hopefully involve more stakeholders in fixing the obvious failures of the current system.

The editorial claims that the CSG proposal would release laundry from market forces, encouraging students “to use laundry for, say, a single shirt, which would both be extremely wasteful of water while simultaneously blocking other students from using the laundry machines.” However, in the CSG proposal being examined, the flat-fee proposal for laundry is an “Opt-Out” policy for $100 annually, which allows students “the flexibility to choose whichever path aligns with their resources and means.” 

Laundry would still be tethered to an optional fee, which is an economic decision students can make based on their needs. Additionally, there is no evidence that any of the other colleges, which already have this policy, have experienced any ridiculous results like a “single shirt” being washed. Perhaps treating our fellow students as if their carbon footprint is as large as Bigfoot’s is not a helpful critique in necessary discourse about an issue that affects thousands.

The editorial continues by mischaracterizing the proposed $100 flat fee as chosen based on one 2014 article in The University Daily Kansan — a claim that was later retracted. However, this $100 figure was not created so arbitrarily, and a variety of sources were used to support it (though there are few definitive sources that report such costs at a massive scale).

Additionally, the editorial failed to mention the 40 schools directly cited in the resolution, which have already implemented a flat fee or subsidized system successfully, including 16 Michigan universities, such as Central Michigan University, and eight Big Ten schools, including Michigan State University. All of these schools have direct citations in the resolution linking to the information available on their laundry policies and costs.

The editorial continues by stating, “the prospect of giving students unlimited laundry swipes raises several concerns,” including that “crowding in laundry rooms would increase as well as the amount of wasted water and detergent.” However, in regards to crowding, there’s no evidence that this would occur if the University supplies enough machines for the size of the student body. As mentioned, dozens of universities already do this and there is little evidence that overcrowding is an issue at any of those institutions. If institutions like MSU can avoid any reports of overcrowding, despite a larger undergraduate population and a smaller endowment than the University of Michigan, it seems quite likely that this issue shouldn’t be a concern for the University.

The editorial also links to a breakdown of Maytag washers that directly contradicts its own waste-based argument, as Maytag states “Water efficient washers are able to determine load size and the amount of water to use.” Maytag also recommends “specially formulated HE detergent,” which eliminates the fear of wasted chemicals and allows “for more concentrated cleaning.” Yes, in the past, a wasteful excess of load cycles in ancient washers was definitely a concern — especially at the scale of a large public university. However, smart washers (as unintentionally cited by the editorial) eliminate any fear of wastefully doing laundry “too frequently,” and combining energy efficient washers with this smart technology (as current U-M washers do) also eliminates potential concerns about energy misuse.

Now, one solution the editorial proposes — raising the Blue Bucks limit to include laundry fees — is superior to the current system. However, it’s incomplete, and it still creates multiple problems for the student body. Firstly, the editorial proposes an arbitrary $50 raise in the Blue Bucks given to students living on campus each semester, without any data on how much laundry students actually do. The only analogous case cited in this solution was the University of Alabama, which did not mention that $50 value in its policy. In contrast, the CSG proposal cites 40 different universities in multiple states that have similar flat-fee policies. 

Another flaw in The Daily’s idea is that the issue of unexpected or “hidden” costs as a new college student may only be worsened through a sapping of these Blue Bucks early on in the semester, followed by a scramble to do laundry intermittently by the time finals roll around. This is something they attempt to address through a second idea: Give students a $50 laundry allowance per semester, similar in concept to the print budget.

The editorial also mischaracterizes the subsidization of dryer sheets, detergent, bleach and other items necessary for laundry. Meanwhile, the CSG proposal is modeled directly on plans from the University’s previously cited peer universities to cover those costs, as is detailed on their respective websites. 

Lastly, the editorial did not correctly characterize the functions of CSG, saying that if CSG hoped to minimize laundry inequality on campus, they could use some of their $800,000 budget (an outdated figure that was later amended) to subsidize detergent costs. It should be noted that a significant portion of CSG’s budget is committed exclusively to funding student organizations. In fact, CSG’s Student Organization Funding Committee is already set to give out $331,000 of the budget this semester alone.

Although that number may seem to be more than enough, the story is actually much more grim under the surface. The Student Organization Committee expects well over $1.6 million in requests for student organizations, which means funding from that $331,000 will not be available to every organization which needs it — let alone for a mass subsidization of laundry, as the editorial proposes. Unless the student fee rises to cover those costs, a campaign to subsidize detergent via CSG is nowhere near reflective of the practical realities inherent to the thinly-stretched CSG budget.

As a whole, the editorial’s intentions are likely good, and those who wrote it clearly want the best for students. However, as pure as the piece’s motives are, its specific arguments are certainly not beyond reproach. Upon closer examination, the unanimously-passed, data-backed CSG Laundry Cost Transparency proposal addresses their concerns by permitting financial aid to cover laundry costs, recognizing the capacity of smart washers to minimize waste and increasing resource equity in the often stressful lives we lead. 

Soon, CSG hopes to meet with U-M administration and the heads of other student groups at universities where this policy already exists — executing the next step to make this proposal a reality. CSG is undoubtedly flawed, and it should always take extra care to avoid fallacious policies. However, this proposal is not an example where such fallacy has occurred, and should be implemented by the University as soon as possible so as to eliminate the hidden cost of laundry.

Jack Handzel is a freshman in the college of Literature, Science, and the Arts and an associate representative in LSA Student Government, and can be reached at jhandzel@umich.edu.

Tyler Fioritto is a senior in the college of Literature, Science, and the Arts and an LSA representative in Central Student Government, and can be reached at tfioritt@umich.edu.

The post Letter to the Editor: CSG’s laundry proposal is flexible, eco-friendly and should be implemented appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

Content warning; sexual assault and harassment

I am writing today in response to the Nov. 11 Op-Ed in The Michigan Daily that advocated for steering away from reporting misconduct to U-M Equity, Civil Rights and Title IX Office (ECRT). Its misguided conclusions were based on inaccurate information and did a disservice to our community.

Here’s what I want you to know about reporting to ECRT:

ECRT’s primary role with respect to sexual and gender-based misconduct is to serve the safety and equity of the U-M community.

Reporting to ECRT allows individuals to access accurate information about the wide range of support, resources and resolution options unique to the campus setting that are available to them to address the situation.

Not all faculty (or staff) are obligated to report allegations of sexual misconduct. That is a requirement only for individuals with reporting obligations (IROs) under University policy. Regardless, and more importantly, reporting to ECRT is a good thing. 

When individuals share information with ECRT (whether required to do so or not), the University can ensure that each person who reports sexual misconduct to an IRO gets the same information about resources and how to make a formal complaint if they wish to do so. Ensuring that students have accurate information and understand all the options available to them is as important as it is delicate; we cannot rely on each individual member of the University community to know how to respond to a person raising concerns in an accurate, appropriate, empathetic and equitable way. ECRT staff members have specific training to ensure each report receives an appropriate and supportive response in which individuals can make an informed decision based on accurate and complete information. The University also offers confidential resources such as the Sexual Assault Prevention & Awareness Center, staffed with trained, expert professionals who are also well-versed in options internal and external to the University.

As with many aspects of the University’s response to sexual and gender-based misconduct, the University complies with legal requirements related to reporting obligations. The University also exercises its discretion to go beyond what is required by law in order to best serve the U-M community. The University’s approach to required reporting aligns with many peer institutions and with proposed Title IX regulations that would require all faculty to report. A full list of IRO roles at the University is posted here.

While the Op-Ed suggested that anyone reporting to ECRT will lose control of the situation, reporting to ECRT does not mean that a case will be automatically opened or that the person impacted will be directed to a hearing. While it is always ECRT’s aim to take action to effectively address sexual or gender-based misconduct, ECRT works with the complainant — if identified — to explore all options available to them. The complainant is in control of whether and how to engage with ECRT and has a choice in their next steps. While some choose an investigatory path, the vast majority choose alternative options such as restorative justice processes, educational efforts or supportive measures, or request that no action by the University be taken. 

ECRT also works with those who report a complaint when a complainant may not wish to engage with ECRT to coordinate the least intrusive and most appropriate way to provide the complainant with information about other resources and options. ECRT does not compel those who may have experienced misconduct to share information about their experience or to participate in any resolution process.

In fact, this is the primary reason for the difference in the total number of reports and the disciplinary outcomes cited in the Op-Ed. ECRT publishes an annual sexual and gender-based misconduct report to provide the public with transparent, accurate information on how these matters are handled while maintaining the privacy of those involved. The reports, publicly available on ECRT’s website, consistently demonstrate that complainants retain options and a large degree of control after matters are reported to ECRT. The report also demonstrates ECRT’s commitment to addressing sexual and gender-based misconduct and outlines the fair, thorough process used when an investigative pathway is selected. This process includes the University providing parties with an advisor, at no cost to them, if they do not choose to use their own advisor. Finally, the report shows that when a University community member is found to have engaged in misconduct, action is taken. 

There also are options for reporting misconduct outside the University. Reporting to ECRT does not preclude anyone from pursuing any or all of these, and in some instances, having reported to the University is effectively a precursor to seeking external help. Ultimately, reporting to ECRT provides for the most immediate access to supportive measures, such as academic accommodations, housing or employment modifications, and the greatest opportunity for the complainant to make informed decisions regarding which, if any, processes they wish to participate in to seek the type of resolution outcome that best meets their needs.  

Elizabeth Seney is the University of Michigan’s Title IX Coordinator and Sexual and Gender-Based Misconduct Director.

The post Letter to the Editor: Reporting misconduct to ECRT serves the University community appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

On Oct. 28, the Ethical Investment Front published an op-ed in The Michigan Daily calling for the University of Michigan administration to cancel Young Americans for Freedom’s Nov. 15 speech with Ben Shapiro at Rackham Auditorium. Though the authors cited “threat(s) to safety” as justification for their demand, their piece was clearly an attempt to stifle the free speech of conservative students on campus.

They compared Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew who has experienced some of the worst kinds of antisemitic attacks, to Richard Spencer, the neo-Nazi and white nationalist. It is hard to find a more mainstream conservative figure than Shapiro. With the authors calling his visit “regrettably reminiscent” of Spencer’s attempt to speak at the University and claiming his “presence will only cause harm to our campus and communities in Ann Arbor,” one has to wonder what conservative commentator they would deem acceptable.

The Young Americans for Freedom’s board had a discussion about how we should respond. We, as well as Shapiro, took to Twitter to publicize our disagreements, but we wondered whether we should do something more, such as write a counter op-ed. In the end, we concluded that the best response was to prove the authors wrong. We decided to focus our energy into putting together a successful and safe event that bettered the political discourse of the campus community. On the night of Nov. 15, we did just that.

Over a thousand people, most of them students, filed into Rackham to hear from Shapiro. People who got their free tickets on Eventbrite lined up on the east side of the building and were let in first. Though we gave out nearly 1,100 tickets, fewer than 500 of those who reserved them put them to use, presumably because of leftist efforts to suppress turnout; as expected, Nota Fascist, a registered attendee whose email is notafascist@conservativessuck.com, did not intend on coming to the event.

Once the ticket line dried up, we let in the line of standbys, who were unable to order tickets in time but came in the hopes of seats opening up. That line wrapped around the block, and the people in it braved the cold temperatures, rain and snow for a chance to see Shapiro. Thanks to their enthusiasm, we filled the venue.

In between the two lines were a dozen or so protestors, holding signs and chanting various slogans. There was some jawing back and forth between the line occupants and protestors, but nothing ever escalated.

Only one attendee was the slightest bit problematic. A woman decked out in leather and sad clown makeup attempted to take a bag of frozen condoms into the event. After they were confiscated, she vandalized one of the restrooms with graffiti that read, “BEN SHAPIRO GOT POUNDED IN HERE.” Thanks to the security at Rackham, she was escorted out to prevent any disruption.

With all attendees seated, the speech began on time. Shapiro came on stage to give his speech, “Exposing the Great Reset,” about the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) corporatist plan to revive the world after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Though the 20-minute speech was edifying, the highlight of the night was the question-and-answer portion. Shapiro allowed a full 45 minutes to discuss with students the important political issues of our day. Due to his usual policy of allowing those who disagreed with him to cut to the front of the line, we found three people willing to discuss their disagreements with Shapiro’s ideas. They brought up the policies of the WEF, transgender issues and abortion. Each person did so respectfully, and their discussions were pleasant and productive.

After the Q&A ended, the attendees left the venue, and the members of our chapter celebrated an immensely successful event at which we furthered the campus dialogue in a responsible manner. Rather than making a bunch of noise over the Ethical Investment Front’s op-ed, we provided a higher rebuttal. Our actions spoke louder than complaints about the calls for censorship ever could.

When I introduced Shapiro, I called him one of the great spokesmen of the American conservative movement. The work of our chapter members demonstrates that our campus is thirsting not only for visits from these spokesmen but for conservative and other heterodox opinions more broadly. Young Americans for Freedom at the University of Michigan is made up of incredibly dedicated students ready to provide that, and we know there are people here who want to listen.

Charles Hilu is the Chairman of Young Americans for Freedom and Editor in Chief of The Michigan Review, a conservative publication on campus.

The post Letter to the Editor: Don’t be afraid of conservative voices on campus appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

As a University of Michigan graduate, former member of the Michigan Marching Band and a lifelong Wolverine fan, I am saddened by the retweet from Michigan running back Donovan Edwards’s account of a clip containing virulent antisemitism from Kanye West, with the caption “Jewish people will literally tell you that they want you to kill your own and humiliate your women simply because they have children to feed.” There is no place at the University for racism and antisemitism.

I believe the athletic department should set an example of Michigan’s high bar of academic, athletic and ethical excellence by suspending Mr. Edwards for this weekend’s game against Michigan State University. Edwards and the team should understand that there is no place for this behavior at Michigan. Had a white player retweeted a racist David Duke tweet, for example, I believe that player should and would be suspended.

 The team is more than one player, and this behavior cannot be tolerated.

Rod Loewenthal graduated from the University of Michigan in 1992.

The post Letter to the Editor: Suspend Donovan Edwards appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

“Our intellectual community values diversity, interdisciplinary teamwork, entrepreneurial thinking and inventiveness,” or so says the University of Michigan’s Electrical Engineering & Computer Science website.

The University prides itself on training leaders that leave their fields a better place. If the University proposes that diversity, interdisciplinary teamwork, entrepreneurial thinking and innovation are values comprising a leader, then a closed admissions process is a disappointing step in the wrong direction. 

Software engineering is a homogeneous field. Current leaders in software are quick to divert responsibility for this homogeneity to educational institutions. I remember asking Tesla’s diversity and inclusion team what steps they take to address bias in machine learning, a subset of software engineering that has codified prejudice to devastating results. “We look to hire conscious people and every engineer goes through mandatory bias training,” they said.

It’s not enough. Bias training doesn’t make a team of programmers realize that they must test motion detection on different skin tones. 

Diversity is not a checkbox to be ticked. Bias thrives in thoughtlessness.

“The academic excellence of our university is built on a foundation of diverse people and their experience … anything less is not Michigan,” wrote former University President Mary Sue Coleman. When did this commitment stop at an inconvenience? 

The University is not wholly responsible for STEM’s lack of diversity, but it does play a part. The people least likely to have exposure to software development before college are the same people we claim to welcome with open arms. I’m a discoverer student. My father was a salesman and my mother was a sculptor. The closest thing to tech I encountered was playing Spider Solitaire on my grandma’s PC when we visited twice a year. I wanted to be an animator. And then I tried a programming class, and I fell in love.

Does the fact I learned about code after high school make me any less of an asset to the field? No. 

In upper-level software engineering classes, we learn that 80% of a programmer’s time is spent reading code and that the lines we read will have been written by people far gone. We learn that documentation is key. A writer makes clearer documentation. A writer tells a story. When a prosthetic arm turns on and sends signals up nerve endings into the brain of a patient, letting her feel the warmth of a hug for the first time in decades, that code tells a story. 

I’d hate to think of a world of software with no writers. With no actors. With no brewers, and construction workers, nurses and philosophers. All we can bring to a team are our own lives and our own experiences. And when my first team meeting comes around, I hope there will be people to fill the many gaps in my knowledge.

This change, though temporary, is a damn shame. If the mission statement stops at the website, then we need to ask if it belongs there.

Alex Bismuth is a senior in the College of LSA.

The post Letter to the Editor: CS at UMich — Leaders & the Best? appeared first on The Michigan Daily.