In the news....
Judge orders U-M president to appear in his federal court in campus sexual assault lawsuit
Excerpted....
U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Tarnow, during a May 1 teleconference, ordered U-M President Mark Schlissel to his courtroom and then, on Wednesday afternoon, turned down a motion from U-M lawyers seeking to have that order overturned.
The ruling came in a case involving a U-M student who sued the university in June 2018. The student, who is not named in the suit, was on his way to graduating, and had been accepted into U-M's graduate school of engineering, among other graduate schools, when he was accused of sexually assaulting a student. The university froze his transcripts even before an investigation was completed, making it impossible for him to move on. There were no witnesses to the sexual encounter, which the accused student claims was consensual.
Federal courts in the Midwest have ruled in another U-M-related case that in such cases, schools must hold a hearing where both sides can question each other. No such hearing has been held in this case.
"I would like to note that the president is not the university official who has primary responsibility for the policy," Richards said, according to a transcript of the call included in court documents, suggesting some other university official would be the better person, but didn't identify who that might be.
That didn't sit well with Tarnow.
'The president will be here'
"Well, you can check with the president and whoever else you have to check with and when you find the right person, you can bring her or him along with the president," Tarnow said. "He might not be the person with the most hands-on experience and authority, but he is the one who is going to have to approve whatever the four of you decide on and whatever I might add to that decision."
Richards tried again to get Schlissel off the hook, saying Schlissel could delegate authority.
That wasn't what Tarnow wanted.
"Obviously, with such a large institution there are all sorts of delegations made," Tarnow said. "But I don't think he would characterize himself as a figure head. And I think he would, and I would agree, that the person down the line in charge of discipline or however it's structured knows more about the day-to-day operation and so on. But that person reports to the president and the president will be here."
Richards tried again, asking Tarnow to clarify why Schlissel had to be there.
Tarnow obliged.
“I don't have to explain myself, but I will … I think the president, part of his qualifications for the job when he was hired and when he continued in the job, is the public (scrutiny) that the university is regularly under and he should be a part of this … so that he can defend whatever is (agreed) to and explain to the media, to the public, and perhaps most importantly to the faculty and the students. So he shall be here.”
"If you want me to put it in writing so the media has it, it will be something like, the president has been requested to participate in a discussion of a proposed rule and has chosen not to appear. Therefore, I order that he appear."
More: Appeals court: U-M must allow cross-examination in sex assault cases
More: U-M ordered to release transcript to student accused of sex assault
Can't call it in
Richards then asked whether Schlissel could appear by phone.
Tarnow didn't like that.
"No. That is an easy question. It's not like you are a plane trip away. I won't tell you how fast I used to be able to get to U of M," he said. "Let me say this. This should be more important to him than almost anything going on at the university. But I am not sure I would understand anything else being more important than resolving what is a hot-button issue at every university in this country."
At that point, Tarnow asked the student's lawyer, Deborah Gordon, if there were dates that she would be available for the conference.
She was succinct in her answer.
"No, Judge. Plaintiff will make — we will make ourselves available whenever the date — either date we are available we will clear our schedules if need be."
Five days later, Richards tried again to keep Schlissel out of the courtroom, arguing that Tarnow should overturn his order and had overstepped his discretion.
"The University’s president is the chief executive officer of an extraordinarily complicated three-campus enterprise with annual budgeted revenues of more than $8 billion, including more than 61,000 students, roughly 28,000 employees, a nearly $4 billion academic medical center, and a $1.5 billion research budget. The president’s daily schedule reflects those myriad responsibilities and more. The obligations on the president’s time arise and are set months in advance. It would be a significant burden on the university for the president to be diverted from his duties as an officer of the State of Michigan and the constitutionally created university to attend a settlement conference in this matter. The university is involved in approximately 60 current pending litigation matters. Requiring the president to attend settlement conferences in these matters is impractical and unnecessary when the president has delegated full settlement authority to other university officials.
"The court asserts that the university president’s responsibilities require him to 'defend' the university’s sexual misconduct policy, but, respectfully, the court does not define the president’s responsibilities: the regents of the University of Michigan do. The court’s conscription of the university’s president — an officer of the state — to perform a task the president would not otherwise be required to perform by the regents is 'fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty' and violates the 10th Amendment."
The judge didn't buy the argument. In a ruling Wednesday afternoon, he reiterated his command for Schlissel to appear.
Tarnow set the hearing for 11 a.m. June 11.
Judge orders U-M president to appear in his federal court in campus sexual assault lawsuit
Excerpted....
U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Tarnow, during a May 1 teleconference, ordered U-M President Mark Schlissel to his courtroom and then, on Wednesday afternoon, turned down a motion from U-M lawyers seeking to have that order overturned.
The ruling came in a case involving a U-M student who sued the university in June 2018. The student, who is not named in the suit, was on his way to graduating, and had been accepted into U-M's graduate school of engineering, among other graduate schools, when he was accused of sexually assaulting a student. The university froze his transcripts even before an investigation was completed, making it impossible for him to move on. There were no witnesses to the sexual encounter, which the accused student claims was consensual.
Federal courts in the Midwest have ruled in another U-M-related case that in such cases, schools must hold a hearing where both sides can question each other. No such hearing has been held in this case.
"I would like to note that the president is not the university official who has primary responsibility for the policy," Richards said, according to a transcript of the call included in court documents, suggesting some other university official would be the better person, but didn't identify who that might be.
That didn't sit well with Tarnow.
'The president will be here'
"Well, you can check with the president and whoever else you have to check with and when you find the right person, you can bring her or him along with the president," Tarnow said. "He might not be the person with the most hands-on experience and authority, but he is the one who is going to have to approve whatever the four of you decide on and whatever I might add to that decision."
Richards tried again to get Schlissel off the hook, saying Schlissel could delegate authority.
That wasn't what Tarnow wanted.
"Obviously, with such a large institution there are all sorts of delegations made," Tarnow said. "But I don't think he would characterize himself as a figure head. And I think he would, and I would agree, that the person down the line in charge of discipline or however it's structured knows more about the day-to-day operation and so on. But that person reports to the president and the president will be here."
Richards tried again, asking Tarnow to clarify why Schlissel had to be there.
Tarnow obliged.
“I don't have to explain myself, but I will … I think the president, part of his qualifications for the job when he was hired and when he continued in the job, is the public (scrutiny) that the university is regularly under and he should be a part of this … so that he can defend whatever is (agreed) to and explain to the media, to the public, and perhaps most importantly to the faculty and the students. So he shall be here.”
"If you want me to put it in writing so the media has it, it will be something like, the president has been requested to participate in a discussion of a proposed rule and has chosen not to appear. Therefore, I order that he appear."
More: Appeals court: U-M must allow cross-examination in sex assault cases
More: U-M ordered to release transcript to student accused of sex assault
Can't call it in
Richards then asked whether Schlissel could appear by phone.
Tarnow didn't like that.
"No. That is an easy question. It's not like you are a plane trip away. I won't tell you how fast I used to be able to get to U of M," he said. "Let me say this. This should be more important to him than almost anything going on at the university. But I am not sure I would understand anything else being more important than resolving what is a hot-button issue at every university in this country."
At that point, Tarnow asked the student's lawyer, Deborah Gordon, if there were dates that she would be available for the conference.
She was succinct in her answer.
"No, Judge. Plaintiff will make — we will make ourselves available whenever the date — either date we are available we will clear our schedules if need be."
Five days later, Richards tried again to keep Schlissel out of the courtroom, arguing that Tarnow should overturn his order and had overstepped his discretion.
"The University’s president is the chief executive officer of an extraordinarily complicated three-campus enterprise with annual budgeted revenues of more than $8 billion, including more than 61,000 students, roughly 28,000 employees, a nearly $4 billion academic medical center, and a $1.5 billion research budget. The president’s daily schedule reflects those myriad responsibilities and more. The obligations on the president’s time arise and are set months in advance. It would be a significant burden on the university for the president to be diverted from his duties as an officer of the State of Michigan and the constitutionally created university to attend a settlement conference in this matter. The university is involved in approximately 60 current pending litigation matters. Requiring the president to attend settlement conferences in these matters is impractical and unnecessary when the president has delegated full settlement authority to other university officials.
"The court asserts that the university president’s responsibilities require him to 'defend' the university’s sexual misconduct policy, but, respectfully, the court does not define the president’s responsibilities: the regents of the University of Michigan do. The court’s conscription of the university’s president — an officer of the state — to perform a task the president would not otherwise be required to perform by the regents is 'fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty' and violates the 10th Amendment."
The judge didn't buy the argument. In a ruling Wednesday afternoon, he reiterated his command for Schlissel to appear.
Tarnow set the hearing for 11 a.m. June 11.
Regardless of the case type that they are working on, they will blithely yank professionals from long-term projects just to appear in court, on the court’s timetable, and ignore all other considerations. 
