Big news: Schlissel has been removed as president.

Submitted by Cousin Larry on January 15th, 2022 at 6:38 PM

Turns out, he’s a bit pervy.

On Dec. 8, 2021, via an anonymous complaint, we learned that Dr. Schlissel may have been involved in an inappropriate relationship with a University employee. After an investigation, we learned that Dr. Schlissel, over a period of years, used his University email account to communicate with that subordinate in a manner inconsistent with the dignity and reputation of the University.

 

stephenrjking

January 15th, 2022 at 7:05 PM ^

It's not inappropriate-for-kids inappropriate. It's inappropriate-for-a-boss-who-is-not-being-invited-to-keep-asking-someone-on-dates inappropriate.

I saw a couple excerpts in the freep article, and absent context they could be interpreted innocently.

But actually looking through the emails, the targeted individual, who appears to work with his schedule, consistently discusses scheduling issues and options and corrections in a friendly but dispassionate way, and Schliss keeps trying to ask the individual to go places and do these events with him in ways that do not appear suggested by the individual. Many times. As the president of the University. Among other things. That's... pressure. 

Joined: 03/15/2012

MGoPoints: 20144031

vbnautilus

January 15th, 2022 at 7:43 PM ^

I didn't get the same impression as you from reading the emails. For example he says "What if we got stuck in Paris" and she says "I know a Bistro..." He says "come sit with me... " she says "please..." He consoles her for not responding to her line about her "heart hurting" well enough... 

Given that they are highlighting his emails and not hers, we're definitely sampling his side of the conversation more, even though sometimes there's more of the conversation. So it's really hard to know what's going on here.

I don't think the emails alone are strong evidence of a coercive relationship, and the University policy, while it discourages relationships with subordinates, acknowledges that they do happen, and are not necessarily coercive. But in that case you are supposed to disclose the relationship. 

Obviously as a married man Schlissel was not going to disclose this relationship. So he's in clear violation of the policy, even though the emails are not explicit, or dirty, they are evidence that he was hiding a relationship with someone under his supervision. 

What a jackass. 

Joined: 10/04/2010

MGoPoints: 3580

stephenrjking

January 15th, 2022 at 8:33 PM ^

There are a number of instances where there is an event or flight or something like that discussed in an all-business tone, and Schlissel unprompted suggests that the individual do something with him. 

Now, it's true that we don't have any other context. It may be a different story if the individual initiated that sort of interaction the first time, and/or initiated such conversation themselves frequently. 

But if it is in any way not wanted or encouraged, it gets veeeeery inappropriate fast, because the power imbalance is so large there. 

My assumption (and it is entirely an assumption, yes) is that the decision had enough evidence to conclude that there wasn't a reasonable argument for an ethical explanation for this. A decision the authorities of the University assume would hold up in court if a lawsuit was brought against them. 

Joined: 03/15/2012

MGoPoints: 20144031

maizeonblueaction

January 16th, 2022 at 12:41 AM ^

Yeah, that's actually an interesting thing I didn't consider. To me it read as "we're going here for a donor event, what should we get up to in our free time?", but I guess the darker interpretation is that he was doing this on the UMich email because he didn't have her personal info because she didn't want him to, and was sort of pushing her to go out with him. I guess we don't have texts/personal emails, access to in person conversations.

My guess would then be the university was worried that that's exactly what this would look like (or totally could look like that) and had to act.

Joined: 12/19/2011

MGoPoints: 776

Burt Macklin_FBI

January 15th, 2022 at 8:58 PM ^

I mean, I kind of get this, but is "G-rated in today's world" sexual harassment just supposed to be alright now? Just because the dude wasn't overly crass & locker-roomish doesn't make it any more okay. 

 

Making continued advances towards someone without consent, especially in a power imbalance like this is wrong, full stop. No matter how "polite" & "G-rated" the language is.

Joined: 09/05/2016

MGoPoints: 3883

Burt Macklin_FBI

January 15th, 2022 at 9:01 PM ^

I will say, props to the guy whose post I responded to - I think it was more poorly phrased than it was malicious, which he acknowledged. I do understand what you guys are saying in regards to this situation, but it it can so quickly & easily devolve into "was it really that bad?", which I think is unequivocally yes, it really is that bad.

Joined: 09/05/2016

MGoPoints: 3883

Burt Macklin_FBI

January 15th, 2022 at 9:07 PM ^

Eh, my take was probably a little exaggerated, but I'm not sure if qualifies as a strawman argument. Dude literally said "I've had more lewd conversations with plenty of people I've never tried to sleep with!", which is insensitive at best and dismissive toward the victim at worst. 

 

I acknowledge what you're saying, but "exceptionally tame" sexual harassment is still 100% sexual harassment.

Joined: 09/05/2016

MGoPoints: 3883

XM - Mt 1822

January 15th, 2022 at 7:18 PM ^

they were going to get FOIA'd the second the story got into the public, so no need to hold off.  plus it, in a way, does all the PR the school needs so that schlissel has little to complain about should he want to litigate the issue.  the school doesn't need to say a word beyond what they've done here and likely has very little blowback. 

Joined: 12/21/2011

MGoPoints: 104456

kehnonymous

January 15th, 2022 at 8:25 PM ^

All valid points, but by all accounts Schissel was generally disliked by 95% of the university community, so you gotta think that pettiness had *some* role in releasing the trail of emails show how much game Schissel didn't have with the ladies. 

Also, let's not forget this is the same yutz who asked the UWisc chancellor - VIA E-MAIL - if emails were FOIAable prior to the 2020 debate over whether to have a football season.  So even if we leave aside the relationship part (which at least appears to be consensual), this whole saga shows that he's just too plain dumb to be a university president.

Joined: 11/25/2011

MGoPoints: 33256

uminks

January 15th, 2022 at 6:52 PM ^

It's surprising these old guys want to try to have sex with college girls! How the hell someone in his  position  would do something like this! Disappointing! May be M can find a University President more friendly to the AD.

Joined: 11/10/2009

MGoPoints: 32189

Blue@LSU

January 15th, 2022 at 8:13 PM ^

If we wanted to be inclusive we could add priests/religious leaders and family values politicians to your list as well, since there are numerous examples of them behaving poorly.

But in the end what's the point? These are just examples and do not speak to the population of people within these professions that you or I list. People are people. Some will always behave stupidly. Education, wealth, social status, faith, etc. do not confer someone with more or less common sense than anyone else.  

Joined: 11/04/2016

MGoPoints: 81275

Wendyk5

January 15th, 2022 at 10:16 PM ^

Hah, you guys have no idea! Some of the things I endured.....but honestly, I have no hard feelings about it now. I fortunately only had one incident where I felt like I had to endure something or my job might be in jeopardy (more accurately my position). It was perpetrated by a very important client so that would have been tricky if I had reported it. It wasn't anything close to this (him coming on to me), it was just very inappropriate and I was 24 at the time and all my co-workers on the account were male. So there was pressure to act like one of the guys if I wanted to stay on the account, which I did. A lot of women in advertising felt the exact same pressure -- the bad boys were running the show and you had to ignore all the bad behavior if you wanted to work on the best accounts. 

Joined: 11/20/2008

MGoPoints: 68478

HighBeta

January 15th, 2022 at 10:33 PM ^

Well? I have a good idea as my wife (then g/f) had a serious issue with her then accounting supervisor that had to get escalated *repeatedly*;  my sister was harassed by her department Chair and basically had to walk away from a tenure offer to find tenure with another university. All in all, pretty crappy behavior, pretty entitled behavior. Miserable ...

Joined: 10/20/2019

MGoPoints: 16020

Wendyk5

January 15th, 2022 at 11:11 PM ^

Imagine the discussions men have when women aren't around, when they feel free to discuss sex acts and body parts and commenting on women's bodies, and now imagine a 24 year old woman having to sit in on those conversations with a group of men, being asked repeatedly what do I think about this comment or that comment. Then imagine that same 24 year old woman having to sit through casting sessions with all those same men as women parade in, in bathing suits and having to listen to all the comments about their bodies and what they like and don't like (which has nothing to do with their actual qualifications) and all the laughing and snickering and having to go along with it to some extent -- which in my case was just being neutral and tolerating it. This is all in a professional setting, not at a drunken frat party, although that's what it felt like. I did manage to get out of going to the strip clubs and female mud wrestling matches with the client, which I guess was a win for me. The client was a major American beer company, the agency's most important client, and beer clients tend to be exactly how you'd think they'd be. Male-dominated, tolerate women in the workplace because they had to. This was 30 years ago and times may have changed in regards to how certain clients act but back then, it was a free-for-all. There were many, many guys having affairs while on business trips, and I had a few colleagues come on to me, but no bosses or situations where I felt my job was being held over my head if I didn't comply. I handled it. 

Joined: 11/20/2008

MGoPoints: 68478

HighBeta

January 16th, 2022 at 1:27 AM ^

Wendy? I don't doubt what you're saying, at all. I witnessed it, I exited rooms because of it, I reported and participated in the discipline of subordinates several levels down --- 35 years ago.

I directed a woman to leave a meeting, she at first thought that SHE had done something wrong, then I dressed down the remaining males, all peers.

Wound up firing one guy who could NOT figure out "my problem" after talking to him with HR sitting in the meetings. That firing took a meeting with Legal to make sure the blowback wouldn't be a problem.

Glad you got through all that. Glad you handled it. 

Joined: 10/20/2019

MGoPoints: 16020

matty blue

January 16th, 2022 at 7:54 AM ^

THANK YOU for sharing.

i have no idea of the demographics of this board.  commenters are clearly and obviously mostly men, presumably because men, particularly Sports Men, like to tell everybody what they think.  like, a LOT.  but i suspect there are many women that read and never comment (my partner, for example).  we all need to be reminded that 

  1. this isn’t a locker room, and
  2. saying “meh, the schlissel stuff isn’t that bad” contributes to a culture where women being expected to go to strip clubs for WORK does, in fact, happen.  a lot.

please, keep raising your voice. and thank you again.

Joined: 08/01/2008

MGoPoints: 39312

Wendyk5

January 16th, 2022 at 10:14 AM ^

That's not to say women weren't having affairs, too, and on the company dime (on business trips). There were colleagues having affairs with each other -- one couple was so brazen and open about it (they were both married to other people and had kids) that HR had to take them aside and tell them to tone it down because it made their co-workers uncomfortable. My husband worked at an agency (the largest in Chicago) where the president was married to a co-worker but was having a very open affair with a subordinate. The guy ended up divorcing his wife and marrying the subordinate. While his career didn't suffer at all, I'm sure his bank account did. It was a very liberal environment, where people loved to gossip about the goings on around them but just let things slide. The only time I recall someone getting fired for misbehavior was when it was discovered that a guy was coming into the office on weekends and exposing himself to the hotel guests across the way. All the buildings in the area were floor-to-ceiling glass windows and this guy made great use of them. 

Joined: 11/20/2008

MGoPoints: 68478

LDNfan

January 15th, 2022 at 6:55 PM ^

I doubt this is his first time doing something like this...just the first time he got caught. Powerful people with authority can be pretty brazen. But now he's flushed his well managed reputation for a bit of side action. Guess that Ph. D doesn't nec mean smart. 

Joined: 09/28/2014

MGoPoints: 10609