The ouster of University of Michigan President Mark Schlissel after a relationship with a subordinate came to light is a disappointing but necessary end to his tenure. Now, the Board of Regents must turn its attention to finding his replacement and moving the university firmly past persistent episodes of sexual impropriety.
While Schlissel's personal life is his own, the hubris and hypocrisy of his actions is egregious, coming at a time when the university is dealing with the aftermath of multiple sexual misconduct and abuse cases.
He violated his own zero-tolerance policy, which clearly forbids an intimate relationship between a supervisor and an employee, unless specific guidelines are followed. The policy makes clear that the relationship doesn't have to be physical to be considered intimate.
An investigation, which began in December after an anonymous tip, found Schlissel had engaged in a reportedly undisclosed, years-long relationship with a top university official who, ultimately, reported to him.
The policy grew out of a series of incidents that emerged since Schlissel was hired in 2014. At least seven current and former UM professors and officials have been accused of sexual harassment or abuse. The number includes former Provost Martin Philbert, who was dismissed two years ago after allegations of sexual misconduct from multiple women, at least one of whom directly reported to Schlissel before Philbert assumed the role.
And, of course, there remains the ongoing case involving the sports doctor, Robert Anderson, who is accused of abuse by hundreds of men and women dating back decades. UM is currently in mediation with Anderson victims, who have complained about the slow pace of the talks.
In an effort to restore trust, Schlissel last year oversaw reforms (recommended by the university's law firm) to how UM governs cases of sexual misconduct.
They include a ban on supervisors initiating intimate relationships with subordinates. Yet even prior to those changes, the university required the disclosure of relationships between supervisors and subordinates so a "management plan" could ameliorate conflicts of interest for the employee and the university. There was no disclosure or management plan in Schlissel's case.
As the author of the policy, Schlissel's own actions needed to be above reproach.
It may be that Schlissel didn't disclose his relationship because he remains married to Monica Schwebs, an environmental lawyer based in California.
And it may be that he didn't disclose it because Board of Regents Chair Jordan Acker and Regent Denise Ilitch appeared to be looking for a reason to fire him.
Schlissel was already on his way out, but with a much sweeter deal. Last fall he announced his retirement in 2023, which came with an extremely lucrative exit contract — estimated to be as much as $10 million — that included numerous perks and a tenured teaching arrangement.
His firing upends much of that deal.
Mary Sue Coleman, who led the university from 2002-14, will serve as interim president, and we commend this choice. She most recently served as president of the Association of American Universities.
Despite many of the attributes that Schlissel brought to the job, his flouting of a policy he championed proved he is not the leader to restore trust.
As for the regents, they are not beyond reproach. They continue to cloak their actions in a secrecy that's wholly unseemly.
The Michigan Constitution mandates that "formal sessions of governing boards" of the state's public universities "shall be open to the public."
There can be no more formal action than the immediate termination of the institution's chief executive for cause.
Doing the public's business in public is as important to restoring trust at the University of Michigan as is installing a president who takes sexual harassment seriously.
