The Michigan Review

U-M: Stay Out of Granger Case

The University, already embroiled in a bitter affirmative-action debate, has invited controversy on a second front surrounding its admissions practices. In postponing the acceptance of Grosse Point native Daniel Granger until he is either acquitted or convicted of the statutory rape charges now facing him, the administration fancies itself the guardian of the moral high road. Although they attempt prudence, such measures are undermined by unsound reasoning, hypocrisy, and a blatant disregard for cherished principles.

For certain, the established facts concerning Granger are unsavory; namely, lurid pictures of his anatomy in his high school yearbook. However, this photographic impropriety forms no basis for the University’s decision to delay. It is rather his status as alleged rapist that distinguishes him as “a threat to the University community.” It is an imperative that the University restrict sex-offenders from joining its ranks, but it shall not decide who they are. These misguided, preventative steps by the U-M defile the sanctity of due process.

The idea that Granger “poses a threat” not only flies in the face of the Bill of Rights, but is also highly questionable in its own right. The media’s daily coverage as well as the intense notoriety that will be his burden — right or wrong — will mitigate any threat that this as-yet innocent student allegedly projects. Of course, to endorse a hearty campus welcome just because of an unblinking public eye on Granger is very unhealthy policy, but the fact also remains that nothing has yet been proven concerning his guilt. Furthermore — and this is merely a footnote — Granger’s existence at the U-M would have been intensely hermetic at least until the trial.

This sort of irresponsible and unsolicited involvement typifies the University’s approach to controversy outside its domain. The University’s disciplinary apparatus, the Code of Student Conduct — not technically at issue here, as administrators have classified the Granger postponement under an unspecified provision in the admissions process — is a policy synonymous with “double jeopardy.” Were Granger a U-M student when his story broke, he surely would be dealt with under Code auspices. Regardless of the instrument used — be it Code or vague admissions clause — the University once again oversteps its bounds into what should remain the preserve of the courts and law enforcement agencies. This case does bring into relief the University’s inconsistent invocation of disciplinary measures, as Granger’s indictment coincides roughly with that of another controversial undergraduate. Jessica Curtin — BAMN leader, rioter, mug-shot veteran — remains an LSA senior, despite a history of confirmed violence. The Code’s erstwhile tentacular arm seems to conveniently wither, and principles lie down at the altar of agenda-driven pick-and-choose justice.

Curious is the fact that we have not heard from President Lee Bolinger. He is a scholar and champion of the First Amendment, but the campus has yet to register a presidential opinion about either Granger or Curtin or the issues at the Granger-Curtin interface. The University is liable to find itself in a greater legal tangle if it pursues “caution” and “safety” in this confusing and narrow manner. With it’s hands already full, the U-M won’t have a leg on which to stand for very long. MR

This article was published in the 16 September 1998 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 17, Number 1).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.