ANN ARBOR, Mich. – The University of Michigan Board of Regents voted to fire Dr. Mark Schlissel from his position as president this weekend after an investigation into an alleged relationship with a subordinate.
The investigation started in December following a tip, according to the Board, and found Schlissel had been using his university email address to communicate with another employee.
Sunday Read is ClickOnDetroit’s Sunday news review to help readers catch up on some of the most important topics of the week.
- Related: Get Caught Up
The Board of Regents released a 118-page document with dozens of emails from Schlissel to the employee collected during the investigation. The Board called it “inappropriate conduct.”
“In the interest of full public disclosure, we have released dozens of Dr. Schlissel’s communications that illustrate this inappropriate conduct, as well as the letter that we sent to Dr. Schlissel explaining our decision.”
Schlissel, 64, first became president of the university in 2014, and was in the midst of his second term. He had planned to step down in 2023. He was the 14th president of the university.
You can find the full document with emails below (may contain suggestive content):
Read more: University of Michigan Board votes to remove Dr. Mark Schlissel as president after probe
The Board released this statement on Saturday night:
It is with great disappointment that we announce that the University of Michigan Board of Regents has removed Dr. Mark Schlissel as President of the University of Michigan, effective immediately. The Board has named former U-M president Mary Sue Coleman as Interim President and we have full confidence that she will provide the leadership our University community needs during this critical time of transition. The Board will affirm these actions during its Feb. 17 formal session.
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.
In the interest of full public disclosure, we have released dozens of Dr. Schlissel’s communications that illustrate this inappropriate conduct, as well as the letter that we sent to Dr. Schlissel explaining our decision. All this information is available on the University’s website.