The Michigan Daily sat down with interim University of Michigan President Domenico Grasso Friday morning to discuss the new Look to Michigan plan, concerns about University accountability in response to federal changes under President Donald Trump’s administration and the protection of free speech on campus. The Daily provided Grasso with the questions prior to the interview. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
The Michigan Daily: Following the departure of former University President Santa Ono, you were appointed to the position in the interim. How did you approach the transition from U-M Dearborn to the Ann Arbor campus?
Domenico Grasso: It was pretty abrupt, as you know, and it was sort of like a battlefield promotion. I moved very smoothly because I was very familiar with the University. I’d been an executive officer at the University for seven years. Before that, I’d been provost of a large research university. This, of course, is a larger operation, but all of the pieces are similar. When I moved into this position, there were a lot of balls that were still in the air that I had to catch. I think we have a terrific team at this campus and throughout all three campuses, and they were very helpful in my transition to this position.
I had three priorities. I wanted to re-establish a sense of trust on this campus with both the faculty and the student base and the staff. Then, to rethink how we were approaching our future with the transition from Vision 2034 to Look to Michigan. I think that the University of Michigan is in such a strong and positive position now that we can overtake many of our peers as a leader in higher education, and that’s what I’m trying to do in this short time that I’m here: move the University into the passing lane and re-establish the trust that has been abrogated with the American people and re-establish that social contract that we benefited from for so many years. I think that was my second goal. My third goal was to make sure we are operating in the most efficient and effective manner possible. I have a lot of experience in higher education. I also lean heavily on my experience in the military.
TMD: Just recently, Michigan Medicine, alongside the University of Michigan, discontinued gender-affirming care for individuals under the age of 19 after receiving a federal subpoena. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel joined a multistate lawsuit against the Trump administration’s actions in this area, and similar subpoenas have recently been blocked by federal judges. In an op-ed published in April, several of the University’s regents said “We must be prepared to assert our rights: publicly, clearly and in court if necessary.” Why, then, did the University agree to Trump’s demands?
DG: This situation is very difficult and very delicate. There are a lot of people involved and a lot of lives involved. Our colleagues at Michigan Medicine did a lot of thinking and a lot of consultation with their colleagues. In the final analysis, we decided that it was in the University’s writ large best interest to avoid any threats or risks. Threats and risks not just to the institution but potentially to patients and staff.
It’s a very difficult decision and we’re supporting our patients to the best of our abilities and with a great deal of care. We have a tremendous number of caring physicians and nurses and other staff in Michigan Medicine that are trying to take care of this. This is also not inconsistent with other major medical centers — Yale University, University of Connecticut, University of Pennsylvania, University of Chicago, Washington University in St. Louis, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and Stanford University all made the same decision.
TMD: In a recent opinion piece, an assortment of faculty members from across the University expressed what they hoped to see out of their next University president. The vast majority of them mentioned Trump, directly or indirectly, and hoped that the next University president will stand up to federal pressure from his administration. What would you say to faculty who feel disappointed with the University’s decision?
DG: A president is always looking to the future and is always looking out for the best short- and long-term interests for the institution. It’s not a question of just standing up to decisions that you may or may not think are right or wrong. And oftentimes — I’ve said this before — a president often makes decisions that he or she would not make on a personal level but rather in the best interest of the University. A president has to think broadly, not just institutionally, but about all the people at the institution and all of the members of the community. That goes from the alumni base to the faculty, the staff, the patients, the students, everybody here. I think oftentimes faculty may not be fully aware of all the factors in play. The biggest attribute or characteristic that you want in the next president is someone that you can trust to make the best decisions.
TMD: A number of on-campus groups are either currently attempting to unionize or working with the University on their next contracts, from the graduate student research assistants’ and postdoctoral researchers’ unionization campaigns to University Staff United’s ongoing bargaining efforts. How does the University support its unions and address their concerns?
DG: I appreciate everybody who works on this campus and we want to make sure everybody’s work is appreciated and properly compensated. The regents passed a resolution allowing unionization efforts on our campus. But they also made it clear that institutionally we have to stay neutral on new unionization efforts. One of my parents was in a union, so I appreciate what unions can do for labor. But at the same time, when we do union negotiations, we have to do it in a fair and equitable manner by thinking across all employee classes and the longevity of the University.
TMD: Last spring, eight former U-M employees filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the University claiming they were terminated due to their participation in pro-Palestinian protests. Since then, USU has voiced concern about what they believe are unfair terminations without due process. How does the administration plan to respond to concerns about unfair firings due to political speech, specifically speech relating to Palestine?
DG: We do not fire anyone at this university for political speech. We are committed to the exercise of the First Amendment. We just went through a situation where I was being pressured to terminate someone on our faculty and staff and we did not do that because we are committed to the First Amendment.
TMD: Pro-Palestine activists, in particular members of the TAHRIR Coalition, have accused the University of political retaliation against protesters amid a series of charges and surveillance allegations this summer. An article by The Guardian confirmed private security company City Shield had surveillance activists on behalf of the University; the administration subsequently terminated its contract with City Shield. In May, the Law School branch of the ACLU published an open letter criticizing the University’s installation of high-tech security cameras in the Diag and Law Quad. The letter states that “the timing and placement of cameras suggest they were installed to monitor free speech on campus in violation of university policy and values.” A Daily article in July reported that the Division of Public Safety and Security intends to install similar cameras at the entrances of most campus buildings. In your all-campus email titled “A culture of respect,” you wrote that “this is our moment to show the power of a community that values both free expression and mutual respect.” Do you see these things as contradictory to each other?
DG: No, I do think we’re committed to honest conversation and mutual respect. The installation of cameras are not surveillance cameras. They’re intended for emergency response and for situational awareness. We do not surveil specific students from groups. That is a policy of the University.
TMD: A number of charges, both criminal charges set by Nessel and the University’s Office of Student Conflict Resolution, have been leveled against protesters involved in the Gaza solidarity encampment. Three rounds of charges set forth through OSCR have occurred, with the most recent charges occurring under your tenure after the office had restructured. Does the University continue to pursue action against students involved in the encampment and what does the institution hope to gain from these decisions?
DG: Those incidents happened before I arrived here and the charges that are being pursued under the OSCR process were pending other adjudication processes. That’s why it took a while to get them invoked in the OSCR process. Those charges — and I can’t speak to specific charges — have nothing to do with free speech or the exercise of the First Amendment. My understanding is that the charges are regarding keeping our campus safe and making sure that all students have access and have the ability to exercise their First Amendment rights and access to the public commons on our campus. We’re not doing anything that we have not done historically, and we’re being consistent with our precedent on this.
TMD: The University recently announced the creation of the Office of Student Accountability, separate from OSCR. What is the University’s approach to navigating issues relating to student resolution going forward, especially regarding situations involving the University?
DG: We are a teaching institution and our goal in all of these situations with students is to try to help them learn and to learn from them. We have split off the Office of Student Accountability, separate from the Office of Student Conflict Resolution, because that was designed to address issues where students may not be seeing eye to eye. We try to help them resolve that. Student accountability is when some of our policies have been violated and how we address those. It’s more investigative. But in all instances we do not intend to be punitive — we intend to be educational and we’re trying to help the student learn from their actions and resolve things in a fair and appropriate manner.
TMD: The University intends to construct a large-scale computational facility in partnership with Los Alamos National Laboratory, which may be built on two potential sites. In particular, the Textile Road land parcel in Ypsilanti Township has faced pushback from community members, who cited fears of rising water costs, noise pollution and the center’s environmental impact. How has the University addressed community concerns in regard to the facility’s potential location in Ypsilanti, and why has the construction start been pushed from 2026 to 2027?
DG: This opportunity with Los Alamos is a terrific opportunity for the University to work with a distinguished national laboratory. We have the number one nuclear engineering program in the country and we are going to be working with outstanding scientists. There will be at least 200 new employees coming to this area from the collaboration, so this is an exciting opportunity for the University.
In terms of this data center — it’s really not a data center. It’s going to be focused on computational needs of the University. All scientists at major universities are going to need these types of facilities. We have always been committed to working with the communities in which we exist to make sure this is a mutual win-win for both the scientists and the members of the community. We’re trying to figure out what the best approach is and we’re listening to the concerns from Ypsilanti community members. No decisions have been made yet, but we are very collaborative in our efforts.
TMD: The University is still currently under federal investigation for potential Title IV violations related to alleged antisemitism on campus. You recently spoke at the first Samantha Woll Dialogue event Sept. 9 to discuss the potential adoption by universities of a definition of “antisemitism.” Does the University intend to formally define antisemitism to distinguish future conflicts on campus?
DG: No, we do not intend to define antisemitism. The lecture was very interesting and worthwhile, because it actually demonstrated that I want us to be a model for the rest of the nation for how we address topics that might be divisive. The conversation was broad, it was informed, it was thoughtful and it was respectful. Many people came out of that lecture with a different perspective than when they entered it. This is how we should decide things on university campuses. It was an example of how we take dialogue and then make it move to policy decisions.
This also relates to our investment now in a new Institute for Civil Discourse, which we announced $50 million for and which is just the start of how much we want to invest in addressing issues like this in a way that is productive, respectful and informative.
TMD: Federal funding cuts under the Trump administration and a reduction in funding from the Michigan House of Representatives have impacted or may impact a number of University programs. While the University has attempted to mitigate the effects of lost funding on the institution, many students, researchers and other community members remain concerned about financial support and the University’s handling of cuts. How does the administration intend to further support campus in the future in the midst of budget constraints?
DG: In terms of budget cuts, we have actually fared fairly well by comparison to our peers. We’ve had about $32.7 million in funding cuts whereas Harvard University has had hundreds of millions, Columbia University, University of Pennsylvania — these have all been hit much, much harder than we have. We have had about 170 proposals that have been rescinded or pulled back, but it’s still only about $32 million.
What we are concerned about is moving to the future, because the funding of new projects is not proceeding as it had in the past. But we are looking for alternative sources to support our researchers here through philanthropy and corporate relationships. I think we’re going to be extraordinarily well-positioned by comparison to our peers. That’s why we’re going to get into that passing lane.
TMD: As part of Daily tradition, we always ask a fun question at the end of our interviews with the president. Something that struck us was your involvement in Saturday football games, asking trivia to fans. What is a personal piece of trivia about your own life that you’d like students to know?
DG: I didn’t speak English until I went to kindergarten, so I only spoke Italian at home until I went to kindergarten. My family still makes fun of the way I say certain words, because I didn’t learn that until later in life.
Daily News Editor Marissa Corsi can be reached at macorsi@umich.edu. Daily Staff Reporters Carter Carino and Glenn Hedin can be reached at carinoc@umich.edu and heglenn@umich.edu.
