The University of Michigan Senate Assembly met in the Alexander G. Ruthven Building Monday afternoon to discuss Faculty Senate motions and voice concerns about the University’s revocation of diversity, equity and inclusion programs. They also discussed the broader role of academic freedom amid growing federal pressure, which has included revoking research funding to higher education institutions.
Rebekah Modrak, chair of the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs opened the meeting and invited Assembly members to suggest ways the University administration could respond to the four motions passed after a recent special Faculty Senate meeting. The motions called for the University to join a mutual academic defense compact with members of the Big Ten Academic Alliance, affirm the core values of higher education, reinstate DEI programs and protect the campus community from unwarranted detention by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.
Assembly member Joshua Hausman, associate professor of public policy and economics, said he wants the University to support academic freedom, but is concerned that strongly defending DEI initiatives might make the University a target for President Donald Trump’s administration.
“I suspect that the Trump administration would be very happy if they can brand the University of Michigan as resisting demands because of our commitment to begin on as opposed to because of our commitments to (DEI) as opposed to our commitment to academic freedom,” Hausman said.
Assembly member Jason Young, associate professor of history, responded to Hausman by saying he feels DEI and academic freedom are not mutually exclusive and cutting DEI programs might not guarantee protection from future federal threats.
“If we were engaged in a transactional relationship with the federal administration in which we agreed to remove all public references to DEI in exchange for academic freedom, freedom of speech and secure federal funding — I think I’d be willing to consider that transaction,” Young said. “But it seems to me that we’re not engaged in a kind of rational, transactional relationship and whether or not and to what extent we find ourselves on the chopping block doesn’t really have anything with what we do or don’t do.”
Assembly member Vilma Mesa, professor of education and mathematics, said the third motion, which calls for the reinstatement of legally-compliant DEI initiatives, passed with the lowest approval percentage of the four. Mesa said the result likely reflects dissatisfaction within the faculty regarding how the University previously executed its DEI programsI.
“I don’t think the faculty are opposed on principle or morally — however you want to label it — about (DEI),” Mesa said. “But the issue of how it was implemented is a problem. I think a way to move forward is showing that we may have made mistakes in the implementation. I feel like the problem goes beyond just saying ‘the Trump administration is wrong.’”
Lucas McCarthy, director of Faculty Senate Office, then introduced Isaac Kamola, associate professor of political science at Trinity College and director of the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom to discuss the center’s Academic Freedom Syllabus project. Kamola said the module that aims to help participants understand academic freedom could make the concept more accessible.
“(The syllabus) could be used in a graduate seminar, a professional development session, first-year faculty orientation or even in undergraduate courses with some editing,” Kamola said. “The idea is to offer something adaptable — something that meets faculty and students where they are — and helps spark meaningful conversation about what academic freedom actually means.”
Following Kamola’s comments, the Assembly met in small groups to compare the purpose of academic freedom, as defined in Wieman v. Updegraff and 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure to the First Amendment. After a 20-minute discussion, the Assembly reconvened and heard from representatives from each group. Assembly member Simon Cushing, associate professor of philosophy at U-M Flint, said his group concluded that academic freedom benefits not only academics, but the general public.
“We experience (academic freedom) being infringed as an intrusion on us and it stops us investigating what we think is of value,” Cushing said. “But if someone who is not an expert in the field that we’re interested in tries to judge what is of value and what we should be investigating, then this is presumably bad for possible audiences who could be the beneficiary of our investigation.”
McCarthy concluded the discussion, saying while everyone should be free to express their views, it’s equally important to respect the authority of expertise and evidence-based knowledge.
“Freedom of speech is what everybody should be able to pursue, but there are points in academic work where there are particular truths — truths established through evidence and repeated discussions among experts,” McCarthy said. “Sometimes bringing those truths to students and the world might be seen as ‘slanted’ or ‘not neutral,’ but the truth isn’t always going to align with public opinion.”
Daily News Editor Edith Pendell can be reached at ependell@umich.edu.
