The administration is turning its back on student rights

On the afternoon of July 18, University of Michigan President Santa Ono and the University’s Board of Regents quietly voted to approve new amendments to the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities. The changes are, in short, disastrous. 

The statement, which lays out campus rules and possible disciplinary actions against students who violate those rules, is subject to routine revision at least every three years. But these particular revisions, the context within which they were adopted and the consequences they will have for students are unprecedented — and representative of the administration’s growing infrastructure to silence dissenting voices. 

Ono and the Board passed the amendments in only 40 seconds without any public comment or input from members of the campus community. They did so in clear violation of U-M policies, many of which are described by the Office of Student Conflict Resolution and, ironically, in the statement itself.

The OSCR website explains that the statement is meant to be “revised and approved by students, faculty and staff.” The body of the statement provides even more detail. 

“Campus community members are encouraged to participate in the (revision) process,” the text states. “SRAC (Student Relations Advisory Committee) will review the proposed amendments and consult with the Office of General Counsel.”

An Aug. 20 internal letter from the Senate Advisory Community on University Affairs, the executive arm of the Faculty Senate (within which SRAC operates), reveals that the University made no effort to either inform or engage SRAC about these revisions at all. Moreover, SACUA writes that the amendments “deprive students of the right to due process and fair hearings with faculty oversight, curtail freedom of speech and expression, and radically increase administrators’ power to prosecute students and limit inconvenient forms of free speech.” This Editorial Board agrees.

Still, the University continues to claim — including in an Aug. 21 email from Ono — that it values and celebrates protest. The University is lying. The revisions to the statement give Ono and the Regents the power to arbitrarily dictate what speech is acceptable on campus and what speech is not.

The most pertinent changes are as follows:

This change upends decades of U-M precedent. It effectively dismisses the need for any proof that actual harm has occurred before disciplinary proceedings are initiated. The University claims this revision was only intended to clarify and confirm its right to submit a complaint, but such a right has no basis in U-M history. At no point since the statement’s inception has the University itself been able to act as the complainant in a conflict resolution case. That right was afforded solely to students, faculty and staff — the only possible recipients of individual harm. 

With this amendment, the University has contrived the authority to punish students for supposed harm against their peers or superiors even when neither party has alleged it. If no student, faculty member or staff member is willing to file a complaint, it is likely that no complaint is warranted. 

Effectively, the administration can now direct its judicial resources wherever the whims of the moment take it, regardless of the facts. An administration concerned with its public image, for instance, could contend that a group of students camping outside of the president’s house, protesting the University’s handling of sexual assault survivors, disrupts student life — without any corroboration from students that such a suggestion is true.

Other amendments to the statement limit the options for recourse for those who find themselves in such a situation.

The removal of this portion of the statement eliminates the right of accused students to discuss and understand their punishment before accepting responsibility for a statement violation. This lack of clarity puts students in a lose-lose situation. They can either enter into a plea deal with the University, which is no longer obligated to provide the specifics of that deal, or they can pursue a hearing. This makes an already intimidating moment for students even more uncertain, and it absolves the University of any responsibility to inform students about the actual stakes of their decision.

This revision was one of many aimed at packing the conflict resolution process into only 45 days. For appeals — of which there are likely to be many — this truncated timeline halves the period within which students can consult with an adviser and craft an argument in their defense. The University claims the purpose of this amendment was to make the “process move swiftly and without delay,” but this Editorial Board doesn’t buy it.

If swiftness was the goal, the complainant’s timeline would also be shortened. It wasn’t. They still have up to six months (or more, if OSCR gives them an extension) to make an allegation. By limiting the rights of the accused, but not of the accuser, the University has created a massive imbalance. This, however, was not the only amendment that fixes the appeals process against students.

The members of the Appeals Board, informed by their unique campus roles, were equipped to deliver nuanced and fair judgments — unlike a solo high-level administrator. Their position formed an important check on U-M authority. With the July amendments, the University dissolved that check. 

The new system gives the vice president for student life, a senior employee clearly partial toward the administration, the power to unilaterally determine whether to uphold the original punishment. In essence, the defendant is forced to make their appeal to the prosecution. This isn’t how presumption of innocence works, and it isn’t how this institution is supposed to work. 

In the past, the Appeals Board would recommend dismissing frivolous cases. That safety net is now gone. Given the assortment of possible sanctions the administration can choose from — up to and including expulsion — this Editorial Board believes an independent body is necessary to ensure that no student suffers undue consequences. The University disagrees.

In whole, the amended document entitles the University not only to act as plaintiff, but also judge, jury and executioner (or in this case, expeller).

Ono, in his message to the Board asking that they adopt the amended version of the statement, expressed a need for “more efficient student disciplinary processes.” Let us be clear: The revisions discussed above do not represent, as Ono argues, a well-intended attempt to increase efficiency. The Ono administration’s secrecy, rule breaking and subsequent campus outrage have put that myth to rest. Rather, these revisions are just one more thread in the University’s anti-free speech web.

The first entry in this series came on Jan. 16 of this year, when Ono and the Board adopted the Principles on Diversity of Thought and Freedom Expression. 

This Editorial Board took issue with these principles, arguing that the vague language was left primarily up to the reader’s interpretation, making effective implementation more difficult. We called on the University to engage in good faith with students as it turned the guidelines to action.

A few months later, the University revealed that it had no interest in good faith, releasing a draft Disruptive Activity Policy that took an obviously hostile stance toward student protest. Once again, this Editorial Board expressed concern, along with fellow U-M students, faculty, staff and even the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. These groups warned that the policy gave the University carte blanche to crack down on even the mildest disruptions to campus life, no matter how peaceful and orderly they were. Seeing the outrage, Ono and the Board axed the DAP. The amended statement, however, entitles them to the same powers and more.

At every step, the campus community has responded to the University’s attempts to limit dissent with a clear message: stop. Each time, the University turned its back on this demand.

Even before revising the statement while students and staff were home for the summer, the University revealed that its objective was to suppress free speech on campus. The smoking gun came in the form of a consulting firm called Grand River Solutions and a man named Omar Torres.

Amid the pro-Palestine protests last academic year, the University reached out to Grand River Solutions about dealing with the campus uproar. They settled on a contract: Omar Torres, a “student conduct professional” at GRS, would be paid $235 per hour to act as the complainant against several of the demonstrators.

There was one main issue: This arrangement violated University policy. The version of the statement in use at the time required the complainant to be a student, faculty member or staff member. Torres, a resident of Georgia, was none of these things. The University hired an out-of-state consultant to initiate disciplinary proceedings against students, paying him more than the professors, lecturers and graduate student instructors who educate those students. Perhaps this is why this knowledge was only discoverable through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The sum of these actions can only be interpreted as a deliberate attempt by the University to silence dissenting voices. The changes to the statement are only the latest and most severe gambit along those lines. As the University grows increasingly distrustful of the student body — and increasingly distant from the values it claims to represent — its anti-free speech infrastructure will only expand.

This is not what the students, faculty or staff want, and it shouldn’t be what Ono and the Board want, either. The standard, three-year amendment cycle dictates that the statement be open for revision later this academic year. When that happens, we hope the University will heed the complaints of the campus community and undo these dangerous changes.

This editorial represents the opinion of The Michigan Daily’s Editorial Board. If you are interested in submitting an Op-Ed or Letter to the Editor, please send your submission to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

Related articles