In Defense of Due Process and Shared Governance

September 13, 2024

The UM Ann Arbor Chapter voted unanimously in favor of the following statement.

In Defense of Due Process and Shared Governance

University of Michigan Ann Arbor Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), September 10, 2024

The American Association of University Professors’ governing documents and the University of Michigan’s policies both maintain the joint responsibility of faculty, administrations, and boards to govern colleges and universities.

The recent changes enacted by the University of Michigan have undermined these principles of shared governance and do not uphold the principle of due process. During the Winter 2024 term, administrators released a draft Disruptive Activities Policy (DAP), without faculty or student input, which was criticized in the strongest possible terms by our chapter and by the Faculty Senate. Nonetheless, in July, many features of the DAP reemerged in a new policy, SPG 601.41, restricting the use of University facilities and in substantial changes to the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities (henceforth Statement). Neither of these policy initiatives involved consultation of the Faculty Senate or Central Student Government, despite the fact that the Senate’s Student Relations Advisory Committee (SRAC) is the body empowered with primary oversight for changes to student disciplinary procedures. Together, SPG 601.41 and the amendment to the Statement do substantial damage to the due process rights of students, faculty and staff. Moreover, by undermining principles of shared governance, the enactment of these changes also undermines academic freedom.

On August 15, the SACUA Chair sent a letter, drafted by SRAC, to the Regents, requesting that they pause the revised Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities and “respect the determinative role of faculty government in the amendment of these policies.” The U-M Ann Arbor AAUP Chapter supports this position of the Faculty Senate.

It is very concerning to learn that the Regents are now considering authorizing changes to the criteria for invoking the Statement’s “emergency suspensions” procedure, so as to authorize suspensions even when there is no determination that a student poses a direct threat of harm. The risk therein is that sanctions may be imposed in a disproportionate and arbitrary manner, and that political considerations may interfere with fairness to students. We categorically reject any assertion that emergency procedures are appropriate for students who have engaged in peaceful protest.

We strongly rebuke the Regents for passing changes to SPG 601.41 and to the Statement without consultation during the summer months. The timing of their actions leaves the impression that the University was hoping to enact these changes without sparking community opposition as it did in the winter semester.  We call on the Regents to reverse these changes, and we strongly urge the Regents not to enact additional changes to the Statement or to related University policies that would further undermine due process and shared governance principles.