The University of Michigan Ann Arbor Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (UM-AA AAUP) expresses solidarity with workers and families in Minnesota, where the Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, alongside major labor unions and faith leaders, has called for statewide action in opposition to violence imposed by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

We express solidarity with labor unions, who held a Day of Truth and Freedom on January 23rd, to unite against the violent ICE occupation of U.S. cities. Their demands, which we share, include: 

• ICE must leave Minnesota now; 
• The agent who killed Renee Good must be held legally accountable; 
• The upcoming congressional budget must provide no additional federal funding for ICE, and ICE must be investigated for human and constitutional violations of Americans and our neighbors; and,
• Minnesotan and national companies must become 4th Amendment Businesses — they must cease economic relations with ICE and refuse ICE entry or using their property for staging grounds. 

Our AAUP chapter is angered over the cruelty and violence that ICE is unleashing across U.S. cities, most recently in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota. In accordance with statements made by AAUP national and the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities AAUP chapter, we are outraged over the fear and terror that ICE agents are inflicting on Somali workers and families, on other African, Asian, and Latinx communities that have long been threatened and aggrieved by immigration agents, and on their co-workers, friends, and neighbors. We lament the killing of Renee Nicole Good, an unarmed legal observer, who was shot dead by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, the killing of Alex Pretti after he was already restrained by multiple agents, and any others who were unjustly harmed or killed since the writing of this statement. We decry the Trump administration’s language, policies, and actions that are intensifying this violence. 

We know that ICE is active in Michigan, with sightings of agents around university campuses, reports of raids destabilizing communities, Native American tribes warning their citizens of unwarranted stops and detentions, and workers being arrested on the way to their jobs. In 2025 alone, the North Lake Processing Center in Baldwin, Michigan, reopened to hold an influx of new detainees, and ICE agents made over 2,300 known arrests—more than doubling the number of arrests from the prior year. Our students, co-workers, friends, and neighbors are at risk as a result of ICE’s intensified surveillance and policing activities. We are all at risk.

As a union and membership association of faculty and academic professionals, the AAUP is committed to advancing academic freedom and shared governance and ensuring higher education’s contribution to the common good. At the University of Michigan, we cannot meaningfully participate in institutional governance, pursue groundbreaking research, or deliver world-class education when we are at risk. Along these lines, our University of Michigan Ann Arbor Chapter of the AAUP calls on the University of Michigan administration to ensure the safety and security of all members of our community, in full recognition of immigrant workers’ valuable knowledge and contributions. We further demand that the federal government end its racist, violent attacks on immigrant workers and families. Finally, in solidarity with the Day of Truth and Freedom, we demand that Congress provide no additional funding to ICE and that ICE leaves our cities—from Michigan to Minnesota and beyond.

January 23, 2026

Via email and physical mail

Domenico Grasso, President, University of Michigan
3190 Ruthven Building
1109 Geddes Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
grasso@umich.edu

Dear President Grasso,

The AAUP (American Association of University Professors) writes to you with deep concern regarding expanding surveillance practices at the University of Michigan. We are concerned first by UM’s installation of approximately 1,200 new and powerful surveillance cameras across campus, most concerningly in public spaces like the Diag and the Law Quad¹, as part of the Security Technology Enhancement Project (STEP). Secondly, we are concerned by the university’s adoption of a new standard practice guide (SPG), numbered 510.02, which strips away many of the protections that had earlier guided the use of surveillance cameras on campus under SPG 606.01.

Both the content and the process of UM’s actions undermine two core principles of the AAUP, namely academic freedom and shared governance. First, the University of Michigan’s push for surveillance cameras on campus is antithetical to the AAUP’s long-established standards regarding academic freedom and electronic communications. Of particular relevance:

Academic freedom is dependent on a researcher’s ability not only to gain access to
information but also to explore ideas and knowledge without fear of surveillance
or interference. (43)

AAUP shared governance standards provide that formulation and implementation policies governing technologies should be developed by faculty members through representative institutions of shared governance (53). We note that both the widespread deployment of surveillance cameras and the implementation of SPG 510.02 occurred despite the adoption of a faculty government resolution calling on the university to put in place rules to delimit and contain the rapidly growing technologies of surveillance and in contradiction to the procedures laid out in SPG 606.01, in violation of another core AAUP standard that

any new policy or major revision of an existing policy should be subject to approval by a broader faculty body such as a faculty senate. (55)

The university’s former SPG 606.01 mandated the formation of an oversight committee of faculty, students, and administrators who were charged with (a) reviewing and revising the SPG and related practices and procedures, (b) reviewing and approving amendments to the policy, and (c) providing periodic updates to the UM community about camera systems in the spirit of transparency. For years, the administration defied that policy and did not appoint an oversight committee. And contrary to the former SPG provision, the administration did away with that provision altogether without any input. Although the oversight committee existed under the old policy to ensure accountability and transparency, there is nothing in the new policy that serves this function. We appreciate that your office last summer expressed interest in convening the STEP committee to consult on the use of these cameras, but that committee is not a formal oversight committee. It is clear that the newly formed advisory committee has no ability to review, revise, or approve changes to camera policy as was previously required by SPG 606.01.

In addition to these procedural concerns, the new SPG 510.02 reduces the protections that the campus community can expect with regards to surveillance. For example, the former policy said,

The university has a significant responsibility to take appropriate steps to protect personal privacy and civil liberties when it operates security cameras systems. [. . .] [S]uch installations must not impinge on or unduly constrain the academic freedom or civil liberties of community members or their freedom of assembly and expression.

The new policy replaces that language with a less stringent standard, requiring only that DPSS not place cameras “with the intent to chill, compel, prevent, or punish speech or association.” Thus, under the new standard, as long as the Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS) does not intend to chill speech, there is no violation of policy even if the placement of the camera—for example, in the Diag—actually does chill speech and diminish academic freedom.

The new policy also opens the possibility of audio recording on campus: As SPG 606.01 said, “Security camera systems should not enable audio recording,” with certain limited exceptions requiring a written rationale after consultation among UM’s executive vice president, the chief financial officer, DPSS, and the general counsel. This provision was eliminated under the new policy, where all decisions on matters are simply delegated to DPSS. Furthermore, the old policy said that the recordings and recorded images must be erased within thirty days unless needed for court proceedings and other limited reasons. There is no such protection in the new policy.

We call on the University of Michigan to take actions that demonstrate its commitment to AAUP-supported principles of academic freedom and shared governance. Specifically, we ask the university to:

1. Reinstate SPG 606.01, which was abolished in violation of university policy and the principle of shared governance.

2. Form an oversight committee to ensure any use of surveillance is consistent with university values and regulations, as required by SPG 606.01.

3. Fund a study on whether surveillance cameras have been effective in deterring and solving violent crimes at universities and in public spaces so the oversight committee can take these findings into account when approving policies around surveillance cameras.

4. Remove the surveillance cameras on the Diag, the center of free speech on campus, because surveillance chills academic freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression.

5. Remove the surveillance camera on the Law Quad because these cameras can surveille students in their residences, in violation of their privacy rights.

6. Place a moratorium on the installation of more surveillance cameras on campus until an oversight committee is convened and has engaged in informed and evidence-based deliberations.

Sincerely,
Todd Wolfson, AAUP President
Mia McIver, AAUP Executive Director
Britt Paris, Chair, AAUP ad hoc Committee on AI in Academic Professions
Julie Boland, President, University of Michigan Ann Arbor Chapter of the AAUP

——

¹ See MLaw–ACLU Open Letter to the University of Michigan Board of Regents, June 11, 2025. https://drive.google.com/file/d/11QcIbGTq9XcQcvu8i-LdNzLAhr3OwQmL/view.

September 1, 2025

The University of Michigan Ann Arbor Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (UM-AA AAUP) was appalled to learn of the University’s decision to discontinue gender-affirming and lifesaving medical care across its statewide hospital network, bowing to pressure by the Trump administration after being subpoenaed by the Department of Justice. 

Our AAUP chapter decries the University’s unnecessary and anticipatory compliance in response to threats of the Trump administration that will endanger young people. Our chapter supports continuation of gender-affirming and trans healthcare at the University’s statewide hospital network. Discontinuing these treatments withholds needed medical care, and will do harm.

 In January 2025, the AAUP Council adopted a statement warning against anticipatory obedience and describing administrative officers’ “eagerness to obey” as ushering in a “bleak future for higher education.” Our chapter adopted a similar statement in March 2025, calling on the University to not comply with Trump administration demands except as required by law. This stance ensures checks and balances, and upholds the rule of law. Instead, the University’s decision to end this lifesaving medical care exemplifies anticipatory obedience. As Samuel Bagenstos, professor at the University of Michigan School of Law and AAUP Member-at-Large, stated in an interview with Michigan Public about the University’s decision, “To say ‘Look, we’re really afraid of what the Trump administration might do, so we’re not even going to go into court to try to fight them and stop them from doing this.’ If I were a parent or a transgender teenager who put my trust in this institution, I would feel like that was a breach of trust.” 

An AAUP series of articles describes the Trump administration’s aim to erase transgender and nonbinary people from public life through a torrent of anti-trans executive orders. These orders include adopting a false and inaccurate definition of sex as binary and immutable, excluding transgender women from sports, and restricting agency and freedom of movement by forcing sex identity markers on government documents like passports. Among these executive orders is a decree to end lifesaving medical care for transgender and nonbinary people. By choosing to discontinue gender-affirming care, the University is aiding and abetting the Trump administration in this erasure. According to State Attorney General Dana Nessel, withholding care to transgender people may be illegal under Michigan law. Moreover, in defying guidance from reputable medical organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, as well as ignoring standards of care from its own nurses and doctors, the University not only appears to be obeying in advance but also is undermining its own reputation by ignoring best practices in medical care that may have life and death consequences.

The University’s decision indicates a willingness to discard certain types of care to maintain funding. The recent decision is notably distinct from the University’s support for abortion access. In 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and threatened reproductive care, University leaders vowed to ensure continued access to abortion. President Mary Sue Coleman stated, “I strongly support access to abortion services, and I will do everything in my power as president to ensure we continue to provide this critically important care.” Michigan Medicine CEO Marschall Runge stated, “U-M Health remains committed to providing high-quality, safe reproductive care for patients, across all their reproductive health needs.” With abortion access in the Trump administration’s crosshairs, the University’s decision raises questions about what other gender-affirming and lifesaving medical care may be at risk in the future. 

We call on the University to not waver in its support for transgender and gender diverse people, including students, staff, and faculty, as well as community members and patients in the hospital network—even or especially when confronted with attacks by the Trump administration against institutions of higher education. We urge the University to eschew anticipatory obedience and to restore gender-affirming and lifesaving medical care across its statewide hospital network.

July 28, 2025

The University of Michigan Ann Arbor Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (UM-AA AAUP) is dismayed to learn that the University is bringing new charges against 11 student protesters, including undergraduate and graduate students, through the Office of Student Conflict Resolution (OSCR) on the Ann Arbor campus. 

Since November 2023, our AAUP chapter has objected when the University retaliated against student protestors with punishment and policing; made unilateral revisions to the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities (SSRR), which diminished or eliminated protections for those facing charges through OSCR; circulated hastily drafted policies to thwart protest on campus; weakened and undermined commitments to academic freedom; and fired workers for exercising their first amendment rights. We are deeply concerned that the University has gone even further to suppress pro-Palestine activism, installing an extensive surveillance camera network and hiring private security to aggressively monitor students and staff. These actions affect all members of the University community by chilling speech and civic discourse and by placing people at risk for racial profiling and other harms. Together, these actions raise important questions about the University’s commitment to due process principles.

In bringing these disciplinary charges with significant delay and using a substantively compromised process (one that retroactively applies unilaterally-imposed and off-cycle revisions to the SSRR), the University gives the appearance not only of targeting protests against the genocide in Gaza but also of weaponizing the complaint process so as to silence any future pro-Palestine activism on campus. Moreover, such actions will likely further chill expressions of dissent, regardless of the subject matter. If the University does not require complainants to have suffered harm (i.e., they need not have legal standing) and ignores statutes of limitations, then there can be no meaningful free speech on campus.

We call on the University to withdraw these disciplinary charges that target students involved in pro-Palestine activism. We urge the University to recommit to democratic principles by restoring due process protections in student disciplinary proceedings.