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.

June 2, 2025

Dear Regents Acker, Behm, Bernstein, Brown, Hubbard, Ilitch, Meyers, and White,

The University of Michigan AAUP, University of Michigan-Dearborn AAUP, and University of Michigan-Flint AFT-AAUP have each endorsed the SACUA Statement of Principles Concerning the Upcoming Presidential Search. We write to you jointly, to underscore the importance of a transparent search process, with publicly announced campus visits/forums by the finalists. Transparency ensures that presidential searches serve the public interest and reduces the costs associated with unwarranted secrecy in presidential searches. In accordance with the principles of democracy and mutual trust, search committee members should be elected representatives of faculty, staff, and student constituencies, selected through processes developed in partnership with governance bodies, labor unions, and other representative groups from all three campuses.

Sincerely,

Julie Boland

President, University of Michigan AAUP

Emily Luxon

President, University of Michigan-Dearborn AAUP

Daniel Birchok

President, University of Michigan-Flint AFT-AAU

April 24, 2025

Consistent with the American Association of University Professors’ (AAUP) commitment to due process and free expression in higher education the University of Michigan Ann Arbor Chapter of the AAUP(UM-Ann Arbor AAUP) expresses its support for recently suspended and terminated University of Michigan workers and condemns the University’s crackdown on the freedom of speech and the right to protest, particularly at a time when education itself is under threat by the federal government. 

The suspension of these workers is a fundamental violation of their freedom of speech and the right to protest. On Monday, April 7, 2025, a full-time U-M employee and University Staff United (USU) AFT Local 284 member, along with four part-time student workers, was suspended from their positions for an alleged violation of the University’s Standard Practice Guide (SPG). Without evidence, the University charged all five workers with violating SPG 601.18 pertaining to “Violence in the University Community.” The alleged violation of the SPG provision supposedly occurred during a Palestine solidarity protest on May 3, 2024, which is to say before the full-time employee was hired and while they were a student. On Friday, April 11, the full-time employee was terminated from their position as an Academic Program Specialist for the Center for South Asian Studies (CSAS) at the International Institute (II). The employee who was fired was neither detained, charged, nor had any criminal proceedings brought against them. There is no evidence that any of these workers participated in acts of violence or incited violence at the May 2024 protest. A police report of the incident documents that the full-time employee complied with police officers when asked to put down a megaphone. 

While there is no evidence of violence on the part of these five workers, there is ample evidence of violence on the part of law enforcement officers, including the use of pepper spray and throwing a bicycle at protestors. As Judith Butler points out in The Force of Non-Violence (2020), “the power to attribute violence to the opposition itself becomes an instrument by which to enhance state power.” We reject the cynical and selective deployment of the concept of violence to politically target workers exercising their freedom of speech and right to protest.

We condemn the University for suspending and terminating these five employees for the reasons stated above, and we call on the University to reinstate them immediately. We also call on the University to respect the rights of all workers to due process, their freedom of speech, and their right to protest.

The UM Ann Arbor chapter of AAUP and SACUA invite you to the seminar series, Resistance and Reality Checks. These three seminars will highlight the work of UM scholars who offer alternative models and counter-analyses to the executive orders being issued from the Trump administration. 

Seminar #1: On Executive Orders
Wednesday, March 12, 1:00-2:00 p.m.
In person: East Hall 4448 ~ and via zoom
Zoom: https://umich.zoom.us/j/93502539371

Speakers: 
Julian D. Mortenson, James G. Phillipp Professor of Law at Michigan Law
Samuel R. Bagenstos, Frank G. Millard Professor of Law at Michigan Law

Seminar #2: Federal Funding Threats and the Independence of Universities
Wednesday, April 2, 1:00-2:00 p.m.
In person: North quad space 2435. ~ and via zoom: https://umich.zoom.us/j/95071330316.

Speakers: 
Demetri Morgan, Associate Professor, Marsal Family School of Education
Beth Berman, Richard H. Price Professor and Director of Organizational Studies

Seminar #3: Models of Resistance
Wednesday, April 23, 1:00-2:00 p.m.
In person: North quad space 2435 ~ and and via zoom: https://umich.zoom.us/j/95071330316.

Speakers: 
Geoff Eley, Karl Pohrt Distinguished University Professor of Contemporary History

Megan Flattley, Lecturer, History of Art

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.

The UM Ann Arbor Chapter has voted to sign the National AAUP statement published on April 29, 2024:

In Defense of the Right to Free Speech and Peaceful Protest on University Campuses (2024).

April 1, 2024

Dear Colleagues,

We write to express our objection to the university administration hastily pushing through a Disruptive Activity Policy that impinges on freedom of assembly and freedom of expression at our university.

We see this issue as very important to the mission of the university. U-M has a long history of student protest that current university leaders celebrate regularly. Past student protest movements have achieved the creation of institutions – the Trotter Multicultural Center, the Spectrum Center (to give just two examples) – that make our university better for everyone. Freedom of assembly is vital in ensuring that marginalized groups – who often ask in vain for opportunities to communicate with those with power – can communicate how this institution could be made more responsive, more equitable, and more inclusive. Historically, disruption of the status quo has been the only way that marginalized groups have been able to advocate for their rights, and it is only in hindsight that we recognize the value of disruptive activities in making our institutions more just, equitable, and inclusive.

There is a lack of transparency about when this policy was drafted or who made the decision that it was needed. To our knowledge, the statement was drafted in absence of genuine consultation with faculty, students, and staff. The President of the Central Student Government expressly stated that such a policy was not needed and that the perceptions of donors and parents were being placed ahead of the needs and experiences of students. Perhaps most surprisingly, the newly formed Committee on Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression was not involved or consulted. A survey with a turnaround of one week is not a substitute for discussion and vetting by the relevant bodies representing faculty, students, and staff.

Substantively, this policy draft is deeply problematic. Our concerns include, but are not limited to:

·  The lack of a clear definition of “disruption”

·  The role of an unidentified hearing officer determining a student’s future. The draft policy provides no details about the selection of the hearing officer nor a rationale as to why a student’s fate is left to a single person and not a committee of students, faculty, and administrators

·  Sufficiently vague definitions of “University Operations” such that the administration could weaponize this policy against any form of speech that challenges the administration 

·  Insufficient detail as to how the draft policy will interface with the protections to speakers, artists, and protesters afforded by SPG 601.01

·  Conflation of political speech by faculty with hostile actions referenced in UM SPG 201.96

In short, the draft policy seems to be a policy of repression directed primarily against students, but includes faculty, staff, contractors and visitors in its punitive purview. Expulsion and/or sanctions is the threat if any students, faculty, or staff speak against the administration in a manner that is deemed disruptive.

We urge the UM administration to reflect upon the sentiments expressed by past UM President Robben W. Fleming during then-unpopular student demonstrations:

“This is a time when a great international issue—the war in Vietnam—and a great domestic issue—race relations—divide our people. The realist would have to say that both issues are likely to get worse before they get better. The campus cannot be isolated from the mainstream of national life. . . . It is often easier for critics of the present generation of students to fulminate against their bad manners, which are frequently displayed, than to accept the fact that underlying the bad manners may be a dedication to human well-being not found in their critics. . . . A university is not merely a knowledge factory; it is rather one of the great humanizing influences of civilization. . . . My dream is that these values and aspirations will then be reflected in the lives of Michigan students and graduates.” (Fleming, March 11, 1968). 

Demonstrating respect for all members of our community means listening to and considering seriously the views expressed by marginalized groups, rather than ignoring or silencing them. We see this is the best way to improve campus climate.

Sincerely,

UM Ann Arbor Chapter of the AAUP

November 16, 2023

The Executive Officers of UM Ann Arbor’s Chapter of the AAUP wish to reaffirm our commitment to protect academic freedom. With reference to the AAUP statements on Academic Freedom in Times of War (October 24, 2023) and Polarizing Times Demand Robust Academic Freedom (November 15, 2023), we maintain the principle of academic freedom in the classroom–and teaching about Israel, Palestine, and events of the moment is no exception.