On March 26, University President Santa Ono sent an email to the University of Michigan campus community, two days after he was interrupted midspeech at the 101st Annual Honors Convocation by pro-Palestine protesters. In his email, Ono called the disruption unacceptable and wrote the protest was not consistent with student code or the University’s Standard Practice Guide for Freedom of Speech and Artistic Expression.
On Wednesday evening, U-M Public Affairs sent an email to the U-M community seeking feedback on a draft of a Disruptive Activity Policy. According to a University Record article, this policy is designed to prevent the University’s operations and events from being interrupted.
The draft policy is not the first University guideline regarding freedom of speech, but instead is the newest modification to the University’s stance. The SPG, which was first issued in 1988, lays out guidelines on how to most fully protect freedom of expression and is cited in the policy draft. The majority of SPG 601.01 is focused on protecting the right for speakers to communicate with their audience without interference from protesters.
“Within the confines of a hall or physical facility, or in the vicinity of the place in which a member of the University community, invited speaker, or invited artist is addressing an assembled audience, protesters must not interfere unduly with communication between a speaker or artist and members of the audience,” the policy reads.
SPG 601.01 also outlines protections for right to protest.
“Protesters have rights, just as do speakers and artists,” the policy reads. “The standard of ‘undue interference’ must not be invoked lightly, merely to avoid brief interruptions, or to remove distractions or embarrassment.”
Effective Jan. 16, 2024, the University’s Board of Regents adopted a set of Principles on Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression. These principles say the University values freedom of expression, though they also explain that the University has the right to regulate displays of expression.
“(The) University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the University’s ordinary activities,” the principles read. “We recognize that free inquiry and expression can offend. Every member of our academic community should expect to confront ideas that differ from their own, however uncomfortable those encounters may be.”
These principles modified the verbiage used in the SPG by changing the standard for University interference from “undue interference” with speakers to disruption of any of the University’s “ordinary activities.”
The most recent University statement, the proposed Disruptive Activity Policy, expands to include protests on both University property and in controlled spaces. The introduction of the policy states that the draft aims to protect certain rights while reaffirming the importance of free speech.
“The purpose of this Policy is to address disruption to University Operations so that all members of the University Community and guests may exercise their rights, including their right to hear from speakers; attend classes, activities, and open meetings; and participate as guests at University ceremonies,” the draft reads.
In an email to The Michigan Daily, University spokesperson Kim Broekhuizen said outdoor spaces like the Diag would be included under the draft policy.
“It would apply to all University property and space on the Ann Arbor campus,” Broekhuizen wrote.
In an interview with The Daily, Public Policy graduate student Rea Maci said she felt the verbiage of the draft was ambiguous.
“It’s overly vague, and it’s just too much of a blanket statement to where it could mean everything and nothing at the same time,” Maci said. “And so leaving it like this, it’s really irresponsible. … The verbiage from the policy in terms of what constitutes a disruption could quite literally mean anything and everything the University doesn’t agree with.”
The draft language allows for the University to take immediate action if they have “good cause” to believe that a person has violated the policy, something Broekhuizen specified would be defined by the evidence of a case.
“‘Good cause’ means there is sufficient evidence to act,” Broekhuizen wrote.
The final section of the draft states that the new policy would take priority if there is conflict with another University policy. Maci said she was concerned with this clause and its potential implications.
“There’s no diffusion of power here,” Maci said. “It’s very much that the University holds the right to define every single one of these terms. And if you are inconveniently disrupting, whatever that means in this case, then it’s ultimately a punitive measure.”
If a student is found to have violated the above policy, they will receive written notice regarding the alleged violation and any evidence, after which the student may be subject to sanctions. According to the policy, potential measures include, but are not limited to, disciplinary probation, restriction from employment at the University, suspension and expulsion.
Maci said she feels the University is sending mixed messages regarding their stance on student activism.
“Criminalizing many forms of peaceful protests is also a continuing erosion of the right to protest for civil liberties, a right that so many students employ during their time across universities across the country,” Maci said. “These very strange emails of ‘we value free speech but not too much of it,’ and then doubling down with the policy sends very confusing messages.”
If a staff member is found to have violated the above policy, they may be disciplined by the University under SPG 201.12 II.A. for misconduct. According to the SPG, staff misconduct is defined as conduct, performance or behavior that interferes with or negatively impacts the orderly or efficient operation of the University. If a faculty member is found to have violated the above policy, their case will be assessed under the regulations applying to faculty including the Professional Standards for Faculty.
Maci said the differing guidelines between faculty and staff were concerning because of differing job protections depending on their title. For example, University procedures regarding dismissal and demotion differ from tenure and tenure-track faculty to faculty who are a part of the Lecturers’ Employee Organization.
“Nontenure track faculty, lecturers, have a different lack of protections,” Maci said. “So this kind of statement just invokes a certain kind of fear even more so, not only for students but also for faculty, for untenured faculty, lecturers, for staff.”
Rackham student Shreya Chowdhary is a member of the Graduate Employees Organization, which went on strike last spring after months of contract negotiations without compromise. Chowdhary said that, despite similar protest tactics used during the GEO strike she thinks there are several reasons the draft policy was released now.
“I think partially it’s because we’re in a different political landscape,” Chowdhary said. “But I think it’s evident to me that the reason that the crackdown is harder now than it was when GEO used very similar tactics during our strike is because of external pressures.”
Broekhuizen said the University has not yet determined whether to release the results of the survey to the public.
“All comments collected through the survey will be reviewed by University leadership to help identify improvements to the draft,” Broekhuizen wrote. “The University is considering how it might share survey results.”
Chowdhary said she is skeptical of whether the University will take the community feedback into account because of the final clause of the draft policy.
“If they had intended for any kind of equal dialogue I don’t think that they would have included that clause,” Chowdhary said. “There’s a lot of messaging that communicates that the University is trying as much as possible to remain steadfast in their position.”
Maci said she feels the draft presents a blanket policy that sets a precedent for universities across the nation to enact similar policies.
“Even if it’s not enacted in this full way, setting this kind of precedent that this is an okay policy to even attempt to implement is, really, really dangerous not only for the University of Michigan, but for universities across the country that could adopt similar measures (after) looking at how extreme this policy is,” Maci said. “Palestinian students have told us, Muslim students have told us, that it doesn’t end with them. And we can kind of see the larger broad scale implications of these kinds of blanket policies.”
The feedback survey for the draft policy will remain open until 11:59 p.m. on April 3.
Daily Staff Reporter Madison Hammond can be reached at madihamm@umich.edu.
Information relevant to this story can be emailed to tipline@michigandaily.com. This is a private tip line viewable by a small team of reporters committed to investigative reporting.