On Jan. 16, the University of Michigan Board of Regents approved and adopted a set of “Principles on Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression.” The 1 1/2 page document, initially drafted in October, outlines the University’s position on freedom of expression and creating inclusive environments. With questions about the nature of free speech on the rise nationally, the principles were meant to chart a clear path through difficult political terrain.
In practice, they were highly rhetorical. The document’s language is intentionally vague, allowing for multiple interpretations. Without clear communication from the administration, the principles are left up to readers’ analysis, which poses a problem for effective policy. The University must engage in good faith with students and make itself more clear as it turns these guidelines into action.
The free speech principles were introduced to the student body in an email from University President Santa Ono, who announced the assembly of an initial panel to “recommend ways to put the principles into practice” and a second panel to analyze its successes and failures. There is no specification about the composition of the first panel in the email, but Ono does promise the second panel will include students. As this process unfolds, it’s important to examine the University’s track record on protecting free speech.
There are examples of the University living up to its ideals as a public institution. Student demonstrations, including those by pro-Israel and pro-Palestine groups, have been allowed to occur around campus, including right outside of Ono’s house. This can’t be said in other higher education institutions, where Students for Justice for Palestine chapters have been banned outright. In a clear success, the University also formed an institute to research rising antisemitism nationwide.
Yet, a series of more recent U-M failures have cast doubt on the University’s intent to uphold free speech.
On Nov. 17, 2023, dozens of protesters gathered at the Alexander G. Ruthven Building to call on the University to divest from Israel and protect students from Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment. The entrance to Ruthven — typically open to the public during business hours — was blocked by a heavy police presence. Some students were able to enter the building, staging a sit-in, while others protested outside. Despite it being a peaceful demonstration, several students reported experiencing excessive force from officers.
Forty students were arrested on charges of trespassing after failing to comply with a dispersal order, and, as of the publication of this article, the charges against these students have not been dropped. They have also been barred from attending Board of Regents meetings.
The Daily’s Editorial Board rejects the massive police presence at Ruthven and condemns any and all excessive use of force by law enforcement. Moreover, we are deeply concerned by the University’s choice to block a public building during regular hours of operation and limit student access to Board of Regents meetings. Allowing charges to be levied against students and limiting access to public forums directly contradicts the principles U-M leadership seeks to promote.
The University must show its dedication to free speech and begin mending its previously antagonistic relationship with pro-Palestine student groups. The charges against student protesters should be dropped and their ability to attend board meetings reinstated.
Many student organizations complain that they have inadequate access to the University administration. In an email to The Michigan Daily, Shubh Agrawal, board member of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, explained how the organization would like to see its communication with the University improve.
“We would like an open line of communication to administration and the Regents,” Agrawal said. “We don’t want to have to fight and face police repression just to get a meeting. We don’t want to be restricted to talking to the Regents through whatever limited parameters they allow at the meetings.”
While free speech does not mean that the University should do everything student organizations demand, it does mean that the University should be willing to listen. So far, it hasn’t been.
On Nov. 30, 2023, the University canceled two Central Student Government ballot initiatives related to Israel and Palestine, citing violations of the University’s Responsible Use of Information Resources policy. In addition, the University disallowed all future ballot initiatives concerning the same topic. This unprecedented action, among other things, drew the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which sent a letter to U-M administration arguing that the University was engaged in the suppression of student speech. CSG is meant to be an independent institution and should not be impeded by the University. The administration should not be able to cancel ballot initiatives at its discretion.
All of these events are backdropped by rising levels of Islamophobia and antisemitism on campus and nationwide. The Jewish Resource Center was vandalized by two student-athletes in August, and in October, a video surfaced on social media depicting a School of Information Advisory Board member verbally assaulting Muslim students. The University has not reprimanded the board member. In order to combat the rising levels of Islamophobia, the University should open a serious inquiry into its presence on campus, similar to the recently opened Raoul Wallenberg Institute.
University policy must foster an environment where students can engage respectfully with each other and with administration. As such, the advisory panel Ono promised to create must have student input and must be accessible. We cannot reasonably be expected to internalize and follow free speech guidelines we had no say in formulating. While student power in creating speech policy does not have to be absolute, the process should be transparent and interactive.
Our campus cannot become another cautionary tale about what happens when freedom of speech policies are done wrong. Columbia University suspended their chapters of Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine and is now pursuing disciplinary action against students involved in their demonstrations. As the groups continued to protest, two students deployed a chemical weapon called “Skunk” on the demonstrators. Columbia’s vague guidelines made these incursions possible. At the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, a demonstration supporting the hostages taken by Hamas was violently interrupted when a Jewish student was allegedly punched and his Israeli flag spat on.
As a renowned and public institution, the University of Michigan must hold itself to a higher standard. Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of higher education, and if we want a thriving and open campus community, it can’t be suppressed. Choosing to support speech only when it is convenient to the University is counterproductive to the civil dialogue that this institution prides itself on.
The new principles say: “When we fall short of these ideals, we vow to learn from our missteps as a community that aspires to be ‘leaders and best.’ ” Lately, the University has been falling short of these ideals. The time to live up to them is now.
This editorial represents the majority 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.