The University of Michigan Board of Regents unanimously voted to change the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities, which outlines U-M policies on non-academic misconduct, on July 18. These updates came into effect Aug. 26, altering the complaint and resolution dispute process to take less time and involve fewer individuals in the appeals process.
These changes came after months of pro-Palestine protests on campus, and most recently after a protest at the University of Michigan Museum of Art was met with police force and, soon after, the Gaza solidarity encampment on the Diag was removed by U-M law enforcement.
The changes to the SSRR include giving the University the ability to act as a complainant against students. Before this change, all complaints had to be filed by an individual student, faculty or staff member. The changes also created a 45-day timeline for the resolution process to conclude once the respondent is notified. Previously, there was no distinct timeline. A Resolution Officer, an individual who issues decisions on the hearing process, is now required to arbitrate disputes when the respondent and complainant cannot agree on whether a Student Resolution Panel or RO should arbitrate to reach an equitable solution for both parties.
Previously, the appeals board was composed of a student appointed by the Central Student Government, a faculty member appointed by the Faculty Senate and an administrator appointed by the University President. Now, the board must be approved by a Resolution Coordinator. If the RC does approve the appeal, the Vice President of Student Life or a designee will serve as an appeals officer who will make a final decision on whether to keep or reverse the finding of responsibility, modify sanctions and order a new hearing.
The University Board of Regents did not consult with the Senate Assembly’s Student Relations Advisory Committee about changing the SSRR. In an email to The Michigan Daily, Rebekah Modrak, Art & Design professor and Senate Assembly Chair, said the U-M administration did not make an attempt to discuss changes with SRAC despite it being a year SRAC would normally review and make suggested amendments to the SSRR.
“Article VIII, Section J of the SSRR stipulates that the Statement will be reviewed for changes every three years and that ‘the Board of Regents has provided the SRAC of the Senate Assembly with primary oversight of the review,’” Modrak wrote. “SRAC was scheduled to review the Statement for changes in the 2024/25 academic year. Yet, this summer, the University made no effort to either inform or engage SRAC in discussion about their revision of the policy.”
In an email to The Daily, University spokesperson Colleen Mastony wrote that the University has the authority to make changes to the SSRR without consulting SRAC or the Office of Student Conflict Resolution and Central Student Government under the Michigan Constitution.
“The Board of Regents has the authority to amend the U-M Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities (SSRR), as it does any other university policy, consistent with its duty to lawfully govern the university under the Michigan Constitution,” Mastony wrote. “This process is separate from the amendment process detailed in the SSRR, which occurs every three years and is overseen by the Student Relations Advisory Committee in coordination with the Office of Student Conflict Resolution and Central Student Government.”
The Michigan Constitution does not specify the powers of the Board of Regents. The Michigan Constitution only says that the Board has general supervision of the University.
“Each board shall have general supervision of its institution and the control and direction of all expenditures from the institution’s funds,” the Constitution reads.
Mastony said the changes were made to create a safer campus environment.
“The University’s position is that the clarifications were necessary to promote accountability — for students and for the University — and to support a campus environment free from harassment and intimidation, especially as we begin a new school year,” Mastony wrote.
Modrak wrote she believes the lack of input by faculty members will make the administration beholden to politicians and donors.
“The changes (to the SSRR) are also a huge blow to shared governance and faculty involvement in the development of rules impacting the University,” Modrak wrote. “Consensus-building takes time but the alternative, and where we are now, is that the Regents issue top-down directives that ignore faculty expertise so that the University’s values become subject to the influences of politicians and donors.”
In the same email, Mastony wrote that the updates are only meant to clarify the SSRR and ensure the disciplinary process occurs in a fair and timely manner with standardized rules and procedures.
“Every student will still receive due process, including notice of a complaint, the opportunity to be heard, and the reasonable opportunity to appeal,” Mastony wrote.
Modrak said she believes the changes will harm student protesters and give the administration too much power over the complaint process.
“The SSRR changes are chilling speech,” Modrak wrote. “It is inevitable and probably intended that students will be afraid to protest knowing that the University now controls the complaint process. There’s slim-to-no chance of a student hearing, and the faculty/student/staff appeal panel has been eliminated. Goodbye jury of peers. We’ve regressed to pre-American Revolution jurisprudence where a single judge decides a case, often on political expediency.”
In an interview with The Daily, LSA sophomore Sydney Olthoff, U-M ACLU Undergraduate Chapter co-chair, said she believes the decrease in the time between complaint and subsequent consequences will impede students’ due process.
“It’s really creating fear in students,” Olthoff said. “These allegations don’t really need to go through the same process as they used to. (They can) just be brought forth, and then action can follow immediately. Normally, what a student has time to do between the allegations being filed and then the disciplinary response is to find time to arm themselves with legal assistance and figure out what things they can use to defend themselves. … It really just takes away that time that people have to get that legal counsel, even to understand what this complaint is about and to move forward without immediately being disciplined.”
Daily Staff Reporter Miles Anderson can be reached at milesand@umich.edu.
The post UMich votes to change to student statement of rights and responsibilities appeared first on The Michigan Daily.
Leave a Reply