The Senate Assembly has asked the University of Michigan administration to pause changes to the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities that it says were made without properly considering faculty input.
The legislative arm of U-M’s central faculty governance system on Sept. 23 passed a nonbinding resolution asking for the pause, with 47 members voting yes, six voting no and two abstaining.
The measure follows an update to the SSRR that was approved by the Board of Regents in July, in part to enable U-M to be responsive to potential federal Title VI violations.
The SSRR serves as the primary policy to hold students accountable for non-academic misconduct. The changes clarify the university’s role in reporting alleged student policy violations and the timeline for resolving matters.
The new language says the university — similarly to faculty, staff and students — may submit a complaint alleging a statement violation. This step clarifies and confirms the university’s ability and need to sometimes act as a complainant, including when a student might not feel safe serving as a complainant.
Additionally, timeframes were added to the various steps within the resolution process in an effort to resolve matters swiftly and within the overall target of approximately 45 days from the time a student has been made aware their behavior may have violated the statement.
Senate Assembly members contend the changes were made without following the standard process of consulting its Student Relations Advisory Committee. The administration has said the Board of Regents is legally authorized to amend the statement, just as it is for any other university policy.
Derek Peterson, the Ali Mazrui Collegiate Professor of History and African Studies, professor of history and of Afroamerican and African studies in LSA, proposed the resolution after several Senate Assembly members shared feedback from fellow faculty members regarding the changes to the policy and the process that was involved.
“It seems, based on a very informal reading of what’s been said in the past half an hour, that most of us have heard that our colleagues support the faculty’s role in determining how the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities ought to be revised,” said Peterson, also a member of the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs, the faculty governance system’s executive arm.
The resolution reads, “The Senate Assembly calls upon the University’s administration to pause the implementation of the revised Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities, and asks that the Administration would respect the collaborative role of students, staff and faculty in formulating changes to this policy, following the process now under way under the leadership of the Student Relations Advisory Committee.”
The Senate Assembly’s Student Relations Advisory Committee is tasked with reviewing the student statement every three years under a process that permits faculty, staff and students to propose changes, which are reviewed by SRAC. Any recommended amendments would then need to be approved by the president.
University spokesperson Colleen Mastony said the process that resulted in the July changes is separate from the every-three-years amendment process detailed in the SSRR.
“The Aug. 26 updates to the SSRR do not fundamentally alter the policy,” Mastony said. “They merely clarify existing university powers and ensure that the disciplinary process moves with efficiency. Every student will still receive due process, including notice of a complaint, the opportunity to be heard, and the reasonable opportunity to appeal.”
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, she said.
The updated SSRR language is consistent with U-M’s agreement with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights to investigate allegations of violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires schools to take action against harassment and work to avoid a hostile environment related to race, color and national origin.
David Potter
Ms. Mastony’s comments misrepresent a crucial feature of the July 25 rewrite of the SSRR. This is the elimination of the faculty/student appeal committee. Under the new process the University can bring a complaint against and individual which must be heard by a staff member and an appeal from that staff member can only be heard by a person in the same direct reporting line, thereby creating an immensely difficult situation for members of staff who can be fired if the “University” does not like their decision. The new policy violates the essential rule of civil society that no person can be the judge in their own case: nemo in sua causa iudex.
Gillian White
I agree with David Potter’s comment that this marks a substantive change, not a clarification of extant policy. “The University” is the judge of these cases, and can also bring them forward? This is not fair. To be clear in what I’m talking about, the revised rule allows the “University” to veto the student’s choice of a Student Resolution Panel so that only a Resolution Officer (a University staff member) will hear and adjudicate the case. This means the University can easily be both accuser and judge. And it’s clear that they acted in a way that breaks existing rules of shared governance. Under Article VIII, Section J of the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities, the Student Relations Advisory Committee (SRAC), a standing committee of the Faculty Senate, is given/charged wtih “primary oversight” over the amendment of student disciplinary procedures. The University not only made no effort to engage SRAC in discussion about the revision of this policy, they did not even inform them of it. I sincerely hope the University will pause and allow the faculty, staff, and students to weigh in on what does seem a substantive change to the policy as stated. The impression left is of a misuse power in not giving the SRAC (among others) a voice.