The University of Michigan’s Faculty Senate has passed four resolutions regarding faculty concerns related to current challenges in U.S. higher education.
The election saw 3,088 Senate members — 40.7% of eligible electors — cast ballots over 72 hours of electronic voting that followed a special meeting on April 17. The meeting was called after a petition was signed by more than 200 faculty members.
MORE INFORMATION
Each resolution is advisory in nature. “We value faculty engagement and recognize non-binding resolutions as an important way for the faculty senate to weigh in on issues impacting our community,” said Colleen Mastony, university spokesperson.
Regarding a resolution that called for the university to establish a mutual defense compact with other institutions, Mastony noted, the university has already been actively partnering with several higher education organizations — including the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, the Association of Public Land Grant Universities and the Big 10 Academic Alliance — to advocate for the interests of individual institutions and higher education more broadly.
The Faculty Senate has nearly 7,600 members, including tenured and tenure-track instructional faculty and research faculty, as well as librarians, clinical faculty, archivists, curators and lecturers I, II, III and IV with at least a 50% appointment, and deans and executive officers from all U-M campuses.
A breakdown of the vote is as follows:
Motion 1: Resolution to Establish a Mutual Defense Compact for the Universities of the Big Ten Academic Alliance in Defense of Academic Freedom, Institutional Integrity, and the Research Enterprise
Yes 2,761, No 214 (113 abstained)
The motion calls on President Santa J. Ono to help establish a defense compact among the 18 schools within the Big Ten Academic Alliance. This alliance would contribute to a defense fund that would support participating institutions should they come under political or legal attack.
Motion 2: Statement in Support of the Core Mission and Values of Higher Education in the United States of America
Yes 2,843, No 146 (99 abstained)
The motion asks for the adoption of a collaborative statement drafted by governance leaders in the Big Ten Academic Alliance to express support for the mission and values of higher education.
Motion 3: Resolution to continue DEI initiatives that are in alignment with our university values, an extension of the mission of our schools, and legally compliant
Yes 2,123, No 574 (391 abstained)
The motion urges U-M leadership and the board of regents to retain the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, to rehire employees terminated with the dissolution of U-M’s DEI program and central office — and to support broader and more transparent dialogue regarding decisions that impact the U-M community.
Motion 4: Resolution Urging the University of Michigan to Protect International Students, Faculty, and Staff from Unwarranted Detention
Yes 2,744, No 203 (141 abstained)
The fourth motion urges the administration to adopt, insofar as legally possible, a policy of non-compliance with ICE. It also asks for the university to establish a program of legal support for international staff, students and faculty so that, in the event of visa revocation and/or immigration detention, they are given legal representation by specialized immigration counsel.
Silke-Maria Weineck
I would like to once again remind the University that its core mission, research and teaching, is pursued by the faculty and that the Regents Bylaws state: “The senate is authorized to consider any subject pertaining to the interests of the University, and to make recommendations to the Board of Regents in regard thereto. Decisions of the University Senate with respect to matters within its jurisdiction shall constitute the binding action of the University faculties.”
When more than 3,000 of us speak out and make requests, it behooves the President, the Provost, and the Regents to respond and to seriously engage with the demands, requests, and recommendations of the faculty. To date, neither of them has responded to the Chair of the Faculty Senate. Instead, a PR person gets to tell Blue Pravda that we don’t matter.
Motion One did not ask universities to collectively “advocate” for Higher Ed, it urges U-M to commit actual resources to a legal fight sure to come. The other three resolutions do, apparently, not even merit a response by the Comms Shop.
This is painful to see, demoralizing, and shameful.
We need a wartime president, and we do not have one. It’s high time for that to change.
Julie Boland
The faculty called out in large numbers, with an overwhelming majority, for President Ono to take some leadership on these issues. The weak claim (by a university spokesperson) to be partnering with other higher ed institutions in some unknown way is an unacceptable answer. President Ono, where are you and what is your response to the faculty?
John Carson
Lead or Leave
President Ono, the time has come. Your policy of duck and cover (except on your persecution of free speech) has run its course. While the rest of America’s major educational institutions are lining up to do battle with the Trump Administration in the name of academic freedom, safety of community members, and, really some version of a commitment to the values of a liberal democracy, you remain silent and invisible, both on campus and in the national discourse.
The moment is here, and you simply are not ready for it. Historically, Michigan has embraced its position as a leading public university and spoken out to defend the values of scholarly research, public debate and even protest, and an inclusive and diverse democracy. But at this time, all that emanates from Ruthven is a deafening silence, even when urged simply to join other universities in the fight for our collective autonomy and survival.
The time has drawn nigh, the urgency is acute. If you aren’t ready to lead, then it is time for you to leave. Michigan deserves better.
Jesse Johnston
It’s a shame to not see U-M’s support and signature on statements like this from the American Association of Colleges & Universities – https://www.aacu.org/newsroom/a-call-for-constructive-engagement.
Camron Amin
I would like to see leadership on all campuses and our Regents respond constructively to these motions. Everyone understands, I believe, that there are challenges involved. We, as in institution, need to get on the side of democracy, free speech and civil rights. There’s no way to keep our heads down and hope Harvard – of all places – leads us to the best outcomes. We need to be part of the coalition that is trying to ensure our survival as a free society.
Tina Creguer
Hear, hear! Bravo to the Senate for crystallizing many of the concerns and convictions of students, faculty, and staff. We breathlessly await action from “leader”ship.
Marissa Pollick
To President Ono and UM Board of Regents,
I’m a two-time UM alum and retired lecturer. The University’s capitulation to the lawless and corrupt Trump administration has been shameful. Silence and abandonment of core values and moral principles in the face of tyranny and authoritarianism is dangerous. You are not serving the interests of our institution or the University community at large.
Here’s a link to a model federal complaint in the event you reconsider your course of action: https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Harvard-Funding-Freeze-Order-Complaint.pdf
Stephanie Collier
To clarify, we didn’t even get to vote to protect our international community: we voted to ask the university to protect them. And we’ve BEEN asking. Peaceful protests, sit-ins, work-ins, marches, the encampments, and now a vote from the faculty senate. Santa Ono, what will it take for you to finally listen to us???
Michael Thouless
As a former Chair of SACUA from many years ago, when the administration (and spokespeople) were rather more respectful of the faculty than now, I am dismayed by the belittling attitude to faculty that university spokespeople seem to have taken in recent years by dismissing resolutions of the faculty as “non-binding”.
The core mission of the university of research and teaching is pursued by the faculty, and the Regents Bylaws state: “The senate is authorized to consider any subject pertaining to the interests of the University, and to make recommendations to the Board of Regents in regard thereto. Decisions of the University Senate with respect to matters within its jurisdiction shall constitute the binding action of the University faculties.”
While I concede the argument that a recommendation to the administration to join a compact with the Big-10 may not be part of the official jurisdiction of the faculty, the second resolution reinforcing our support of the core missions most certainly was. I would also argue that DEI is an integral part of teaching and scholarship, and, therefore, within our jurisdiction; it is not a performative platitude to be lightly thrown onto the altar of appeasement. In a related vein, I might also argue that the last resolution about protecting the weak and vulnerable in our community has become an academic issue by default, falling on the shoulders of the faculty when the administration fails to do so. (For example, we have always been in the front lines of dealing with the usual stresses put by society on the students in our classrooms, and the administration repeatedly reminds us of this – how much more serious this has become now that even students who are legal residents are at threat of having their lives uprooted).
Yi-Li Wu
For a University spokesperson to declare that these resolutions are “non-binding” is tantamount to President Ono and the Regents sticking their fingers in their ears while chanting, “nyah, nyah, we can’t hear you.” It shows an abysmal lack of leadership and vision at a time when our constitutional democracy is facing existential threats. The would-be authoritarian regime in Washington D.C. is seeking to erase entire groups of people from history as well as present-day society, and to suppress and destroy any groups or institutions that oppose it. Hence its attacks on higher education.
As of this writing, the Regents finally gave President Santa Ono permission to publicly acknowledge this crisis. The permission came in the form of an editorial published in the Michigan Daily, authored by five Regents, to affirm their commitment to defending academic freedom. As a result, President Ono has finally signed the statement published by the American Association of Colleges and Universities denouncing the Trump administrations assault on higher education—a statement that over 200 university and college presidents signed before he did.
I am glad that the Regents and President Ono have finally decided to take at least one finger out of their collective ears. I look forward to them supporting all four FAculty Senate resolutions in full. As I said at the April 17 Faculty Senate meeting: “If you’ve ever wondered what you would have done in 1930s Germany, congratulations—you’re doing it now.”
UM Regents and President Ono, we need real leadership NOW. We the UM community are watching you, the Michigan voters are watching you, and history will judge you.