The University of Michigan has adopted a new Standard Practice Guide governing trespass warnings, which gives further clarification on trespass warnings and where on campus trespass warnings apply.
This SPG supersedes the former version of DPSS Official Order No. 41, which going forward will match this SPG. SPG 601.43 is owned by the President’s Office, the Office of the Vice President and General Counsel, and the Division of Public Safety and Security.
MORE INFORMATION
“This new SPG was developed following input from campus stakeholders over the last few years,” said Rick Arnold, interim executive director of DPSS. “As we continue to provide a safe and transparent campus environment, we regularly look for opportunities to improve our policies and procedures, including trespass warnings.”
The trespass SPG provides a detailed set of maps identifying the areas “owned, leased, or controlled by the University” where trespass warnings may be enforced, depending on the scope of an individual warning.
It also updates guidelines for DPSS officers issuing warnings, including:
- Providing criteria to consider in determining the geographic scope of a trespass warning, detailed examples of what behavior meets each of the criteria for issuance of a trespass warning, and a clear standard for when faculty, students or staff may be issued trespass warnings.
- Requiring an officer to provide a brief description of the circumstances that justified issuance of the warning, and that a notice of explanation for the trespass warning must be sent to the individual within seven days.
- Providing that a trespass warning may be removed or modified after a formal hearing if the circumstances do not support its issuance, scope, or duration, regardless of whether a criminal matter is pending adjudication.
- Providing that a trespass warning may be removed or modified after an appeal to the DPSS executive director, not just due to a “change in circumstances,” but also if the recipient raises new concerns regarding the length or geographic scope of the warning.
- Requiring annual training on the policy for relevant DPSS staff and provides that policy violations may result in disciplinary action, up to and including discharge.
The SPG also tightens the timelines for the formal hearing and appeal process.
Rita Lee
Where are the maps? I’ve checked the full SPG, the DPSS website, and the Trespass form and do not see these maps.
Tina Creguer
The maps actually do not appear anywhere in the linked pages (or the ones those link to).
Craig Smith
The SPG should address police and other institutional biases, because people have been given trespass notices for peacefully protesting things like U-M’s investments in genocide and the university forcing a nuclear weapons development data center on Ypsilanti. There are no guardrails on how U-M treats speech it doesn’t like.
John Woodford
A member of the U-M community would have to be an idiot not to recognize this measure for what it is: a regulation imposed from on high designed to set up a system of repression, censorship and punishment on those publicly exposing an dissenting from some administrative decree or other. This new U-M decree, as we have been seeing, has been designed and spread following secret counclls with would-be dictators. The “new guidelines” are desired by those who fear protest and resistance by faculty, students and workers in academia. The immediate controversy is aimed at those who denounce and resist a genocide in the Middle East. In the future, repressive governments will apply it to other crimes they plan toi commit or abet. By going into cahoots with federal censors, the administration of this university is aligning with elements who are enemies of academic freedom. There is no other reason for them to have taken such a high-handed measure.