The Board of Regents is seeking public comment on a proposed addition to the Regents’ Bylaws that addresses institutional neutrality at the University of Michigan.
more information
The proposal grew out of a recommendation in a September report by the Committee on the University of Michigan Principles on Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression.
That advisory committee was formed in March to recommend how U-M should put into practice the statement of Principles on Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression that the regents approved in January.
The proposed bylaw is posted for public comment prior to coming before the regents for consideration. Those wishing to submit comments can email them to [email protected].
Carol Roughton
Good morning,
The email address given for the submission of comments to the Regents’ bylaw 14.08 ([email protected]) is blocking messages.
The response from the remote server was:
550 Requested action failed: User not found
If possible, please forward this comment to the Regents – thanks!
Good morning,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Regents’ bylaw regarding institutional neutrality. The bylaw itself isn’t the issue. The drafting of the bylaw and the elicitation of public comment are disingenuous attempts to whitewash the subversion of the will of students, staff and faculty of the University.
Approving budgets directly relates to internal governance, thus all University leaders involved in budget decisions should be allowed to issue statements regarding those decisions. Approving a budget that invests in companies benefiting murderous regimes stands in direct opposition to the stated goal of developing leaders and citizens who will challenge the present and enrich the future.
Thank you,
Carol Roughton
—
Carol Roughton (she/her)
Treasury Program Specialist
3003 S. State Street | 10090 Wolverine Tower | Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1283
734.763.8149
[email protected]
https://finance.umich.edu/treasury
University Record
The email address that was included in your comment above is incorrect and appears to be the result of a typo. The Office of the Vice President and Secretary has confirmed that the email address in the Record story — [email protected] — is correct and is receiving messages, if you would like to send your comment again to the correct address.
Silke-Maria Weineck
This policy is incoherent. Unlike most universities, UM is governed by elected not appointed Regents who run on party tickets — they are and are meant to be “biased,” and pretending otherwise makes a mockery of elections.
“Institutional Neutrality” is neither desirable nor possible — we either perform abortions at UM-Med or we do not, we either pepper-spray pro-Palestinian protesters or we don’t, we either invest in fossil fuels or we don’t. The distinction between “external” and “internal” which the committee blithely asserts is “coherent and workable” is, in fact, neither of those things.
“Institutional neutrality,” in addition, was cooked up at the Barry Goldwater Institute and has been championed (liberal-washed, if you want) by The Fire, a Koch funded organization. The Kalven Report was written by a small all-male committee appointed by the President of the University of Chicago and never ratified by either faculty or student governance — a process which reflects the anti-democratic aims of Institutional Neutrality. Anton Ford has written well on this in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
The report centers conservatives at UM who present themselves as a small minority who need to be protected from hearing that their views are unpopular. They have an absolute right to hold and voice their opinions – they do not have a right to be shielded from the response. While ideological conformity is without a doubt a phenomenon at universities, which are for good reasons quintessentially liberal institutions, this policy will do exactly nothing to address the concerns of the anti-DEI, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-abortion community members whose complaints the report foregrounds (and thank God for that)
Pamela McElmeel
Perfectly said. Please consider these comments. All of them are well-thought out and should be deemed very relevant. I agree with all of them and have nothing more to add.
Anam Shah
As an alumna, I concur with this comment wholeheartedly.
Michael Mancuso
You bring up a wide variety of points, all of which are well addressed and represented well. A few points I have to agree upon, and others I must disagree.
Primarily, I don’t believe that UM administration being biased should be its goal, which is precisely why the bylaw is being considered. The university’s goals should not be to support any position or actively make political changes, but instead teach students and create people that can express freely themselves what they believe. In this way, I think neutrality is ideal.
I would hope that the aims of institutional neutrality are not anti-democratic and are instead pro-democratic, separating the beliefs of the individual students and faculty from that of the University.
What I must agree with you on: actions speak louder than words. What the university does and does not do matters much more than what they say they do or will do. I think you should consider instead the idea that individual medical students/professionals at Michigan hospital perform abortions, and that individual students protest for or against global actions, instead of that “we” as “the university” are all agreeing to take part in something like “pepper-spraying pro-Palestinian protesters.”
Personally, I’d probably agree with some of your perspectives and not others, which is precisely why I think we would all benefit from having a University which does not directly support or oppose these actions. I think ideological conformity suppresses individual expression and important freedoms and institutional neutrality supports it.
Michael Atzmon
If implemented, this draft SPG would create more chaos than it purports to prevent. For example, it raises the following issues:
1) Initiatives, such as studying firearm injuries, or a commitment to carbon neutrality or DEI, are inherently political. Even science and truth in general have become hostage to politics. Would this proposed bylaw lead to a termination of related official activities? Would the leadership, e.g., a) not defend against attacks a faculty member who criticizes fake news, a physician who performs abortions or a scientist who speaks out against pseudoscience? b) refuse to condemn book bans? (Not that it has a good track record on these matters).
2) Would the President retract one-sided opinions he has expressed in his official capacity in the past?
3) Finally, actions speak louder than words. As long as UM instigates police violence against peaceful protesters, especially when singling them out based on the views they express, any “neutrality” statement will ring hollow.
If carried out honestly and strictly, this policy would render the University largely irrelevant.
Michael Mancuso
I’d argue or modify a few points here:
(1)The initiatives discussed that pertain to student safety are not affected by the bylaw: particularly, the bylaw only addresses “statements”, not actions (which would, I agree, be rather meaningless), and also these should fall under the umbrella of “internal governance” and “necessary administration business.” I think ideally it separates the statements of the university with that of the individual.
(2) I’d certainly hope this is the case.
(3) As discussed above, I absolutely agree.
More needs to be done. I agree the bylaw is not enough — but, it doesn’t cause any immediate damage and might be a step in the right direction.
Eva Hedwig Schueler
I am not sure I understand why the Board of Regents are still seeking feedback regarding institutional neutrality, given that a survey asking for just that was sent out earlier in the year. What I read of the policy at the time of that survey was disappointingly (and, I’m sure, intentionally) vague.
Not surprisingly, the proposed bylaw is still so all-encompassing as to be meaningless. It is immensely frustrating that our community is continually being asked for feedback yet there is no indication our responses are being considered.
Michael Mancuso
Well said. This, along with the exceptionally tight deadline for which comments are being accepted, seems altogether as though the University does not seek to make legitimate change.
Thomas Valdez
In the wake of President Ono’s leaked congressional hearing audio, I think the University of Michigan community needs to have some clarity from him about who exactly is directing his actions and policies. Because this proposed policy is genuinely bizarre.
It is hypocritical of Santa Ono to seek “neutrality” after admitting to our lawmakers that his leadership is being pressured to be biased against Arabs and Muslims. Feigning neutrality now only works to protect the status quo. Which is quite literally defending Israels segregation (your race and religion determines which streets you can walk, busses you can use) and apartheid (the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, your race/religion determining if you are heard in Israeli civil or military courts).
And lastly, there is precedent from Ono’s predecessors to DIVEST from apartheid—as the University of Michigan did with South Africa.
So, why does Israels apartheid and segregation get a pass?
I guess, in short, Ono isn’t being neutral so how can he say the school should be?
Michael Mancuso
I don’t believe this policy was pushed forward by Ono, and instead removes power from his position. The bylaw would aim to remove the ability of administrators like Ono to spreading messages that align with their personal beliefs on behalf of the university. In this way, I think the bylaw is a step forward in what you’d want to see.
However, I completely agree the actions of the University are particularly hypocritical — the bylaw ideally would help in part to amend that. However, I do believe more would need to be done.
Sean Johnson
This is an absolutely terrible policy proposal. Moreover, the general idea of institutional neutrality is fundamentally flawed. It will be used to stifle faculty and student speech according to the administration’s whims. The policy empowers bad actors who intentionally generate controversy for the sole purpose of forcing the university to retreat from its mission.
Michael Mancuso
I share your concerns with suppression of free speech of students. However, I would ask you reconsider the wording of the bylaw, as it actually may do the opposite, and favor your perspective:
Consider the wording of the bylaw only yielding action towards deplatforming administrators at Michigan. The wording says nothing about student free speech or platform, only that “University leaders, including Regents, the president, executive officers, chancellors, deans, directors, chairs, and others in similar positions, will not issue statements on behalf of the University”
Unfortunately, I agree that the bylaw does not nearly enough when it comes to preventing actions, but it’s one step in the right direction in my opinion. As far as wording, it seems harmless when it comes to legal interpretation and protecting student free speech, and instead restricts only administration from using their platform at Michigan to support their individual ideas.
Leila Kawar
Why is there no deadline given for providing public comments? Are the Regents planning to move forward with adopting this draft by-law at their meeting on October 17, 2024? If so, then the deadline for submitting public comments is presumably Monday, 10/14 at 5pm. This rushing of the process essentially forecloses meaningful debate and discussion.
Michael Mancuso
Could not agree more. As someone who got this information late, and have much to say, this does seem like a rushed process for something that seems terribly important.
Christopher Godwin
The idea that only the faculty, staff and students at the University of Michigan should have a say re. the issue of Institutional Neutrality is utterly ludicrous. The U of M is a *public* institution, directly and indirectly supported by financial and other resources provided by the taxpaying residents of the state of Michigan. This goes as much for the people who live in, e.g., Kalkaska, Iron River, St. Ignace, Alpena, and Morenci as it does the faculty, staff and students on the Ann Arbor, Flint and Dearborn campuses. So unless the U of M decides go completely private, this makes all of us Michigan residents direct stakeholders in the direction of the U of M.
What I’m hoping is that the Regents have developed and implemented an outreach plan to let the people across the state know that their input into this issue is welcome and wanted. You can bet your bottom dollar that the vast majority of folks in Tawas, Roscommon, Atlanta, Newberry, Munising, Escanaba, Ontonagon, etc., aren’t getting The Record in their emails every weekday morning, so the Regents should be engaged in outreach across the state, not just to the U of M community.
Michael Mancuso
I’d like to disagree, in the sense that the University is not a governing body or organization, and does not have a requirement to represent the state of Michigan. Particularly, I’d argue that many of the provinces or locations which you have mentioned make up a very small fraction of the student body, which includes international students. Whether or not the University is public or private should not change this matter.
The university should only seek to serve its students and doesn’t need to “represent them” or their beliefs: the individual beliefs of students on campus or administrators should be handled individually, and the bylaw removes the University from grossly marginalizing student opinions and beliefs by removing their ability to inaccurately represent the student body.
Christopher Godwin
The places I listed are all towns or cities.
I made no claim that the university needs to “represent” the people of Michigan; indeed, a policy of institutional neutrality prevents such things. My point is simply that the taxpayers of the state of Michigan are stakeholders in their flagship public university and as such deserve to a voice in the discussion. Our military is not a “governing body or organization” – should people who are not in the military not have a say in military policy?
Molly Lynch
1) I teach the history of racism in my course on social justice literature. In order to achieve neutrality under your rule, will I be expected to teach racism from the point of view of those who believe that some races are superior to others?
2) President Ono has been caught on audio recording, admitting to strategic bias against the university’s Muslim community. By admitting that he’s afraid of losing funding if he speaks out against Islamophobia, rather than antisemitism, he has exposed himself as having anti-Muslim bias. If your rule is implemented, will you dismiss him on the grounds of this bias?
Michael Mancuso
What a fantastic question. Certainly, money drives much of the University’s decisions, though it shouldn’t, especially when it comes to social-political issues. I believe the bylaw isn’t enough to make the major changes at Michigan that are required but it does deplatform administrators like the president in their ability to make political statements on behalf of the university.
Yuri Gurevich
I applaud the commitment to diversity of thought and freedom of expression and I find the proposed bylaw natural and reasonable.
Karthik Ganapathy
It would be far easier to divest from the genocidal Zionist entity and weapons manufacturers rather than continue this disgusting attempt to police all aspects of the institution just so that individuals and organizations who dehumanize the Palestinian people feel “at home” in UMich…
Michael Mancuso
I think the bylaw supports your cause, which I generally tend to agree with.
Consider the wording of the bylaw only yielding action towards deplatforming administrators at Michigan: the application in your case would be removing the ability of the president to issue statements to the student body that show bias against Muslims.
The wording says nothing about student free speech or platform, only that “University leaders, including Regents, the president, executive officers, chancellors, deans, directors, chairs, and others in similar positions, will not issue statements on behalf of the University”, so as far as wording, it seems harmless when it comes to legal interpretation and protecting student free speech.
Instead, it would not allow administrators like our president to use the email system to send out frequent messages that support causes you disagree with.
It’s not nearly enough, but it might be one step in the right direction.
Par Cassel
Institutional neutrality only applies to us as an institution and our leadership, as outlined in the proposed amendment. It should not prevent professors and lecturers from choosing to teach their subjects in a way they feel is appropriate. Quite on the contrary, institutional neutrality will help to remove peer pressure to conform to any single view on a given topic and will thus promote viewpoint diversity.
There is a broad consensus that we need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxides in order to mitigate global warming. If our investment teams determine that we can forgo revenue in the fossil industry in order to reduce our impact, that does not violate institutional neutrality any more than it does for the University to encourage us not to waste electricity and water. What the University should avoid, however, is to advocate for a specific climate policy, where there are a broad range of fiercely contested options.
The question of abortion decided by state law and since 2022, the right to abortion is protected under the State Constitution of Michigan. The fact that the University provides abortion through its health services does not mean that we as an institution are taking a stand on the issue.
As individuals, we are free to make political statements and form political associations on campus. We will leverage our knowledge and expertise to further causes, such as climate change, abortion, US policy in the Middle East, and so on. That is a natural part of our campus culture and should not change under institutional neutrality.
Michael Mancuso
Very well said and fantastic comments. I agree with your amendments completely.
Nesha Haniff
As an alumni and retired faculty at the university of Michigan I find the university’s attempt to stifle protest painful. Why. What are you saying to students that they must mirror the silence of the country. I spent my life at michigan invested in critical thinking for my students and now you undo that. I am pained that I believed that the university can change the world. You want the world as it is. You favor pro israel students, you carry the emblem that Palestinians and Muslims are less than human under the word neutrality
This is racist and you bear also the burden of being recorded in history as wanting to be neutral in the time of a genocide that claimed the lives of the families of many of your own students while trying to oppress us into silence. Shane also on the assistant oppressors
Nesh Haniff
Michael Mancuso
I believe the idea here is precisely the opposite:
The bylaw does not stifle or suppress student vocalizations of free speech by any manner, only restricting what administration (University leaders, including Regents, the president, executive officers, chancellors, deans, directors, chairs, and others in similar positions) is allowed to say on behalf of the university.
Individual students expressing themselves in forms of protest or free speech is not related to the bylaw, only that administration cannot use their positions of power to their advantage or to support their individual beliefs.
I agree with your sentiments exactly, but I think you should consider this might be a step in the right direction.
Roger Albin
This is a sensible policy proposal.
Svetlana Toder
This is a valuable and necessary initiative that will ensure the safety of the entire UM community. With the rise in violence against marginalized community members and hate, pro terrorism student groups, it is the university’s number one priority to keep its students and staff safe; this initiative will ensure that safety remains a number one priority and will allow the university to reinforce it. I fully support this!
Michael Mancuso
I agree that the number one priority of Michigan’s administration is to protect and support its students. As such, hate speech and threatening behavior on campus is well within their rights and duties to prevent and stifle, and is not prevented by the bylaw, as it falls under the umbrella of internal governance and necessary administration.
Katherine Fleischman
I strongly support the proposed campus neutrality policy. It is a crucial step towards ensuring a safe and respectful environment for all students, faculty, and staff. By addressing hate speech and preventing harmful groups from spreading divisive rhetoric, this policy will help foster a campus community that values inclusion, respect, and open dialogue. This is a vital move for the well-being and safety of the University of Michigan community.
Stacey Mayesh
As an engaged alum, I strongly support the proposed campus neutrality policy. This policy will enable the university to legally stop the pro terrorist groups from attempting to marginalize students who identify as zionists, which is the vast majority of jewish people. While freedom of speech should always be uplifted, it is problematic when it crosses into hate speech. Normalizing and allowing hate speech against jews and supporters of Israel has the unfortunate consequence of normalizing antisemitism. All students at U of M deserve to feel safe. The university needs to uphold values that promote inclusion, respect and open dialogue and this policy will enable that.
Naomi Fleisch
Jewish students, such as myself, at the University of Michigan have been feeling increasingly unsafe and marginalized, especially with the rise in anti-Semitic hate speech during recent conflicts. It’s hurtful to see claims of “genocide” aimed at us just because the one Jewish nation in the world is defending itself against a terrorist group targeting Jews. Attacks on Zionism cannot be separated from attacks on Judaism, no matter how much people want to pretend they are not being antisemitic. Judaism and Zionism are completely intertwined, and I guarantee that if you asked any Jewish student on campus, they have friends or family in Israel. It is an intrinsic part of our identity.
Additionally, every memorial I have been to on campus to pray for the hostages and lives lost in Israel has also prayed for the innocent lives lost in Gaza. This kind of respect for innocent life lost has not felt reciprocated.
The proposed Regents’ Bylaw 14.08 could help create a more balanced environment by keeping university leaders neutral on divisive political issues. This neutrality would protect the diversity of opinions and ensure that no group is singled out or scapegoated. Jewish students would feel less like their identity is being politicized, and more like they are part of an open, respectful community. It would also encourage real dialogue, where all sides can feel safe and heard, without the university appearing to take sides.
This is an extremely policy update and I support it completely.
Noah Johnson
Everyone talks about listening to the voices of minorities as a key liberal value, but when it comes to the voices of Jews, I can’t help but feel that we don’t count.
I felt unsafe on campus as a Jew long before Oct. 7.
I felt unsafe when people would ask me my race and then go cold when I’d tell them. I felt unsafe when I’d hear my fellow students repeating centuries-old antisemitic libels about us controlling the world or killing children but with “Jew” usually replaced by “zionist”.
I felt unsafe when I saw swastikas waved at me, for the first time in my life, but it was somehow ok because they were overlayed with a Jewish Star, our people’s symbol, and this was considered a “legitimate protest against Israel.”
And I feel unsafe now when I look at the comments here and see that for the most part only other Jews, only people with Jewish names, are standing up for our needs on campus. It makes me as an ethnic and religious minority feel alone. Again.
This proposal is vital, but as important as it is for UMICH Jews, it’s even more important for the survival of the University of Michigan itself. We Jews will continue living our lives, being Jews, no matter what happens at UMICH. But if UMICH doesn’t start protecting its Jewish minority, and defending the liberal values that it was founded on, I don’t see how it can continue to serve as a beacon of tolerance innovation and enlightenment.
For the sake of the University of Michigan, this law has to pass.
Anam Shah
Institutional neutrality only gives administrators absolute power in determining what does or doesn’t impact the university. It prioritizes the privileged.
Contrary to the regents beliefs, staying silent is actually NOT the same thing as being “neutral.” I’d like to also point out that the university would not have been able to divest from Russia in 2022 if it were “neutral.”
President Ono’s leaked audio admitted that the university is not neutral because of external pressures—and won’t be in the future. Institutional neutrality serves as a method of shutting down criticism and concerns regarding university policies even further. I recall truly disturbing campus atmosphere and climate during my undergraduate experience at the university—absolutely nothing was done to address the hate crimes and Islamophobia on campus then, and now students are facing even more abhorrent policies and campus climate.
Michael Mancuso
I agree: more needs to be done when it comes to preventing nonpartisan action of the University: the bylaw is not nearly enough.
However, consider it is one step in the right direction, and as long as it does not reduce the transparency of actions of the University, is harmless.
Jordyn Vermut
I support this policy update as it would protect marginalized groups on campus
Yousuf Ali
As a university alumnus, I would like to register my strong opposition to the university’s Orwellian Bylaw relating to ‘institutional neutrality’. This policy was adopted in response to students who are trying to stop an active genocide going on as we speak. Furthermore, the policy cannot be said to be neutral as there is leaked recording of President Ono admitting institutional bias against Muslims. In that context, further expanding the university’s power can only be expected to suppress one side, in this case those against genocide and Muslims in general. Additionally, this is bylaw brings back memories of how American universities tried to stifle opposition to America’s disastrous war in Vietnam. Suffice it to say, it pains me to see the institution I graduated from go down on the wrong side of history.
Michael Mancuso
I am on the same side of the argument as you, and I am equally as disheartened by the actions and statements of the University.
Consider the wording of the bylaw only yielding action towards deplatforming administrators at Michigan: the application in your case would be removing the ability of the president to issue statements to the student body that show bias against Muslims.
The wording says nothing about student free speech or platform, only that “University leaders, including Regents, the president, executive officers, chancellors, deans, directors, chairs, and others in similar positions, will not issue statements on behalf of the University”
Unfortunately, I agree that the bylaw does not nearly enough when it comes to preventing actions, but it’s one step in the right direction in my opinion.
Michael Lempert
Many of the comments in support of “institutional neutrality” are revealing. They recognize–correctly–that this policy would allow the university to continue silencing voices on campus that are critical of Israeli state policies. As the past year has shown, the University in its policies and practices is not neutral with respect to speech on campus that is pro-Palestinian; instead, it seeks to suppress it. Ultimately, it would seem that our comments don’t matter anyway, as this policy will be passed by the Regents without concern for faculty shared governance.
Michael Mancuso
I think ideally the bylaw does the opposite: the bylaw does not pertain to individual student voices on campus but instead deplatforms Michigan administration from promoting their views using Michigan’s resources.
Consider: “Therefore, University leaders, including Regents, the president, executive officers, chancellors, deans, directors, chairs, and others in similar positions, will not issue statements on behalf of the University” does not apply to the student body.
For your take (which I am inclined to agree with), that the university has been “pro-israeli” in its statements, the bylaw does nothing but silence the announcements of administration to the student body supporting these positions. In either case, the actions that the university may still be the same: I believe the bylaw requires further edit.
I consider this to be one step forward in our agreed direction.
David Kessel
Attempts to design rules for dealing with highly politicized issues are destined to fail since each ‘side’ will be looking for real or imagined insults along with opportunities for leverage. I recall the declination of an irregular verb: ‘I am reasonable, you are biased, he is a pig-headed fool’. Such arguments can never be settled. I agree that when what is claimed to be ‘student government’ decides to take funds, intended for feeding polo ponies, and send them to the middle east, perhaps something needs adjusting.
Basit Zafar
The idea of having some consistency in university communications is, of course, something many of us would agree with. The current status quo is clearly not functional, and unnecessary statements should indeed stop.
However, this report and the bylaw are highly problematic. Let me briefly summarize a few key issues:
1) Lack of Objective Data: The committees never collected any quantitative data. The qualitative data is based on a response rate of less than 2% from students and less than 10% from faculty. This means we have no clear understanding of the issues or their prevalence.
2) Perception Problem: Subcommittee 2 decided there is a perception problem that needs fixing. While perceptions should be addressed if they are grounded in reality, there’s nothing to address if those concerns are based purely on feelings or non-existent issues. We can’t know how valid these perceptions are since representative data was never collected. For some unclear reason, the administration seems in a rush to push this through.
3) Governance Exemptions: Subcommittee 3 (and the bylaw) provide exemptions for matters related to internal governance. However, it’s unclear who determines whether an issue falls under internal governance. Even the chair of Subcommittee 3 (in the SACUA/AAUP panel) admitted there are gray areas.
In summary, we don’t know what problem we’re trying to solve, but we’re moving ahead with a vague and ambiguous bylaw. This feels like a step backward and will likely give more leeway to those in power to control or police certain speech.
Michael Mancuso
An excellent point — I think wording could be a matter of concern for the bylaw, but in the case it is brought to legality, the wording of it currently seems sufficient to constrain at least some parts of the problem.
I agree that there should be more added to the proposal for it to be considered and fully resolve the issue. However, I don’t see the bylaw as a current threat to obscure actions at the university.
K Rivet Amico
Where can we see all the comments that have been posted to date? The scroll feature presently only displays the last 25 posts.
K Rivet Amico
Apologies- not sure what determines which are displayed. I would value the opportunity to have access to all of the posts.
Thank you
University Record
All comments that have been submitted regarding this article, as well as replies to specific comments, should be accessible in the chain of comments that follow this article.
K Rivet Amico
Thank you so much but I only see a total of 25 posts prior to mine.
Neil Christy
To our thoughtful, esteemed, honorable, powerful, and infallible Regents,
What is institutional neutrality? What are examples of (real or potential) actions a university could take that would be institutionally neutral?
Is the university’s much-championed DEI 2.0 initiative institutionally neutral?
Is the university’s Go Blue Guarantee institutionally neutral?
Are academic partnerships with foreign universities institutionally neutral?
Are social surveys administered by the university that document poverty and inequality institutionally neutral?
Is income in the form of grant overhead for research employed to maim or kill in war institutionally neutral?
Is preservation of status quo policies institutionally neutral?
Some of these actions may have direct impacts on the university, but their political content is far less neutral than statements from the president, or whatever other nonsense this is about.
I do not think institutional neutrality is a real thing. I think you made it up to sound smart and principled, which from these comments does not seem to have been effective. Everything this institution does is inherently political, and we had best get used to that. A policy claiming institutional neutrality does not itself make the university neutral; rather, it obscures the university’s enforcement of the political positions of its donors. If this university is actually supposed to serve the public interest, its political activities should be openly and rigorously determined by its academic community–not by whoever has their name on more buildings.
I remain as always your humble, subservient, groveling, inferior, and unrealistic graduate student,
Neil
Michael Mancuso
I adore your wording, Neil.
I believe the idea of the bylaw is to change the behavior which you listed, that which I am also strongly believe against. In all matters, I agree with you.
Whether or not the bylaw would have serious effect is a legitimate concern, but I don’t believe it provides enough reasoning to vote against it: wouldn’t it be better to have it than not, if there isn’t a change anyway? As long as institutional and financial transparency is preserved, this might be a good next step.
Gary Harper
I am writing to share my opinions regarding the Regents’ Bylaw 14.08. I was able to view the meeting online and am very disappointed with the decision of the Regents, despite very serious concerns raised by many faculty, staff, and students. I was in the process of preparing my comments to the Regents, but I put that writing aside for a few days to work with my undergraduate students on some urgent projects and to focus on teaching my classes and now appears it is too late. The statements in this letter are all my opinions and views and do not reflect the views of any other person, unit, or entity within the University of Michigan.
Surprisingly, this issue came up for a vote today when it was not on the schedule for the Regents’ meeting, (https://regents.umich.edu/meetings/agendas/october-17-2024/) and the October 7th article about this bylaw stated that “The proposed bylaw is posted for public comment prior to coming before the regents for consideration.” If this item was not on the public agenda, how were we to know the deadline for the submission of comments? Since some of the Regents stated that they reviewed comments prior to the meeting, individuals wishing to share their comments had to have submitted them by yesterday (Wednesday, October 16), giving only 10 days to offer comments.
For an issue that has such widespread implications for faculty, staff, and students, 10 days is not enough time for those of us who are impacted by this to have productive discussions and discourse around the Bylaw. I tried to find the guidelines for amending the Regents’ bylaws and could not find a standard public comment period online. I have been appointed to both state and federal boards and counsels and have been involved in public policy for 30 years across different administrations and have never seen such a brief public comment period for a critical issue. For state rulemaking in Michigan the open public comment period for written feedback is typically 30 days and at the federal levels typically 60 days, but ranges from 30 days to several months. It is unclear why there was such a truncated public comment period for this proposed bylaw.
I doubt my comments will be considered since the decision has already been made, but I feel compelled to still share them. I also hope that I do not suffer any repercussions for being very direct and open regarding my viewpoints and concerns. As you well know, the mission of the University of Michigan is as follows: “The mission of the University of Michigan is to serve the people of Michigan and the world through preeminence in creating, communicating, preserving and applying knowledge, art, and academic values, and in developing leaders and citizens who will challenge the present and enrich the future.” At the most basic level, I do not see how we can “challenge the present” if we are not allowed to make public statements that provide an opinion on social and/or political issues. Challenging involves opposition to the status quo or to one who does not agree with you—how can we challenge something if our stance is one of neutrality? Neutrality carries an assumption of an absence of a viewpoint or perspective. Not having a viewpoint does not promote the development of students “who will challenge the present and enrich the future.”
I am aware that under the new bylaw, we can make political and social statements as individuals if we clarify that we are not speaking on behalf of the University or a unit of the University where we hold a leadership position. My concern is that when we make a single statement about a political or social issue, even when using scientific evidence and evidence-based practices, our message will not have as much of an impact as it would if it came from a University of Michigan Center, Institute, or Organization. The prestige of the University of Michigan and the collective voice of scholars on social and political issues is what helps to drive social change and what “challenges the present.” If a particular Center, Organization, Institute or other group on campus has scientific data to support a “challenge” to a current political or social position that is harmful to certain groups of people, this new bylaw restricts the potential power of those findings. Sticking to the language in the bylaw, an individual could disseminate those scientific findings in support of social or political change but only speak as an individual disconnected from the University and its various entities. In some ways, this negates the reason to have Institutes and Centers that focus on social or political issues since they will now be prohibited from making public statements in support of those issues.
Political decisions (including those that impact social issues) are made partially based on the number of elected officials’ constituents that have a particular viewpoint, so volume matters. I used to do policy work on Capital Hill on behalf of the American Psychological Association (APA), and when I spoke to elected officials about topics where we had approved policies that were science-based, I was able to get a lot more traction when I was speaking on behalf of the APA and it’s 150,000 members than when I was speaking only on behalf of myself as one psychologist. It is easy to ignore and suppress one voice, but much harder to avoid thousands of voices. This bylaw strips us of our ability to use the collective power of our scientific communities and our research findings to change damaging social and political structures, systems and practices—it presents a barrier to using science to promote the health and wellbeing of people in Michigan and around the globe.
If we are going to successfully improve the lives of people across Michigan and the U.S. and promote health equity (which is a core value in my field of Public Health), we must challenge the status quo. Inequity is the unequal distribution of power and privilege, so how can we promote equity without challenging current social and political structures and systems that serve to oppress minoritized groups of people? On U-M DEI 2.0 website it states that “Equity recognizes that inequalities exist—that talent is equally distributed across all communities, but opportunity is not. So equity means doing all that we can to ensure that everybody has an opportunity to be successful and contribute to the larger good.” If groups of people do not have the opportunity to be successful due to political restrictions or social norms that serve to oppress and marginalize them, and we are not allowed to collectively challenge those political restrictions or social norms, how can we as an institution promote equity?
Inherent in taking an equity stance is disrupting current political and social structures and systems that were established by those with power to stay in power. To say we are neutral is to deny, ignore or erase the current and historical struggles of people who are oppressed and marginalized in the U.S. and elsewhere. I would venture to say that when addressing social issues that are rooted in power and oppression (which is most social issues), the concept of “neutrality” does not exist—it is a myth. To not take a stance is taking a stance in favor of those who have the power and can control the narrative. We cannot claim we are both a University that promotes equity and a University that remains neutral on social issues. In the words of the great educator Paulo Freire, “Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.” The great Desmond Tutu, a South African Anglican bishop and theologian who fought against apartheid and for human rights made a similar statement: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
Michael Mancuso
I absolutely agree: the time scale to which this public expression has been made is largely inadequate, especially so the routes and scale of which the information regarding this issue has been posted.
Personally, it feels rather so as a front to make a hurried decision that can be regarded as “taking public opinion in mind”, when the execution serves the opposite. Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if this was the case.
Michael Mancuso
Adopting the proposed Regents’ Bylaw 14.08 for Institutional Neutrality should be of utmost priority for the current administration at the University of Michigan.
While the exact vocabulary used in the “University of Michigan Mission Statement” varies between the office of the President, office of the Provost, and Culture Journey website, a common thread is clear: push forward the world of academics and art, and in order to do so, foster a community that values integrity, diversity, and inclusion for its students. Aspects of this mission statement, particularly the values of integrity, diversity, equity, inclusion, and respect, require the university to both acknowledge and revere all perspectives of its students. Furthermore, these perspectives and expressions of free speech and protest, of course barring hate speech, cannot be suppressed or constrained by the university with honest adherence to everything Michigan stands for and claims to be.
It must be noted that these perspectives may not align with those of Michigan administration, or may not be in the best financial interests of the University to address. However, it is the responsibility (and paid role) of administration to see that these issues are given legitimate platform and consideration, especially if these perspectives misalign with individuals in administration or other parts of the student body.
A truly inclusive community, which the University of Michigan claims to aspire to create, cannot exist when any part of University administration promotes, favors, or takes action toward one side of a political or social issue. This issue has become apparent when it comes to the statements of the current president (or lack thereof), which speak on behalf of the administration and take “one side” of a political issue, which have been forwarded to the entire student body. However, it should be noted this is not the only instance in which this occurs.
As an individual, over my time at Michigan, I have found that the administration and particularly the Board of Regents has failed numerous times to provide an audience to students who bring up legitimate concerns with University behavior. This includes not only the aforementioned statements from the office of the president, but also issues of graduate-student-instructor and faculty pay, or University fund investment. In one instance, administration shut down a student government election process, to ensure the outcome aligned with those of the board or president – this is suppression of free speech and is beyond unacceptable for any university of our caliber.
As a student, having my own independent voice means being able to express myself freely in terms of both speech and finances. The University taking an enforced nonpartisan stance on social/political issues ensures that part of the tuition or other fees I pay does not go towards causes which I do not support, being controlled externally by University administration. The scale to which this fraction of my tuition is being invested or repurposed is not of relevance: the amount which should support any political causes through the University, even if they are ones which I would support as an individual, should be zero. Adoption of this policy is of utmost importance.
Of course, the necessary caveat, which is included in the bylaw, is that administration can still take actions on or against items which would interfere solely with the process of administration and security of students. Additionally included is that individual expression must still exist for faculty and administrators at Michigan: “University leaders may issue statements in their individual or scholarly capacity, provided they indicate that they are not speaking on behalf of the University.” Administrators free speech rights are not being infringed: of course administrators have free speech as individuals, however they cannot speak on behalf of the University, and furthermore should not use University platforms (including but not limited to the email system, official websites, flyers/posters, etc.) to promote individual opinions.