UM students walk out amid divestment calls, groups blasting proposed 'anti-protest' policy

Some students at the University of Michigan walked out of class on Thursday to protest the school's ties to Israel amid criticism from UM's proposed "Disruptive Activity Policy" sparked by a recent demonstration linked to the issue.

Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, touted as a Palestinian advocacy group, this week called for the walkout at the Ann Arbor school on its Instagram page, posting a flier asking that students show UM officials "that their suppression will not stop us from calling for divestment from companies profiting off the genocide of Palestinians!"

The UM Board of Regents at its meeting last week rejected those calls, arguing that a minuscule amount of university money is invested indirectly in Israeli companies.

SAFEumich posted photos on Instagram showing students near the UM Diag on Thursday, carrying handmade signs.

UM takes action after divestment activists shut down honors ceremony

It followed UM administrators recently asking students for input on the proposed policy to halt disruptions at school events in late March after student activists interrupted the annual honors convocation to demand UM divest from Israeli companies.

Administrators under the policy would issue written notices to students disrupting school activities who impede "the exercise of others' speech and activities," UM's public affairs office wrote in a statement requesting community feedback on the proposed policy.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan told UM officials in a Wednesday letter that they needed to abandon the proposal or substantially alter it, while local representatives from the National Lawyers Guild argued the university should withdraw the policy and drop charges against students who protested at a recent honors convocation.

Administrators would sanction students who accept responsibility or provide a formal hearing if notified students request one under the proposed disruption policy, the statement read.

Other university policies would discipline disruptive faculty and staff, while contractors, volunteers of visitors violating the policy could also be penalized, the statement read.

If enacted, the proposed policy's overbroad, ambiguous language could lead to uneven self-censorship and discriminatory enforcement against peaceful protestors, representatives for the ACLU wrote in their letter to UM administrators.

The proposed policy does not specify what kinds of disruptive activities are constitutionally protected, and also does not define the terms "disrupt" and "substantive distractions," the letter stated.

Existing UM policies already address student disruptions to university events, while the proposed policy will likely produce discriminatory enforcement with harsh outcomes against unfavorable speech, ACLU said.

"Taken together, the high risk of discriminatory enforcement and unduly harsh penalties point to one likely outcome: Those with disfavored opinions, and Black and brown protesters especially, will inequitably bear the brunt of the University's proposed policy," the group's letter stated.

ACLU Michigan representatives also urged UM administrators to substantially rewrite the policy or reconsider it entirely, citing existing policies.

In an email to The Detroit News, Colleen Mastony, a UM representative, said: "As a university committed to free speech and diversity of perspective, we welcome dissent and the expression of the broadest array of ideas–even those perspectives that could be unpopular, upsetting, or critical of the university. At the same time, no one is entitled to disrupt the lawful activities or speech of others. Because the university is a public institution, not only are we prohibited from interfering with lawful speech, we are required to intervene when we become aware that others are interfering with or disrupting lawful speech on our campus."

Mastony added: "Our current Standard Practice Guide 601.01 and the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities make clear that disrupting speakers and events is not protected speech under the law and is a violation of university policy. Last week we published a new draft policy on disruptive activity with the goal of ensuring the university’s position is clear, easy to access, and supportive of our mission. We published this draft and asked for feedback from our campus community, because it was important that we hear directly from students, faculty and staff."

The Detroit and Michigan chapter of the National Lawyer's Guild also strongly condemned the proposed policy in a letter, describing the policy as "Neo-McCarthyism."

"President Ono writes about protecting Jewish students who report feeling unsafe because of their discomfort with pro-Palestinian protest, but nothing about the feelings of Jewish or Palestinian students who are committed to advocacy for a ceasefire," the guild's letter stated.

The proposed policy comes after months of local student protests against the Israel-Hamas war and UM investment relationships with Israeli companies.

As written, the proposed policy would not deter disruptive protests or protect students against antisemitism, the guild's letter stated.

"Anyone with their feet on the ground can predict that this policy would not result in your events, celebrations, or meetings proceeding without interruption of the status quo," the group wrote. "This is because your students are grappling with the largest social, moral, ethical, and legal questions of this moment in history: Genocide. Famine. War crimes. Crimes against humanity. These realities shock the conscience — or they should. And yet, in the face of questions of this magnitude, you respond with a policy curtailing rights and enacting punishment and repression against those students engaged in principled protest."

Administrators must withdraw the proposed policy, rescind requests to press charges against student leaders who protested at the convocation, and meet student organizing demands, the guild's letter stated.

In a note to campus circulated on Tuesday, Ono said he and other officials are listening to the feedback to the university's policy proposal.

"We’ve received a robust response to our call for feedback," the president wrote. "I’m encouraged by the passion and rigor with which our community has engaged in this process."

Ono said the university does not plan to rush the development of the new policy, adding that "we will ensure all voices have an opportunity to be heard; and we will carefully review all the comments we receive."

Meanwhile, some 1,575 UM faculty, students and staff signed an open letter this week opposing the policy.

The signees said it "would severely restrict the right to freely assemble and to express views the university disapproves of in the guise of protecting university operations from 'disruption.' The freedom of individuals and of our university community to oppose or challenge existing policy and values is one of the principal characteristics of a democracy and of an engaged campus."

They added that the measure, "which applies prohibition of the vague term “disrupt” to all spaces on campus, and through all forms, including “obstructing lines of sight,” loud noises, and “projected light” is facially overbroad and substantially infringes on First Amendment rights."