ANN ARBOR, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The University of Michigan Board of Regents recently pushed through significant changes to the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities (SSRR), revamping the policies on non-academic misconduct in light of the need for more efficient student disciplinary processes.

According to the Michigan Daily, these changes, coming on the heels of pro-Palestine protests at the University, took effect August 26th. They are aimed to streamline the complaint and resolution process, shortening timelines and reducing the number of individuals involved in appeals. Critics, however, argue that these new rules may trample on student rights and suppress campus activism.

New powers, fewer protections?

MORE NEWS: Women’s OB-GYN in Saginaw to Close Permanently Next Month

Under the revised SSRR, the University itself can now act as a complainant against students – a shift from the previous system, which required complaints to be filed by individual students, faculty, or staff. The updated process also mandates a 45-day resolution timeline once a respondent is notified, where previously, no specific timeline existed. A Resolution Officer (RO) will now arbitrate disputes if both parties can’t agree on a Student Resolution Panel or RO, tightening control over the process.

Appeals also face a restructuring. Instead of a mixed board of students, faculty, and administration, appeals must now be approved by a Resolution Coordinator. If approved, the Vice President of Student Life, or their designee, serves as the appeals officer with the power to uphold, reverse, or modify decisions, and order new hearings. This shift sidelines student and faculty voices, centralizing power within administrative ranks.

Faculty left in the dark.

The Board of Regents did not consult the Senate Assembly’s Student Relations Advisory Committee (SRAC) about the SSRR overhaul. Rebekah Modrak, Chair of the Senate Assembly, expressed frustration, highlighting that 2024-25 was a scheduled review year for the SSRR, with SRAC tasked with oversight. Instead, she says changes were made unilaterally, bypassing established governance protocols.

University spokesperson Colleen Mastony defended the Regents’ actions, citing their constitutional authority to amend policies without SRAC input. According to Mastony, the changes were necessary to “promote accountability” and foster a campus environment free from harassment and intimidation. However, Modrak and others argue that this move undermines shared governance, handing the reins of policy to politically influenced administrators.

Students fear silencing and speedy justice.

Critics say these changes are more than just procedural tweaks; they could have a chilling effect on student activism. Modrak warns that the revisions place excessive control over the complaint process in the University’s hands, potentially stifling dissent and protest. She likened the shift to a regression in judicial fairness, stripping students of peer review and due process protections.