Few things are more important to faculty members than the right to free speech. However, new reporting requirements from the state of Michigan and fallout from dozens of state and national cases of sexual misconduct prompted a visit from NMU’s General Counsel Kurt McCamman to help review what conduct or speech could pose legal trouble for NMU employees and the entire university.

According to Janet Koski, Equal Opportunity Officer and Title IX Coordinator at Northern Michigan University, less than five percent of NMU’s 1,200 plus employees attended five sessions from October 29-31. During the sessions, McCamman highlighted boundaries for speech and conduct in and out conduct out of the classroom. He stressed the First Amendment and academic freedom must not be used to shield the abuse of a “captive audience” from racially or sexually derogatory epithets. Within the confines of the classroom, faculty members were advised to keep comments relevant to the subject. For example, repeatedly commenting on politics would in most cases be appropriate in a political science class but not necessarily in a math class. Faculty and staff learned that even making negative comments about the United States military could be used in a lawsuit if a member of the armed services files a discrimination suit under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.

McCamman emphasized that whether comments or actions are considered harassment, discrimination, or retaliation is strongly dependent on context. And that context is created by the sum of our actions over many years, not just the immediate situation. “We create a record with every statement we make, every poster we have in our office, every video we show,” said McCamman. He said this record could potentially be used against a faculty member and the university if a student feels they were discriminated against. Professor Andy Poe (Mathematics and Computer Science) expressed concern that such an environment might cause faculty to be overly cautious with regard to speech in the classroom. “Asking us to restrict our lectures to the subject matter and not to refer, even casually, to current events (or other matters) may negatively affect our teaching more, perhaps, than is realized, inasmuch as a lot of us use our personalities as a teaching tool. Indeed, those of us who were on faculty during 9/11 may recall that on 9/12 we were encouraged to talk about current events in the classroom no matter our discipline,” said Poe.

Beyond the issues of free speech, McCamman’s presentation covered sexual misconduct. NMU policy is clear that even consensual relationships between supervisors and subordinates are not allowed.  Furthermore, whether unwelcomed or nonconsensual conduct has occurred can sometimes come down to a matter of perception. English professor Kia Richmond attended the presentation and stressed the need for faculty to understand that students might perceive a situation quite differently than a professor. “We should regularly review NMU policies and remember that when positions of power are involved (e.g., professor with supervisory duties or responsible for a student’s grade), students might not be able to easily differentiate between a comment or a suggestion made and a requirement for an assignment or a grade,” said Richmond.

NMU-AAUP president Brent Graves also attended the session and strongly urges faculty members to avoid situations that could result in complaints of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. “Mr. McCamman’s list of suggested dos and don’ts are excellent. I also emphasize that meeting behind a closed door with a student is likely to lead to problems. Even if someone is crying in your office, you are putting yourself at risk if you or a student shuts your door,” said Graves. Based on years of experience as a union officer, Graves strongly encourages faculty to avoid the following situations: 1) giving personal contact information to students; Graves said it is rare that they really need to phone, text, or email you via personal, rather than, work contacts. He added, this just doesn’t look good and can facilitate overstepping of professional boundaries; 2) meeting off campus in social situations, especially one-on-one; and 3) provide counseling about non-academic issues; you are almost certainly not qualified to act in that capacity, you may say the wrong thing, or your comments may be misinterpreted.

Graves said he has seen faculty lose their jobs and careers as a result of all of these situations. Mr. McCamman also emphasized that you can be personally sued for violations of discrimination/harassment/retaliation laws. “If you are simply accused, you are very likely to be banned from campus until investigations are completed. If allegations are deemed more credible than denials, you are likely to have your employment terminated. I may sound alarmist, but times have changed and all faculty would be wise to be careful and to protect themselves, as our society learns better ways to protect vulnerable individuals from acts of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation,” said Graves.

Slides from the Kurt McCamman’s presentation can be viewed by clicking here. The NMU-AAUP strongly advises you to review these slides for your own protection against legal activity.

It was great day for a picnic, and this year’s turnout was excellent. Whether you missed it or made it to the picnic, here is a video to recap a near perfect day at Presque Isle Park as we celebrated a new academic year and the new members of our faculty.

AAUP Picnic 8-30-2018 from Dwight Brady on Vimeo.

Professor Cary Nelson (left), from the University of Illinois and former president of the national American Association of University Professors, spoke at Northern Michigan University on April 19th on “Academic Freedom in Times of Crisis: The Future of Collective Bargaining, Free Speech on Campus, and Prospects for Peace in the Middle East.”  The talk, organized by Associate Professor of English Gabe Brahm, was cosponsored by the NMU-AAUP .

Under the direction of the Board of Trustees, President Fritz Erickson has invited Michigan’s Governor Rick Snyder to be the Spring commencement speaker in spite of the objections of students, faculty, and the NMU-AAUP. The governor recently accepted the invitation. According to President Erickson’s press release, “In my mind, it was an important selection to make because it reflects our commitment to consider multiple opinions and perspectives. We don’t hold a litmus test for people who come to our campus and present. Universities should support the free exchange of ideas.”

At both the national and local levels, AAUP absolutely supports the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and perspectives. But support or resistance to Governor Snyder’s commencement address has nothing to do with free speech. He is certainly free to speak on NMU’s campus and he has no shortage of opportunities to deliver his message to the public. Resistance from the NMU-AAUP Executive Committee and many others on campus concerns the meaning of commencement, and how Snyder’s appearance damages that. Commencement is not a platform for promoting diverse political perspectives. Commencement is our celebration of the efforts and accomplishments of our students, as well as the support of their families and friends. Commencement speakers are role models who can inspire graduates to use their educations in positive ways. Snyder may be an inspiring role model for some, but he is not for most at NMU as evidenced by over 90% of faculty and students opposing his appearance in the only available surveys. His anti-union activities, role in the poisoning of many Flint citizens, and lack of support for civil rights, education, and environmental issues are valid reasons for our students, their families, and the university community to reject Snyder for a central role in celebrating graduation.

So why, if not for the benefit of our graduates, is Snyder giving our spring commencement address? All of our Board of Trustees were appointed by Snyder, and his vocal advocate at their last meeting used to work for him. The Board has abrogated their most central duty – to do what is best for NMU rather than what furthers their own agendas, personal relationships, or societal perspectives. This decision damages NMU; it seems that the Board of Trustees did not think this through or simply did not care.

Members of our AAUP chapter and administration have worked hard over the past several years to minimize the confrontational nature of collective bargaining. We have tried to implement truly shared governance and to work together toward our common goal – to make NMU a better university. We sometimes have differing perspectives, but we interact supportively and with respect. The Board of Trustees have created conflict where it need not exist.

Students have many universities to choose from; one of the reasons that they choose NMU is the welcoming, friendly, cooperative feel of the campus. AAUP has also worked diligently with administration to build this gestalt. Several years ago, the university community was rife with conflict, confrontation, accusations, and a generally bad vibe. This hurt admissions. The more recent feeling that we are all in this together with a shared purpose has a big effect on whether students want to come here and want to stay. The Board of Trustees has reintroduced discord and controversy. The resulting bad publicity tarnishes the image of our university and hurts enrollment.

The February meeting of President Erickson’s Strategic Planning and Budgeting Advisory Committee focused on alumni engagement and the many ways that dedicated alumni enhance our university. The last and perhaps biggest event in the NMU experience of seven hundred graduates will surely be marred by this conflict. That is no way to make our graduates into committed and loyal alumni.

The inability of the Board to understand or acknowledge that they have made a mistake suggests hubris and a sense of entitlement. That is not what is best for NMU, nor does it honor our graduates.

Gallup has released new data on the public’s support for unions, and the results are good news for organized labor in the US.

According to the report published at the end of August, 61% of US adults approve of labor unions, the highest level since 2003. Also encouraging is that a higher percentage would like to see unions have more influence than less. Although the number appears low at 39%, it is significantly higher than the 25% low point in 2009. The percentage who think unions should have less influence has also been steadily declining since 2009.

Although these numbers are encouraging, Gallup also found that US adults are pessimistic about the future, with 46% believing unions will become weaker. That number has gone down slightly, but is still overwhelmingly more than those who think they will stay the same or become stronger. After years of concentrated attacks against organized labor, especially by state legislatures and so-called “Right to Work” laws, there is work to be done to bolster the public’s trust in unions and counteract anti-labor policies.

What does all this mean for NMU AAUP? As university professors, we are impacted by budget and policy decisions at home and in Lansing. With a strong union we are able to improve our working conditions and protect our members, and the public’s support allows us to more effectively achieve those goals as a local chapter and as part of the nationwide AAUP.

For more on Gallup’s survey, visit http://www.gallup.com/poll/217331/labor-union-approval-best-2003.aspx