University of Michigan softens trespass policy that bars 2,000 from public campus for life
The University of Michigan has revised its decade-old campus trespass policy under which 2,050 individuals were barred for life from the public campus in Ann Arbor.
The new policy limits the ban to one year, although it could be extended "if cause exists." It also requires banned individuals be given a written explanation of the reason for the ban in a “revised trespass warning form,” something that didn't happen under the old policy.
The American Civil Liberties Union and others had charged the policy was unconstitutional in that it lacked due process and could be used to chill free speech on the public campus following months of reports by AnnArbor.com on the trespass policy's use. In November, the ACLU of Michigan threatened to sue U-M after an Oct. 24 report by AnnArbor.com detailed the university's use of the policy to banish then-state Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell and others from the 3,300-acre U-M campus.
U-M announced changes to the policy today in its campus publication the Record Update.
But while the new policy will limit the duration of the ban, it expands the territory from which individuals can be barred at the discretion of a single officer from the Department of Public Safety. Under the changes, officers can issue a ban from campuses in Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint, which hadn’t been an option previously.
According to the article, cases of individuals issued trespass warnings in the past are now under review by DPS.
The new policy is effective July 1.
Andrew Shirvell, former Michigan assistant attorney general complains about former University of Michigan student body president Chris Armstrong at a Michigan Student Assembly meeting.
Marissa McClain | The Michigan Daily
“Now that a light has been shined on the deficient process for banning individuals from campus for life, our hope is that the university will take a second look at this problem, and take action, without the need for a lawsuit,” Michael J. Steinberg, legal director for the ACLU of Michigan, said in November.
Also among the banned were protesters like Yousef Rabhi, a Washtenaw County commissioner who as a U-M student in 2007 was barred from the Fleming Administration Building for life after protesting in President Mary Sue Coleman's office the use of sweatshop labor in the manufacturing of U-M apparel. Rabhi appealed and managed to get the ban lifted.
Juliana Keeping covers general assignment and health and the environment for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at julianakeeping@annarbor.com or 734-623-2528. Follow Juliana Keeping on Twitter.
Read more about changes to the trespass policy.
Comments
Roadman
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 6:56 p.m.
What does "under review" mean? My concern is that their names are part of the public record and it may affect their ability to get security clearances, be brought up during political campaigns, etc. There is no telling what harm may have befallen those who have been put on the list previously. What if Yousef Rabhi's presence on this blacklist would have come to light prior to his two-vote victory in the 2010 Democratic County Commission primary? I have noted that a number of the names I recognize are professionals and others, like Commissioner Rabhi, who are respected leaders in Metro Detroit area. Some have no doubt moved on and are in no position to return to advocate for their removal from this police blacklist. I believe the entire "banned list" should be disposed of since it was the product of unconstitutionally deficient procedures. I hope the ACLU continues to monitor the conduct of the University and ensure it is properly implemented and meets constitutional muster.
David Cahill
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 5:06 p.m.
AnnArbor.com, when can we expect the promised update(s) to this story?
Juliana Keeping
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.
Here you go: <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/new-university-of-michigan-trespass-policy-cuts-life-long-bans-to-one-year-but-constitutional-concer/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/new-university-of-michigan-trespass-policy-cuts-life-long-bans-to-one-year-but-constitutional-concer/</a>
trespass
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 3:43 p.m.
The appeal process still goes only to the chain of command of the campus police. In the trespassing trial of Robert Redmond recently, Judge Easthope said that the University trespass policy must have a mechanism for judicial review other than having to file a civil suit against the University. The new policy does not fix this problem. The new policy would not resolve any of the cases where the UM has used the trespass warning to punish whistleblowers. There is no standard of proof required for any allegation of being dangerous or disrupting the functions of the University. It also does not resolve the fact that the trespass warning have been used unequally depending on the relative rank of the complainant and the subject (i.e. a complaint by a chairman against a subordinate is always sufficient proof but there is never sufficient proof for a subordinant against a superior). These are all cosmetic changes and the UM will never give up their power to punish whistleblowers unless they are force to by the courts or the legislature.
Roadman
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 7 p.m.
Where and when did Judge Easthope say this? He has an excellent background in constitutional law and procedure and I believe it should be given substantial weight by the university.
xmo
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 3:08 p.m.
This is funny because U of M is SOOOO! progressive (LIBERAL) but when it comes to free speech and the right to protest, they banned these people for life! Not setting a very good example for its graduates unless they are becoming 3rd World Dictators!
friend12
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 2:43 p.m.
A step the right direction. More specific and a limitation on the ban is very positive. We will have to wait and see what the revised form looks like. If it requires the officer to specifically state the event and reason for issuing it that will be really good. I think the appeals process should go two more steps. The University President and then the Board of Regents. It is still a guilty until proven innocent process which I think is unconstitutional. The best method would be to issue the warning and ask the person to leave. The warning would require the person to attend a formal hearing within 10 days to determine if the ban should be implemented. If the person refuses to leave there are other criminal charges that can be brought.
trespass
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 3:50 p.m.
The University of Michigan asked the legislature for a statute in 1970 during the BAM strike because the AA police would not arrest the protesters for trespassing. The 1970 law calls it "willfully remaining on the premises of an institution of higher learning" but is is essentially trespass. When the UM got its own police force in 1992 it stopped using the 1970 statute and began using the 1931 general trespassing statute. again. The difference is that in order to be guilty of trespassing under the 1970 statute the person has to be violating the rules of the university at the time they are arrested. No lifetime bans.
DonBee
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 2:40 p.m.
I find it interesting that the University of Michigan can ban someone from their grounds for life and that the Service Academies (West Point, Annapolis, The Air Force Academy) cannot. I wonder what gives the UofM the power that these Military installations do not have? Interesting how much more power the University has.
DonBee
Thu, Jun 2, 2011 : 2:13 a.m.
Since the UofM is a "State University", I have to wonder if they are not owned by the State of Michigan, who owns them and how they are not a public institution?
Ignatz
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 2:43 p.m.
Just a guess, but maybe because the U is not owned by the state, whereas the service academies are owned by the U. S. Government, aka, the people.
RoboLogic
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 2:02 p.m.
It would be neat to see the list and see how far back (in time) it goes.
trespass
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 4:11 p.m.
You will find the trespass list here. <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/Trespass%20Warning%20List.pdf">http://www.annarbor.com/Trespass%20Warning%20List.pdf</a>
trespass
Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 3:45 p.m.
The computerized list only goes back to 2001 but there are other records that show warnings were given before that time. I think they only use the computer list so anyone given a warning before 2001, its probably not going to be enforced.