Dear Students:

I was impressed with your thoughtful presentation of student concerns at the March board meeting. But I was disappointed we did not have a more productive dialogue regarding student concerns when we met at Trotter House on Monday. I had hoped we could use that time to put some important ideas on the table, and to talk together about plans moving forward.

I am not interested, however, in responding to a set of demands where no real discussion can take place. I believe that progress on important issues can only come from dialogue. I’d like to share my thoughts with you in more detail.

First, I have been listening carefully to your concerns. It is clear we have to establish productive dialogue among students and administrators-and in some cases, accelerate decisions that have taken too long. Also, we must build better decision-making processes on major University initiatives focused on students-processes that fully engage student input.

It is not possible for the administration to always be in one hundred percent agreement with students on every issue. We will certainly have some differences of opinion along the way. But when we do, I am prepared to share the principles and facts that have guided our final decisions.

On Monday Provost Courant, Vice President Harper and I wanted to share several actions with you to address many of the concerns you have expressed. Also, we want to keep the door open for continued discussion on these and other issues that will take more consideration and study. I hope you will join us in this work.

I will outline these ideas below.

Student Input

Establishment of a Standing Student Advisory Committee-Vice President Harper will establish an advisory committee to encourage additional student input on University issues that have an impact on student communities. The advisory group will include representatives from student organizations. Clear guidelines for nomination to the committee, terms of service and
other protocol issues will be established.

Re-establishment of annual Provost’s discussion on budget convened by MSA-In past years, MSA convened a dialogue between University budget administrators and students, to discuss the budget-setting and prioritization process. Provost Courant would like to re-establish this tradition and ask MSA to host this discussion in April of this year and annually thereafter.

Trotter House project planning-In April, a team of student representatives, facilities experts and staff will be established to recommend possible options for Trotter House. Vice President Harper has asked Patricia Aqui Pacania, director of the Office of Multi-Ethnic Student Affairs, to lead this fast-track planning effort. The group’s work will be shared widely with the campus community in the fall. We are looking carefully at the University’s fundraising capacity and the Office of Development will provide counsel on realistic fundraising goals. I have made a commitment to be personally engaged in fundraising for Trotter House as well.

Greek System discussion-We believe this subject needs more time for consideration and discussion. There are many serious issues that need our attention. We want to establish a clearly prescribed process to 1) outline the issues and goals, 2) mutually agree on the student and faculty advisors, 3) provide for open discussion, and 4) determine an end date by which final decisions will be made.

SAPAC-The decisions regarding SAPAC were made in order to respond to very real and enduring concerns about our ability to serve all our students. Complete status quo is not an option. The changes will enable the University to provide a greater level of specialized counseling services to survivors of sexual assault and trauma. Vice President Harper has indicated her willingness to continue a dialogue about how to go forward in a way that is responsive to student needs, especially the need for safe space.

Student recruitment-Many students are currently involved in elements of the recruitment process within their schools and colleges, including LSA student government representatives as members of the LSA Admissions Advisory Committee. We welcome additional student input as we continue to evaluate our new undergraduate admissions process and enhance our outreach and recruiting efforts.

Budget and Program Issues

Budget cuts-The magnitude of our budget constraints and the effect of the resulting cuts is not easy on any part of our community. The hard reality is that all of us will have to deal with cuts to program support in an effort to manage the enormity of the short-term budget crisis. But you are right when you ask us to also find a way to support our University’s work to be a truly diverse and inclusive community.

We will work to identify some additional resources, through reallocation, for areas where the funding levels are such that programs are at special risk. Also, we will work with students to ensure that the impact of budget cuts is minimized. Specifically with respect to Pow Wow, the University will cover the program’s deficit this year as it has in the past. We will work to develop a sustainable budget model for the future.

Latino Coordinator-We are moving ahead and the position will be posted within two weeks.

Michigamua-The University took strong actions two years ago to establish an environment of respect related to Native American heritage. The Office of the Provost has begun investigating the transcript issue raised at the March Regents meeting. We have discovered that over 200 student organizations and affiliations are listed on transcripts, but the process is not clear and it is obviously out of date. The Provost has charged the Registrar with a study of the issue and will recommend appropriate next steps.

Hate Incidents

Your forceful description of the pain of hate incidents was very powerful to me and I am dedicated to addressing this for our whole campus. Hate incidents are insidious and have a damaging effect on our campus climate. I have asked the Campus Safety and Security Advisory Committee to explore the creation of a comprehensive hate incident reporting mechanism. I want the effort to achieve several goals:

–create a greater awareness of the issue on campus,
–make sure that those who experience hate incidents can reach out to us,
–and make sure DPS is engaged to address hate crimes that are identified by members of our community.

The Campus Safety and Security Committee is chaired by Vice President and Secretary of the University Lisa Tedesco. The charge of this advisory group is to assist with the ongoing review of issues related to campus safety, and its membership includes student representatives. The committee has already taken up the issue and is prepared to explore next steps.

Transgender, Bisexual, Lesbian and Gay Task Force

The TBLG Task Force, charged by Provost Courant, is expected to issue a report in April. We will be acting upon the report’s recommendations in the coming months.

In summary, we are paying careful attention to the concerns you have raised. Some actions will take place immediately, and in other cases we have more work to do as a community. My goal, and I trust it is your goal, is to make the best decisions we can for the students who are here now and for those to come.

Sincerely,

“The truth is that we snuck into the party, and SAE was not responsible for anything that happened that night,” she said. The police had reported that the woman and her friends were allowed into an unregistered party although they were not on the guest list. …

“I do not approve of (SAE) being kicked off campus because of this event,” she added.

Nelson said SAE members have cooperated with AAPD detectives, and plan to continue doing so.

“We take this very seriously and it’s not a reflection on who we are as a group of brothers,” he said. …

After reading about the allegations of rape taking place inside a fraternity house (Alleged rape under investigation, 03/30/04), I am only further drawn to the conclusion that the interests of many of the social frats are simply incongruous with those of the University. Even if evidence shows consent on the behalf of the woman, the testimony of the friend is indicative of the institutionalized victimization occurring at social frats, and not only of women.

From the BB gun incident several years ago to the fairly recent kidney failure due to over-exhaustion, pledges are forced through a bizarre and dangerous boot camp in which their individuality is stripped for the sake of “brotherhood.” This, for one, is completely antithetical to the ideals of the American college experience, in which youth is given the chance for self-expression and realization of its individuality through study, art, sports, etc.

The victimization of women at social frats is simply undeniable and has led to a party design with that goal in mind. This is evident in this recent incident as well as the death of Courtney Cantor in 1998, for which her father sued the University with hopes of changing University policies toward the Greek system. With this in mind, I have to suggest that the recent considerations by the University — pushing back Rush and requiring a live-in advisor — are not so much in the interest of the University’s image but rather in the interest of the health and welfare of the student body.

Get In On the Organizing
This Wednesday March 31
9:00 PM
Michigan Union Anderson Room D

Undergrads and graduate students are organizing their peers for a possible class STRIKE on April 8th in support of LEO. Come to the meeting on Wednesday where students will:

* Get ready for the walkout and teach-in
* Get the word out (flyer and chalk near the Union and Angell Hall)
* Paint and Hang Banners
* Plan to Speak to Another Student Group
* Prepare to speak to Classes About LEO
* Meet with other student group leaders about organizing picketting groups

If you want to help with any of these, or have ideas of your own, come to the union wednesday at 9pm.

If can’t make the Wednesday meeting, there will be a second meeting for student organizers on Thursday, April 1 in the Michigan Union room 2105A.

SOLE

Students are not products
Teachers are not tools
The University is not a factory

SUPPORT LEO

***Information about LEO and their Demands***

> Over the past 30 years, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of Lecturers and adjunct faculty teaching in our undergraduate programs,and in the share of all undergraduate teaching done by these faculty. However, Lecturers and adjunct faculty have not been provided with the job security and professional recognition warranted by their critical role in undergraduate teaching, and the importance of teaching in a great public university. LEO was formed to address these issues.

Bottom Lines- what are LEO?s core demands?

1. Job Security: Replace the contract (or contingent) labor system for nontenure-track (NTT) faculty with genuine job security. Under our proposal, employment can only be terminated (a) for ?just cause? or (b) due to insufficient student demand for the courses faculty are competent to teach, in which case, lay-offs will be administered based on seniority.

2. Health benefits: extend benefits throughout the summer to all who teach at a .5 fraction (i.e., half time) or above; health benefits available to all who teach at less than a .5 fraction rate, throughout the year, on a pro-rated basis.

3. Wages: A living wage rate for all NTT faculty, regardless of what campus they teach on, and whether they are part-time or full-time. Reduction (and eventual elimination) in inequalities across campuses and units within campuses for work of equal value. Wages to be based on a combination of qualifications and experience (seniority).

Arguments:

Why are LEO’s demands fair and just?

1. Permanent employment unless there is just cause or insufficient demand is the system currently enjoyed by most other UM employees, including administrative staff. Why should faculty who perform a function as central to the UM community as ours be denied equal treatment in this regard?

2. Public school teachers and bus drivers don’t lose their health benefits just because they don’t drive / teach in the summer time – why do so many of us, even after many years of service?

3. The arguments for a living wage, as a general principle of labor market regulation, are well understood if not universally accepted. The argument for equal pay for work of equal value is perhaps even more widely accepted? differences in tuition rates do not justify the fact that NTT in Ann Arbor are paid almost twice what those in Flint and Dearborn are paid, on a per course basis. It?s unfair, to say the least, to pay someone who has devoted a decade of their life to teaching, service and research at UM the same as (or sometimes less than) someone teaching the same course who has just started here.

4. Faculty — whether tenured, tenure-track or NTT — should have input into bodies that make decisions with direct implications for the content of what they teach, the ways in which they teach, and the conditions under which they teach.

Why will LEO’s demands, if realized, improve the quality of undergraduate education?

1. If NTT faculty have real job security, at least two things conducive to increasing quality education will happen:

*Faculty will feel a greater sense of loyalty to an institution that is willing to invest in them, and as a result, will want to invest more of their time in building programs, developing courses, etc.

*Faculty will also have more time to devote to these activities, because they will not be spending time searching out alternative sources of employment every term or year.

2.&3. Extended health care benefits and above-poverty wage levels will have the same effects, particularly on loyalty and investment.

4. Representation on decision-making bodies will give more influence to faculty whose primary commitment and function is undergraduate teaching.

Greater power for those with this priority will generally result in greater concern, attention and resources devoted to undergrad teaching.

But what about student tuition? Won’t LEO’s demands, if realized, cost students, their parents, and/or Michigan taxpayers a lot more money?

UM tuition, like that at other major universities, rose at well above the rate of inflation over the last decade, but the salaries and benefits of NTT faculty had little to do with this:

10 years ago (1992-93), the mean salary for full-time Lecturers on the AA campus was $29,687; a decade later (2001-2), it was $41,228. After inflation, this represented a real increase of about 1% per year.