Update 4/26: This article has been updated to include a comment from the University.
About 40 members of the University of Michigan Graduate Employees’ Organization gathered in Haven Hall and over Zoom Thursday afternoon to meet with Academic Human Resources regarding the alleged suppression of pro-Palestine speech on campus.
GEO initiated the grievance meeting to bring forward complaints of widespread on-campus repression of pro-Palestine speech, claiming it violated the GEO-UM contract that took effect in 2023 after nine months of negotiations with the University. GEO specifically alleged the violation of Article IV, Section A, which forbids discrimination based on factors such as race or political belief, and Article XXI, Section G, which bars any employee from acting or being forced to act in a manner that threatens their health or safety.
Rackham student Ekaterina Shipyatsky, co-chair of the GEO grievance committee, opened the hearing with a statement regarding the current situation surrounding Palestinian activism on campus. Shipyatsky said she felt graduate students have repeatedly faced retaliation for discussing Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which has been enabled by responses from the administration.
“The campus has been a general climate of repression and harassment that has gotten increasingly worse over time,” Shipyatsky said. “This has been largely enabled by President Ono’s statements, which have actively laid the groundwork for hostile work environments across the University.”
Rackham student Ariana Haidari, fellow co-chair of the GEO grievance committee, spoke after Shipyatsky’s opening statement. Haidari said the University administration’s actions, such as canceling voting on Central Student Government resolutions in December and releasing a statement following the Honors Convocation protest, encouraged a culture of Palestine-related harassment in the workplace for GSIs.
“On March 26, President Ono released a statement threatening students who had engaged in a peaceful protest at the Honors Convocation on March 23,” said Haidari. “Together these statements and actions from the most senior executive authority on campus have contributed to a climate of hostility, harassment and repression on Palestine-related issues.”
Following the initial statements, GEO called graduate employees from six different departments to provide testimonials regarding their personal experiences with harassment and suppression of speech. The GSIs spoke about alleged contract violations including the removal of pro-Palestinian posters and forced participation in disciplinary meetings with their departments.
In an interview with The Michigan Daily, a GSI, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation from their employer, alleged she was called into a disciplinary meeting with her supervisor after students filed a complaint against her for mentioning Israel’s military campaign in Gaza in a class discussion about activism through art, during which she was warned against making political statements in the classroom.
“I am deeply troubled that I, as a Jewish GSI, was told by my boss that I am not sensitive enough when teaching my Jewish students, just because I mentioned Palestine and the movement on this campus,” the GSI said. “I would likewise like to share that I am deeply troubled a meeting was called to restrict my political speech in regard to just one thing: the ongoing genocide in Palestine and any resistance to it.”
Second-year Law student Caitlin Doolittle, co-chair of Law Students for Justice in Palestine, told The Daily she believes law students feel restricted in showing support for Palestine for fear of losing their jobs as GSIs.
“Many law students who are GSIs feel that they cannot participate in the action of supporting Palestine because it will threaten their GSI position,” Doolittle said. “Many law students have expressed to me they’re hesitant to bring up anything having to do with the genocide in Gaza because of policies and repression that we have seen across the University.”
Following the testimonies, Shipyatsky proposed several specific actions on behalf of the University to address the complaints.
“We’re asking that the University make a statement recognizing the ongoing genocide in Palestine to set the record straight and address some of the harm caused by the previous emails that have gone out from the President,” Shipyatsky said. “We’re asking that the University publicly acknowledge the right to pro-Palestine speech by GSIs in the classroom.”
AHR associate director Katie DeLong, who was present at the meeting, responded to GEO’s statements and said human resources had no questions regarding the grievance at the moment and that a written response would be provided within the next 21 days.
“The information provided during the grievance hearing was detailed,” DeLong said. “I understand the union’s position. I understand the facts and allegations made in the grievance. We will have our response to you in writing before or on May 16.”
In an interview with The Daily, Shipyatsky said she felt unsatisfied by AHR’s lack of engagement with the grievances brought up through the testimonials.
“I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that (AHR did not) answer a single question that we asked them,” Shipyatsky said. “(AHR) has to give us a response on this by May 16. I guess only time will tell whether they’ve taken the case we’ve presented to them seriously, but I hope they do.”
Shipyatsky said GEO will continue to advocate for Palestine-related free speech while they wait for a decision regarding the grievance.
“We’ll continue to organize around Palestine-related workplace repression, free speech and academic integrity,” Shipyatsky said. “Instructional autonomy and Palestinian liberation are core values of the Union, so we’ll continue to organize around that regardless of what HR’s decision on this grievance is.”
In an email to The Daily, University spokesperson Colleen Mastony said the University aims to address GEO’s concerns regarding free speech on campus through the grievance procedure agreed upon by GEO and the administration.
“In regard to the Graduate Employees’ Organization grievance, it is important that we allow the process outlined in the contract to be carried out,” Mastony wrote. “This includes the university hosting the meeting – which occurred yesterday – and providing the union a written response to the grievance within 21 days. After the union receives the response, it has 30 days to initiate an arbitration procedure if they disagree with the response.”
Daily Staff Reporter Michelle Liao can be reached at mrliao@umich.edu.