Senate Assembly discusses on-campus security cameras and surveillance

The University of Michigan Senate Assembly met in the Alexander G. Ruthven Building Monday afternoon to discuss U-M security cameras and on-campus surveillance.

Derek Peterson, chair of the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs, opened with an announcement regarding three open spots on the SACUA. At least 10 candidates are running, with the positions’ three-year term beginning May 1. Candidates will speak at the next Senate Assembly meeting in March.

Peterson then shifted the topic to diversity, equity and inclusion at the University. On Feb. 14, the U.S. Department of Education withdrew its directive targeting DEI programs across the country. Peterson said after this ruling, the University can begin bringing back its Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

“There is no legal reason why we couldn’t bring back some parts of what the ODEI had done,” Peterson said. “We will see what the future holds, but for the moment, myself and others in faculty government will continue to push as hard as we can around these matters.”

The Assembly then welcomed Richard Arnold, interim executive director of the Division of Public Safety & Security, to discuss the increase in security cameras on campus as part of the department’s Security Technology Enhancement Project. Arnold said the department began looking into security cameras after a lack of functioning security cameras made it difficult for officers to address a sexual assault that occured in the Ford Motor Company Robotics Building.

“After the fact, it was discovered that there were no functional security cameras that aided in that investigation whatsoever,” Arnold said. “As I understand, there was a charge then given to DPSS to take a look at what technologies we have — where we can make improvements that would support safety and security here on campus.”

Arnold said DPSS has installed between six to ten cameras on the Diag, along with additions to the Law Quadrangle and the Grove on North Campus, and on-campus surveillance cameras can provide security for large crowds.

“There’s a very high amount of activity and traffic, and I think it’s a responsible thing for us to have cameras installed in those areas,” Arnold said. “We are blessed on this campus to not have a real serious high crimes-against-person ratio here, but those are areas where, if we have thousands of people gathering in an area, we would like to have some ability to monitor that.”

Assembly member Charlotte Karem Albrecht said she believes the cameras have lessened students’ trust in DPSS.

“One of the effects of the proliferation of these security cameras, the other disciplinary actions and the active surveillance and suppression of student protest is that, increasingly, students and other individuals on campus are less willing to call DPSS,”Albrecht said. “I can tell you a huge swath of the community actively does not feel safe or secure on campus because of these measures.”

Art & Design professor Rebekah Modrak raised concerns with claims that DPSS does not share its footage, alleging the Office of Student Conflict Resolutionused the footage in a case against pro-Palestine activists.

“Even though it says online on DPSS’s site that the footage will not be shared, we know that it was in fact shared with OSCR and used to make complaints against students,” Modrak said. “We know that students are afraid to use their First Amendment rights to protest because they worry that they’ll be cherry picked and retaliated against with complaints, so the cameras and the way that the footage is being used are deterring protests.”

Arnold said while the department does not usually share footage, it can do so in special instances that are referred for criminal prosecution. DPSS can then share that footage with the administration.

Senate Secretary Rogério Meireles Pinto said the cameras do not make him feel safe, and the department needs to prove their crime reducing potential.

“They are not there to make me safe — they are there to surveil me, and that’s maybe semantics, but this is exactly how I feel,” Pinto said. “We are not really sure how much a lot of cameras actually protect us. … It seems to me, a lot of decisions were made without really clear evidence as to how these things would actually work and very little concern about how we felt inside of our skin, particularly people who are minoritized.”

Arnold said he will continue to research the cameras’ effectiveness and wants to find a balance between protecting free speech and improving campus safety.

“We are open to studying their effectiveness and then adjust course as necessary,” Arnold said. “It’s difficult to strike a balance between planning for safety and security and also balancing that against people’s feelings about a surveillance state — about not being free to express their opinions and their views. We obviously do not want to negatively impact those things.”

The Assembly began working on a statement expressing concerns about increased surveillance at the University, agreeing with a letter from the American Association of University Professors. The statement read that the Assembly wants more evidence that the cameras are deterring crime. The Assembly did not finish revising the statement but will continue editing in March.

The meeting concluded with Youngju Ryu, director of theInternational Institute, discussing the President Donald Trump administration’s Title VIbudget cuts to foreign language and area studies programs at the University, including the National Resource Center and Foreign Language and Area Studies grants.

Daily News Editor Dominic Apap can be reached at *[email protected]*.