The University of Michigan Board of Regents met at the U-M Dearborn Fairlane Center South on Thursday to approve faculty promotions, a land purchase for the expansion of the University’s campus and housing and ratify the 2025-26 academic calendar. The regents also discussed the current state of contract negotiations with the Graduate Employees’ Organization and University House Officers Association.

University President Santa Ono began the meeting by thanking Domenico Grasso, chancellor of the U-M Dearborn campus, and the staff at U-M Dearborn for hosting the meeting. The meeting continued with University Provost Laurie McCauley recommending promotions for 279 faculty to acknowledge their contributions to the University’s educational mission. The regents unanimously approved all promotions.

“The University of Michigan’s essential work of challenging the present and enriching the future is only possible through the efforts of our faculty who create, preserve and pass on knowledge to the next generation of citizens and leaders,” McCauley said. “Today we are bringing forward 279 recommendations for promotion. This includes 153 instructional track promotions for (the board’s) review and approval. In addition, there are 118 recommendations for promotion for clinical faculty and eight for research faculty. Each of these has been carefully reviewed at the department, school, provost and presidential level.”

Geoffrey Chatas, U-M executive vice president and chief financial officer, officially proposed that the University purchase 1100 Catherine Street — home to Ann Arbor’s classic brunch spot, Angelo’s, as well as two residential apartments — for $4.5 million to expand the University’s campus. Chatas acknowledged the impact of Angelo’s on the Ann Arbor community and the family’s decision to close the business.

“The University has been presented with an opportunity to purchase property from the Vangelatos family who for decades have been running Angelo’s, a beloved icon in Ann Arbor,” Chatas said. “When the family approached the University about the possibility of selling (the property), they explained that they want to close the business on their own terms. We appreciate them trusting us with the property. They have made an incredible contribution to the Ann Arbor community and we respect their decision to close the business now.”

The regents approved the purchase unanimously. They also unanimously approved the purchase of 49 properties from Regent Ron Weiser (R), at no profit to him, to carry out phase two of the University’s residential development program. Chatas said the University will honor the current leases for these properties and continue to rent them out until construction begins.

“The University intends to minimize the disruption to the housing market by honoring the existing contracts of any tenants currently living at any of the 49 properties and continuing to lease to tenants as long as reasonably practicable until the future Phase Two construction is underway,”Chatas said. “The University will acquire the properties as described for up to $75 million.”

The regents unanimously approved the Ann Arbor campus’s academic calendar for the 2025-26 academic year. The calendar follows the same model as the 2020-21 through 2024-25 academic calendars and includes the new extended winter break, which was approved by the regents at their February meeting.

McCauley then provided an update to the regents on the current state of contract negotiations between the University and the Graduate Employees’ Organization. According to McCauley, the University offered a 12.5% raise, making the complete set of counterproposals one of the largest ever offered to GEO .

“Last week, the University’s negotiating team delivered a comprehensive package to GEO in response to all outstanding issues,” McCauley said. “This package includes the fourth salary proposal from the University: 12.5% over three years on the Ann Arbor campus and 6.75% in total raises at U-M Dearborn and U-M Flint. This is one of the largest packages proposed to the union in its 50-year history. The union has yet to make a counter offer on salary.”

McCauley also said the University has filed for the Michigan Employment Relations Commission to begin the process of fact finding. In the fact-finding process, a state-appointed official investigates the labor dispute and offers non-binding recommendations to both parties in order to settle the dispute. McCauley said the University hopes to come to an agreement that is beneficial to both parties through this process.

“The University filed for fact finding yesterday,” McCauley said. “We hope (it) will aid in coming to a mutual agreement. Over our five-decade relationship with GEO, we have consistently arrived at agreements that support grad student career success. We hope that more frequent and collaborative bargaining will result in a mutually beneficial contract soon.”

Marschall Runge, the University’s executive vice president for medical affairs, shifted the discussion to the contract negotiations between the University and the  House Officers Association, which represents residents and fellows at Michigan Medicine. Runge said while the parties are still divided on salary, he is hopeful for future negotiations.  

“The parties were successful in closing out non-economic issues and are moving to just economic wages and benefits,” Runge said. “The parties met with the mediator for a second session on Tuesday, May 16, and exchanged updated proposals but remained far apart on salary proposals. … We are eager to finish finalizing the contract. We look forward to getting back to the negotiating table next week.”

Kyle Johnson, HOA president and resident physician at Michigan Medicine, addressed the regents during the public comment portion of the meeting. Johnson said HOA wants to come to a fair contract with the University, but is prepared to go on strike if negotiations stall. 

“We would like to work out our differences at the bargaining table, but our membership is united, informed and ready to act should the regents fail to do so,” Johnson said.

Rackham student Amir Fleischmann, GEO contract committee chair, also spoke to the regents during public comments. Fleischmann said he believes the University’s actions during the contract negotiation process, including entering missing grades, harm its academic reputation. 

“(The administration is) bringing this great institution into disrepute and likely threatening its accreditation,” Fleischmann said. “This is shameful. It doesn’t have to be this way. You, the pro-labor democratic regents, have the power to end this fiasco. Our proposals are in fact no-brainers. Give us a fair contract, and get us back into classrooms where we belong.”

Summer News Editor Miles Anderson can be reached at milesand@umich.edu. 

The post UMich regents meet in Dearborn to discuss land purchases and contract negotiations appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

Update 5/18: This article has been updated to include an email to U-M faculty from University Provost Laurie McCauley.

The University of Michigan is working with departments and faculty to enter missing grades from the winter semester in the midst of the Graduate Employees’ Organization’s ongoing strike, despite GEO’s claims that this violates principles of academic integrity. 

University spokesperson Kim Broekhuizen told The Michigan Daily in an email that the majority of grades are submitted, but some grades are still missing. 

“The overwhelming majority of grades for the winter term have been submitted (about 95%),” Broekhuizen wrote. “Of the classes with grades still outstanding, a majority are independent study and study-abroad courses that customarily arrive later than usual. Many of the remaining missing grades are the unfortunate consequences of GSIs who neglected to complete their duties, violated the contract they signed and failed their fellow students. The University is continuing its efforts to provide students with the grades they deserve for the work they have completed.” 

In an email to The Daily, Rackham student Amir Fleischmann, GEO contract committee chair, said he believes the University’s plan to enter missing grades means final grades  may not accurately reflect students’ work throughout the winter semester.

“The Administration’s decision to enter grades on behalf of striking GSIs is a strike-breaking move and a violation of our academic freedom,” Fleischmann wrote. “It goes directly against SACUA’s statement on grades and undermines the pedagogical reputation of the University. We’ve seen reports that Deans are having non-instructional staff — workers who’ve never taught anyone, let alone the students they’re now ‘grading’ — input straight As for students on behalf of striking GSIs.”

In a press release, Rackham student Karthik Ganapathy, GEO secretary, said entering grades on behalf of striking GSIs is disrespectful to both graduate workers and undergraduate students, and could jeopardize the University’s accreditation with the Higher Learning Commission.

“Fake grades that are totally detached from students’ progress, learning, and work mean that the Administration is now not only disrespecting graduate workers, but all students who deserve thoughtful feedback and legitimate grades,” Ganapathy said. “Ultimately, the Administration’s action could put the University’s accreditation at risk.”

Broekhuizen said the University is working to ensure all grades entered reflect student work and do not penalize students for how the strike may have affected their semester. 

“Every effort is being made to ensure that grades are as accurate as possible utilizing the evidence that is available,” Broekhuizen wrote. “Students should not – and will not – be penalized for their GSIs’ failures to complete their contractual obligations.”

In an email to U-M faculty obtained by The Daily, University Provost Laurie McCauley said the administration is working to address concerns over grading while upholding the University’s academic integrity. 

“We are looking into those concerns and asking leaders across our units to do all they can to ensure that grades are as accurate as possible and meet our standard of academic integrity,” McCauley wrote. “I want to be clear that there has been no blanket mandate regarding how schools, colleges, or departments resolve this issue. On the contrary, I have asked deans to work with department chairs and faculty to ensure all students receive grades as soon as possible.

Fleischmann wrote he believes this decision by the University may further aggravate the state of contract negotiations, increasing the chances that the strike continues into the fall term.

“This is shameful behavior from an Administration that never seems to cease stooping to new lows,” Flesichmann wrote. “This move makes a fall strike more likely.”

Summer News Editor Miles Anderson can be reached at milesand@umich.edu. 

The post UMich announces plan to input late grades due to GEO strike appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

Six days before the Graduate Employees’ Organization began their strike against the University of Michigan, the Rackham Graduate School introduced a new 12-month funding model for doctoral students. Colloquially known as the Rackham Plan, the model would offer all doctoral students admitted for the 2023-24 academic year and all years going forward a year-round stipend as a part of their funding packages. 

In an email to The Michigan Daily, University spokesperson Kim Broekhuizen said the plan is a shift away from previous models of funding. This new plan would offer all doctoral students $36,084 per year for 12 months of work, assuming they are within their funding window. In a fully funded doctoral program, the funding window is the amount of years a student receives full tuition waivers and a cost-of-living stipend from the university they are attending.

“The university, through Rackham Graduate School, is ensuring year-round funding for all eligible Ph.D. students on the Ann Arbor campus as part of their standard admission offer,” Broekhuizen wrote. “In the past, not all Ph.D. students received spring/summer funding. Now, every Ph.D. student who is within their funding window (usually 5-7 years) will receive a spring/summer stipend at a level equivalent to the stipend offered in fall or winter terms. This year, that amount is $12,028 per term, or $36,084 for 12 months of funding.”

Broekhuizen said this funding plan has begun to take effect for the 2023 spring and summer terms for current doctoral students who have remained in academic standing with the University.

“The funding extension has taken effect for the current spring/summer term,” Broekhuizen said. “All eligible Ph.D. students who were guaranteed academic year 2022-23 fall and winter term funding as part of their offers of admission and are in good academic standing are slated to receive full 2023 spring/summer stipend support.”

Rackham student Amir Fleischmann, GEO contract committee chair, said he believes the University did not effectively implement this plan, harming graduate students who thought they would receive funding, but did not.

“The Rackham Plan was rolled out very hastily,” Fleischmann said. “In (a) failed attempt to head off our strike many departments explicitly promised funds to graduate students who would not normally be eligible. These students adjusted their summer plans with the expectation of these funds — in some cases turning down internships and jobs that would have been necessary to support themselves through the summer. Over the past few weeks, these departments have rescinded their summer funding commitments, leaving these students in the lurch.”

Rackham student Rebecca Smith, a member of GEO, helps organize an informal GEO working group on summer funding. In an interview with The Daily, Smith said many students who were promised funding by LSA had it rescinded, leaving them in financially uncertain situations for the summer.

“(Some) students were told four or six weeks ago that they were going to be getting Rackham summer funding and did not make any other plans for summer employment,” Smith said. “(These students) went into the summer thinking they had $12,000 to live on, and then only two weeks ago, LSA started pulling those same funding packages from students. So it’s been incredibly chaotic. It’s left students in situations of really extreme precarity.”

Smith said she believes this funding uncertainty is partially a result of confusion among directors of graduate studies — the organizers and administrators of graduate programs — about what students are eligible for the 12-month funding plan. 

“My understanding is that the department’s individual directors of graduate studies, which are the people that run our individual Ph.D. programs, were asked how many people are eligible for this in your cohort, and then they gave a recommended number,” Smith said. “Some of the directors went out on a limb for students and wanted to get as many people included as possible, and then at some point, Rackham realized what was going on and started trying to rein it in.”

Smith added that complications due to leaves of absence and fellowships can make it appear a student is in a later year of study than they actually are, which can also affect funding opportunities. 

Smith said she hopes to see the 12-month funding plan included in GEO’s new contract with the University to ensure doctoral students earn a stable living wage .

“The thing that we want is for the money to be in the contract so that we can ensure that everyone has this money,” Smith said. “That is a critical component of the living wage. It also makes sure that it won’t be rolled out or rolled back or disappear next year.”

Broekhuizen said the University will not include a 12-month funding plan in the contract because it only covers graduate students employed by the University. 

“The collective bargaining agreement with GEO covers only graduate student instructor and graduate student staff assistant appointments, the components of funding that involve employment,” Broekhuizen wrote. “This funding is offered to Ph.D. students who are within their original funding package–whether or not they are working as a GSI or a GSSA. Some Ph.D. students with guaranteed funding never hold a GSI or GSSA appointment and are not covered by the collective bargaining agreement during any time in their program.”

Fleischmann said he believes the confusion surrounding the rollout of the Rackham Plan demonstrates another shortcoming in the University’s handling of current contract negotiations and its treatment of graduate students. 

“This chaos is a testament to the incompetence of the (University’s) administration — something grad workers have been experiencing all year,” Flesichmann said.

Summer News Editor Miles Anderson can be reached at milesand@umich.edu. 

The post What is happening with the Rackham Plan? appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

The University of Michigan administration is planning to withhold pay from non-working Graduate Student Instructors and Graduate Student Staff Assistants as the Graduate Employees’ Organization’s ongoing strike continues into its third week. This decision comes after a state judge ruled that GEO’s strike violates their contract and recommended that the Michigan Employment Relations Committee order GEO back to work. 

In an April 21 email from the University to GSIs obtained by The Michigan Daily, the University said it will require all GSIs and GSSAs to fill out a work attestation form to receive their regular pay for the month of April. According to the email, employees who have continued working during the strike must provide verification of this work in order to be paid. Employees who respond that they did not work, or who do not fill out the form at all, will have their April pay reduced. 

“The Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) remains on strike in violation of its labor contract and, as has been communicated previously, the university will not pay striking workers for any time not worked,” the email read. “GSIs and GSSAs are required to verify they are working in order to receive pay.  If you attest that you did not work, or if you do not complete the survey, you will not receive pay for that time period, absent proof that you worked.”

In a press release, Rackham student Amir Fleischmann, GEO contract committee chair, said withholding pay based on whether or not employees submitted the form is illegal and in violation of GEO’s contract with the University.

“It appears that (the University) will be withholding pay from all workers who refused to fill out attestation forms – regardless of whether or not they are actually on strike,” Fleischmann said. “If (the University) plans to withhold pay solely based on a worker refusing to fill out an attestation form, this would be a clear violation of our contract and likely illegal.”

In an email to The Daily Friday morning, University spokesperson Rick Fitzgerald confirmed that the University does not plan to pay striking workers.

“The university is following through on what we told GEO at the start of the strike: Those who refuse to work will not be paid,” Fitzgerald wrote. “Those who continue to work will be paid. That’s just how strikes work. And remember that the GEO strike started March 29, so they already had been paid for March at that point.”

Fitzgerald said later in the email that pay has not yet been officially withheld for the month of April, but the University intends to reduce pay for striking workers accordingly as they conduct payroll in the coming days. 

“We’re in the process of working on the April payroll,” Fitzgerald wrote. “Many university employees, including GEO members, are paid monthly. No GEO member has yet to lose any pay. Those who do not work, will not be paid, starting with the April payroll.”

In the press release, Fleischmann said he believes the University is avoiding direct engagement with GEO by withholding pay, echoing claims GEO has been making since the start of the bargaining process.

“This is only the latest in a series of underhanded strikebreaking tactics that (the University) has used to try to circumvent the bargaining process and impose an unfair contract on some of its lowest paid workers,” Fleischmann said. 

Contract negotiations between GEO and Academic Human Resources remain in progress. 

Summer News Editor Miles Anderson can be reached at milesand@umich.edu.

The post UMich planning to withhold pay from striking GSIs appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

Santa Ono talks GEO strike, club sports and his Taylor Swift era

University President Santa Ono sat down with The Michigan Daily Thursday afternoon for his last interview of the winter 2023 semester. Ono talked about the state of the current GEO strike, spaces and resources for club sports on campus, and what Taylor Swift era he is currently in.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. 

The Michigan Daily: You’ve mentioned how much you value a liberal arts education. The Flint Transformation project seeks to rehabilitate U-M Flint’s declining enrollment numbers by focusing on the current and future job market. Students at Flint have spoken about their worries that U-M Flint will exclusively focus on STEM fields as a result of the transformation program. How will you ensure that a liberal arts education is valued across all three campuses? 

Santa Ono: I loved my liberal arts education, because I went to the University of Chicago. The core curriculum there has a principle that people should be educated broadly so they can be critical thinkers. And they really do believe, as I do believe, that the more diverse your curriculum, the better you’re prepared for any profession. I firmly believe that, and I do understand the suggestions and concerns of students and faculty at Flint. What I would encourage everyone to do is to understand that this is a transformation process that’s being led by U-M Flint Chancellor Debasish Dutta and not by me. The charge for transformation started with former University President Mary Sue Coleman, as you know, because of concerns about the declining enrollment. There have been multiple conversations with all stakeholders. Chancellor Dutta is doing a great job, and Flint has some data, but they have no decisions yet. Part of the transformation process is meant to ensure that not only the enrollment but the finances of that campus are as strong as possible to support a diversity of courses and programs.

TMD: The University maintains that it is paying graduate students a living wage. Despite this, the Graduate Employees’ Organization maintains that its members are struggling to afford housing and food. Would the University of Michigan consider any other means of creating more equitable living conditions for graduate students?

SO: We’re open to many different possibilities. As you know, we’re actually in the midst of bargaining, which means there’s special time for more back and forth. We have made it clear as an institution that we want to continue with bargaining. We have put forward a number of different increasing suggestions for compensation, and we hope that the bargaining process will continue so that we can reach a mutually acceptable agreement. But there are many other things that we can do. As we consider the campus planning project, many universities are actually building more affordable housing for graduate students. That’s a very big part of what all of us spend our money on in terms of our living. Hopefully moving forward we might be able to have some additional housing that might be more affordable, that might actually have a positive impact, not only for graduate students but for undergraduates as well. You probably also know that relatively recently, we have invested in more child care on campus. That’s a big-ticket item on anyone’s budget, so hopefully in the future, part of the campus planning process might allow us to expand those sorts of services for graduate students. We will consider everything that we can to address affordability for all of our students, including graduates.

TMD: As the strike continues through the end of the semester, how does the University plan to address potential issues in grading that may come about as a result of a lack of Graduate Student Instructors and Graduate Student Staff Assistants?

SO: As you probably know, that’s not something that’s managed by the president of the University. These are happening in certain departments in some of the schools, or all the schools. It’s really more a matter for discussion within departments that rely on GSIs. What I understand from our provost, the outstanding Laurie McCauley, is that she is in regular conversations with the deans of those schools that are most impacted, as well as the department chairs. I’ve been told they have plans to ensure that even if there are delays in grading, they won’t impact students’ graduation and everyone will get their grades. That’s what I’m told, but I’m not directly involved in those kinds of matters or managing that situation.

TMD: Given that the University’s requested injunction at the county level against the current GEO strike was denied, how does the University plan to proceed in regard to the strike? How does the recent decision from Judge David Peltz fall into this plan?

SO: So, both of those things are in flight. Although the initial finding was that there wasn’t sufficient disruption to require that the GSIs go back to work, that’s something that will be assessed as time progresses. So that’s the first decision. The second one was just a recommendation, which, as you know, was the appeal to the Michigan Employment Relations Commission itself. We just have to wait and see how the appeal goes and what MERC decides, and that will be all resolved in a matter of weeks. In the meantime, we can do everything we can to encourage continued bargaining at the table, because we really do want to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.

TMD: Do you have a response for undergraduate students who stand with GEO and have expressed anger or frustration with the University’s handling of the strike, including your and University Provost Laurie McCauley’s emails to the campus community and comments about the strike?

SO: So those emails, as you have read, are expressing the position of the institution, which includes the entire leadership team and all of the Regents. Those emails are necessary for communication about the position of the institution. In terms of students that are frustrated or angry, I have many interactions with students, and, as you can imagine, there are a variety of views. There is a diversity of views at the University, and I respect students’ concerns and frustrations, even their anger, because everybody has the freedom to articulate their perspective, and I welcome that.

TMD: You’ve shown support for the Michigan Women’s Club Hockey team, attending practices and games and posting them on your social media accounts. What role can you have in assisting that program with its goal of becoming a varsity sport in the coming years? From your perspective, what has to be done in order for that team to go varsity?

SO: I absolutely love all of our teams: varsity teams, men’s and women’s sports, and club sports. I try to attend as many games as possible. There are a lot of them, so it’s not possible for me to attend them all in one year, but I’m committed to doing so. I have attended several women’s ice hockey games, and they’ve done fantastically well. Their coaches and the players are fantastic — I have gotten to know some of them, and I try to cheer them on between different periods. It’s so wonderful. I’ve seen a growing fan presence at their games. I’ve tried to support not only the women’s ice hockey team, but also other club sports by absorbing some of the costs that are difficult for them to afford on their own. Renting Yost, the tennis facility or the pool is expensive. Many club sports use those, and right now, the way things are structured, there’s no institutional support for those rentals. In terms of what are considered varsity sports, it really shouldn’t be the president of the University’s decision. We have an outstanding athletic director and coaches, and making the decision on a team becoming a varsity sport is really in their purview. These are complicated decisions because Yost is considered to be a temple to ice hockey, but it’s not configured for both men’s and women’s teams. It would require expensive renovations to Yost, or the creation of yet another ice arena, which has been discussed over the years but has a tremendous price tag to it. It’s not a trivial decision. In addition to how we would support such a team, because they would travel longer distances, there would have to be a conversation with a conference as well as the NCAA. All that takes time. I know there’s tremendous support for making the women’s ice hockey team a varsity sport and I welcome that. Ultimately, if the decision is made by the athletic director and the Regents of the University to move forward, then I think that there’ll be plenty of people that will want to support the team, but it will be a process.

TMD: Club sports have long struggled to find practice fields and, even when they do, their practices often go late into the night. Many club team members have claimed the construction on Elbel Field will worsen these problems. Though the construction of the new recreational sports field will somewhat help mitigate the loss of practice spaces, how does the University plan to support club sports in this drought of practice spaces?

SO: As you know, the loss of Elbel Field has occurred because of our commitment to provide residence halls for undergraduates, especially first-year students. We haven’t invested in that for a long time, so it’s in dire need. You can understand that the University had to prioritize that need. As for understanding the impact on things like recreational fields for club sports, we have been doing a benchmark analysis of how many recreational fields we have relative to our Big Ten counterparts. We are somewhat below average in terms of the amount of recreational space per student. In the long term, through the campus planning process and vision process, we’re committed to providing recreational space. It’s very important for the well-being of our students, faculty and staff. The reason why the North Campus recreational fields were urgently needed was because the construction of the new dorm on Elbel Field will initiate a need for recreational spaces. So the idea was to try to create these fields during the summer months, when there’s decreased need, so that when school starts again in the fall, we will have compensated for the loss of Elbel Field. That’s a short-term solution, but longer term we’ll have to work through the campus planning process to try to address whether we have sufficient recreational space for faculty, staff and students. The reason why we’re going through — for the first time in many years — the creation of a campus plan, is so that we can really think about where best to situate such fields and where best to build new academic buildings and residence halls so that the whole campus serves the community in the best possible way.

TMD: The University is currently facing a Title IX compliance investigation of the Department of Computer Science and Engineering by the National Science Foundation. How is the University currently handling this investigation?

SO: We comply with any request for a review— in this case, it’s not an investigation, it’s a review. The way a review works is there are a set of cyclical reviews that occur of many institutions, and those decisions are made by the size of the institution. All the federal agencies have offices that would review Title IX compliance. We were selected because we are very large and we have a lot of grants from the NSF and we will certainly cooperate with the review.

TMD: On Thursday, April 6, USA Today published an article in which a past member of the Michigan football team was accused of sexual assault, although their name was not released. Is the University Athletic Department investigating this matter? What is the role of the University outside of Athletics in investigating those allegations, whether that be Equity, Civil Rights and Title IX Office or another University office?

SO: That was several years ago, and we know more now than we did then. First of all, I want to say that the story, the situation and context, was tragic and very sad. Every one of us at the University is really sorry about that individual. I wasn’t here when this occurred, but looking back into what happened, I’m confident that the University and what would now be ECRT did review and assess the situation appropriately and we’re committed to doing so in the future if anything else arises. In a situation like this, it’d be ECRT’s responsibility to investigate, and the athletics program and athletic directors are expected to comply. And to my understanding of this situation they did.

TMD: As the numbers of first-year and transfer applicants increased again this year, does the University have any plans to make changes to the campus landscape, other than housing, that would accommodate higher numbers of students? Are there any specific plans related to increasing numbers of faculty and graduate student instructors and maintaining specific student-faculty ratios?  

SO: The President doesn’t set enrollment targets– the way enrollment targets are decided on an annual basis is a conversation between the Chief Academic Officer of the University, Provost McCauley, and the deans of the institution. The matter is within the purview of the provost, as it should be, because they’re assessing interest in particular degrees and the majors and minors and responding accordingly. There’s not always straightforward and easy decisions, so what happened in terms of the enrollment target is a modest increase this year of a few hundred students. The final number isn’t clear until the summer months move through that. Typically we have more people coming than we thought would because Michigan is a very popular destination, but we aren’t sure. It’s sort of an art: we try to guess based on previous historical data what the yield will be, how many offers we will make and how many people will actually show up. To answer your question about how we’ll support them beyond residence halls, at the central level with the executive officers of the University, we have discussions about the projected student numbers. Every vice president or executive officer will take the target and adjust their allocation to support a slightly larger student body. The same thing happens also at the school or department level. The department will know how many students are coming in, so they will have to make adjustments in terms of their allocation of resources internally for advising and for other sorts of support at the departmental or school level. It’s a pretty complicated process, but if there’s a larger enrollment, we would invest more in support services to account and serve the growing number of students.

TMD: As the restructuring of the computer science program to accommodate increasing enrollment takes effect with the fall 2023 incoming class, do you think such a phenomenon may occur in other departments or majors? How will the University ensure the academic needs of all students are met as enrollment continues to increase?

SO: There are certain majors and programs that are of great interest at a time and others that have deep declining interest. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly how large that interest will be next year– these changes don’t usually happen abruptly. Computer science is an example of one of these fields; because of the job prospects, there’s tremendous interest. The departments of engineering, material science and computer science took the appropriate action to accommodate the interest by expanding the physical facilities. These departments will hire faculty and people to support students and staff in order to accommodate that growth. These kinds of changes happen across all the 110 or more programs that exist in an institution. These programs are studied carefully, and all that information factors into a decision about whether to extend or contract the program. It’s part of the life of a large research university.

TMD: What Taylor Swift era are you currently in? 

SO: Taylor Swift era? I’m totally lost. 

TMD: Your options are: Debut, Fearless, Speak Now, Red, 1989, Reputation, Lover, folklore, evermore and Midnights. 

SO: Well, I know nothing about any of those. But, I don’t know, what’s evermore?

TMD: So, it’s the sister album to folklore and it’s very indie folk music.

SO: The word ‘evermore’ has some future, optimistic tones to it. Knowing nothing, evermore would be my answer. I’m really sorry — Taylor Swift is four decades more contemporary than me.

Daily News Editor Riley Hodder can be reached at rehodder@umich.edu. Summer News Editor Miles Anderson can be reached at milesand@umich.edu. Daily Staff Reporter Bronwyn Johnston can be reached at jbronwyn@umich.edu. 

The post Santa Ono talks GEO strike, club sports and his Taylor Swift era appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

This is a developing story and will be updated as more information becomes available.

Update 4/11: This story has been updated to include a comment from the University and GEO.

The University of Michigan has not been granted a restraining order against the Graduate Employees’ Organization by the Washtenaw Circuit Court. Following an evidentiary hearing Monday afternoon, Judge Carol Kuhnke decided there is no evidence of irreparable harm to the University. Members of University administration were in court seeking an injunction that would have claimed that GEO’s current strike is illegal because it constitutes a breach of contract.

GEO’s strike began at 10:24 a.m. on March 29, after months of activism during their contract negotiations with the University’s Academic Human Resources department. Ninety-five percent of GEO’s members originally voted to authorize the strike, which is now entering its second week.

In an interview with The Michigan Daily following the decision, GEO President Jared Eno said he believes the court made the right call.

“The University was banking on resolving this entirely through the courts and not having to deal with us seriously at the bargaining table,” Eno said. “I think the judge made the right call that that’s not appropriate.”

In an email to The Daily, University spokesperson Kim Broekhuizen wrote that the University is disappointed in the judgment, but remains ready to negotiate with GEO.

“While we are disappointed in the decision, we appreciate Judge Kuhnke’s acknowledgement that our students are still being harmed,” Broekhuizen wrote. “We also understand the high legal standard of ‘irreparable harm’ we faced.”

Daily News Editor Riley Hodder can be reached at rehodder@umich.edu. Daily Staff Reporters Miles Anderson and Matthew Shanbom can be reached at milesand@umich.edu and shanbom@umich.edu.

The post UMich does not get restraining order against GEO appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

The Michigan Daily News section will continue to fact check and research claims made by both GEO and the University and will update this article as needed.

Last Update: 4/11

After months of contract negotiations between the University of Michigan and the Graduate Employees’ Organization, members of GEO commenced a strike against the University on March 29. The strike intensified the conflict between the University and GEO in their bargaining process. 

Disputes over the definition of a living wage continued to cause rifts in bargaining sessions, even as both sides point to the same metric for calculating living wage: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s living wage calculator. Additionally, GEO and the University disagree about the scope of GEO’s bargaining power and what falls under their area of concern as a labor union.

The Michigan Daily has fact-checked claims made by both the University and GEO to clarify the demands made in their contract negotiations.

After months of contract negotiations between the University of Michigan and the Graduate Employees Organization, members of GEO commenced a strike against the University on March 29. The strike intensified the conflict between the University and GEO on the bargaining process and its contents. 

Disputes over the definition of a living wage continue to cause rifts in bargaining sessions, even as both sides point to the same metric of calculating living wage: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s living wage calculator. Additionally, contradicting perspectives emerged surrounding the scope of GEO’s bargaining power and what falls under their area of concern as a labor union.

The Michigan Daily has fact checked claims made by both the University and GEO to clear up the truth about their contract negotiations.

Living Wage Definitions and Claims

Both GEO and the University have referred to MIT’s living wage calculator as a means of determining an appropriate wage for graduate students employed by the University. According to MIT, the calculator provides an estimation for the cost of living in a particular geographic area based on average expenses.

GEO: According to the demands outlined in GEO’s platform, a living wage for graduate student workers would be $38,537. Meeting this demand would constitute a raise of approximately 60% to the current salary for Graduate Student Instructors and Graduate Student Staff Assistants, which is $24,055. According to GEO, a raise of this significance would bring relief to many rent-burdened graduate student workers. In their platform, GEO claims that 64% of the organization’s members work more than the number of hours indicated by their contract at least once and 60% worked more than 21 hours per week in their GSI or GSSA position at least once during the semester. 

University: In an email to The Michigan Daily, University spokeswoman Kim Broekhuizen wrote that the University’s latest compensation counter proposal of a 11.5% raise places hourly pay for graduate student workers at two times that of the rate indicated by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s living wage calculator.

“The University’s current compensation proposal includes raises in Ann Arbor of 11.5% total over three years, which is the highest salary increase in the last 15 years,” Broekhuizen wrote. “It also puts hourly pay at more than double the hourly rate indicated on the MIT Living Wage calculator, a measure frequently cited by GEO.”

Fact Check: The University’s and GEO’s living wage calculations are both partially correct in how they describe the current and proposed wages. The University pays graduate student employees a set salary based on the number of hours they are contracted to work. Though it may vary by department, the University currently pays GSIs a salary of about $24,000 a year for working 20 hours a week during the winter and fall semesters. That means they get paid the equivalent of an hourly wage of about $35. 

According to MIT’s living wage calculator, an hourly living wage for 1 adult without children in Ann Arbor is $18.67. As agreed upon by both GEO and the University in GEO’s current contract, hourly wages for graduate employees are calculated in the following manner:

“Section J. Calculation of Per-Hour Rate The per-hour rate shall be calculated as follows: 1. Multiply the contractual minimum full-time equivalent salary rate for the term in which the substitution takes place by three. 2. Divide that product by 2,080 hours. 3. The result is the per-hour rate.” 

While that sets the hourly wage that graduate student employees currently receive above MIT’s living wage for Ann Arbor, GEO is correct that graduate students do not generally receive the annual salary that the MIT living wage calculator suggests for Ann Arbor. The calculator says Ann Arbor residents should make a total of $38,537 annually to achieve a minimum standard of life based on the local cost of living.

In order to meet a salary of $38,537, GSIs and GSSAs would need to either be contracted for more than 20 hours per week or paid more. However, departments place limits on the number of hours per week that GSIs are contracted for.  For instance, the School of Information typically appoints GSIs and GSSAs to work 20 hours per week. To work more than 30 hours per week, graduate student employees need permission from their advisor. 

The University’s current proposal for a raise of 11.5% over the next 3 years would bring salaries to $26,821 for graduate student employees who work 20 hours a week. Following the hourly rate calculations outlined in the contract, the per-hour rate for this salary would be $38.68, which is more than 2 times the living wage calculated by MIT. Though most GSIs are appointed to work 16-20 hours per week, many international graduate students hold visas that explicitly prohibit them from working more than 20 hours per week, limiting their ability to accumulate a salary on par with that delineated by the living wage calculator. The 20 hours limitation means even if international graduate students work more than this amount, they are unable to report their extra work because it violates their visa. This can present continued barriers to affording the cost of living in Ann Arbor.

Money

GEO: In their platform, GEO says a $14,800 raise for all GSIs and GSSAs would cost the University about $30 million and would be a “drop in the bucket” in terms of the University’s expenses.

University: As of the 2022 fiscal year, the University had an endowment of $17.3 billion. The University spent $1.7 billion of its general fund on schools within the University. 

Fact Check: According to the University’s 2022-2023 budget, the Ann Arbor campus was forecasted to have revenues in excess of expenditures of $91,886,191. The University has an endowment of $17.3 billion. There are two types of endowment funds, true endowment and quasi-endowment funds. The University can only spend the true endowment funds as specified by the donors, but the University can spend quasi-endowment funds on long-term programs or projects deemed critical by the University. The quasi-endowment is partially made up of unrestricted funds meant for long term investment by the University. It is unclear whether unrestricted quasi-endowment money could be used to fund increased GSI and GSSA salaries.

According to an audit by Howard Bunsis, an accounting professor at Eastern Michigan University, it is estimated that the University of Michigan earns about $200 million in surplus tuition and fees when compared against graduate workers’ income. Bunsis said in the audit though it is unclear exactly how much money graduate workers’ research generates for the University, graduate workers do help generate a portion of the $1.4 billion. The University’s 2023-2024 budget has not been presented or approved by the Board of Regents yet, but will be approved at one of their 2023 summer meetings.

GEO Bargaining Power Scope

In their platform, and in ongoing contract negotiations, members of GEO’s bargaining unit have made demands of the University that GEO claims will benefit the entirety of the University and local Ann Arbor communities. The University claims these demands cannot be discussed without input from other groups.

GEO: Members of GEO who are advocating for demands such as expanded transgender health care coverage and non-police emergency response force have said they are fighting to improve conditions for the entire University community. According to GEO’s platform, the University should help pay for Washtenaw County’s planned community-led, non-police unarmed emergency response program because it would benefit the entire U-M community.

In an interview with The Michigan Daily, Michael Mueller, who serves on GEO’s organizing committee, emphasized the role GEO can play in moving the University forward, while also fighting for changes to their own labor conditions. Mueller said advancing the University’s coverage of health care and child care services, for example, would help make the University more inclusive.

“A lot of the demands will improve conditions for not just graduate students, but for (undergraduate) students (through) class size caps, for instance, and trans health demands would improve the experience of trans folks throughout the community,” Mueller said. “This is really about advancing a vision of a better university, not just for grad students, but for all of us.”

University: In a joint email sent out to the U-M community on March 24 from University President Santa Ono and University Provost Laurie McCauley, the administration claimed some of GEO’s demands were outside the scope of their bargaining power as a labor union. Ono and McCauley said any change that affects the whole U-M community should be considered by the broader campus community, not just members of GEO.

“GEO’s threat to strike is based on a number of issues, some of which are not related to GSIs’ and GSSAs’ wages, hours, and working conditions,” the email said. “Some of these issues are important for our campus and merit further discussion with diverse perspectives and other community groups.”

Fact Check: In an interview with The Daily, Joseph Slater, U-M Law School alum and University of Toledo law professor, said Michigan’s collective bargaining laws create a balance between a union’s bargaining rights and the rights of management. Slater said though he is not an expert on what is happening between U-M administration and GEO, it appears that many of the GEO bargaining demands are not directly related to pay, working hours and conditions, meaning those demands are in a gray area between union and employer rights.

“Michigan’s law is much like other state laws where there’s a fairly broad balancing test approach where, in general, workers can bargain about their things that affect their wages, hours and working conditions, while at the same time there are certain types of issues that are reserved to management as management rights,” Slater said. “There are things that kind of overlap in both categories, and those are close cases.”

According to Slater, there are three categories of collective bargaining topics: mandatory, illegal and permissive. Permissive bargaining topics are only discussed if both sides agree to bargain on the subject. Slater said though GEO’s demands of an addition of an unarmed community response team is very likely a permissive bargaining subject, he could see the argument for it relating to worker safety and therefore being a mandatory bargaining subject. 

“I would say it’s probably a good guess that restructuring (Division of Public Safety and Security) would likely be a permissive topic,” Slater said. “Now, the argument that it would be a mandatory topic is that typically worker safety issues are typically mandatory topics but restructuring the organization of an agency within the employer is typically a management right. Without offering a legal opinion, it’s likely that that is permissive in the sense that the employer could agree to (bargain about restructuring) if it wanted to. But (the University) doesn’t have to bargain about (DPSS).”

The Strike

GEO has been on strike since March 29. The University filed for an emergency injunction in Washtenaw County Circuit Court March 31 to end the strike on the grounds that they believe it was in violation of GEO’s contract and Michigan law and was causing irreparable harm to the University community. GEO claims the strike was a forced course of action based on the University’s unwillingness to bargain in good faith. 

GEO: According to members of GEO, the University is responsible for the ongoing strike. From their perspective, the University has not bargained in good faith or made any significant or serious changes to their counter-proposals.

University: According to the University, the current strike violates GEO’s current contract with the University, as well as Michigan law. The University has also claimed the strike has caused irreparable harm to the University.

Fact Check: It remains unclear whether or not the University has bargained in good faith. According to the Washtenaw County Circuit Court’s rejection of the emergency injunction, the University has not suffered irreparable harm because of the strike.

In GEO’s current contract, GEO and the University both agreed to comply fully with the Public Employment Relations Act, which prohibits both strikes and lockouts. The strike is illegal under Michigan law.

“A public employee shall not strike and a public school employer shall not institute a lockout,” the act said. “A public school employer does not violate this section if there is a total or partial cessation of the public school employer’s operations in response to a strike held in violation of this section.”

The strike also violates GEO’s current contract, specifically outlined in Article III.

“The Union, through its officials, will not cause, instigate, support or encourage, nor shall any Employee take part in, any concerted action against or any concerted interference with the operations of the University, such as the failure to report for duty, the absence from one’s position, the stoppage of work, or the failure, in whole or part, to fully, faithfully, and properly perform the duties of employment,” the contract said.

The Washtenaw County Circuit Court held an evidentiary hearing April 10 where a judge determined the University has not suffered irreparable harm from the strike. The court did not grant the injection so the GEO strike will continue.

Correction: This article has been updated to reflect that GEO has bargained for an unarmed community response team during their negotiations.

Daily Staff Reporter Bronwyn Johnston can be reached at jbronwyn@umich.edu. Daily Staff Reporter Miles Anderson can be reached at milesand@umich.edu.

The post Fact-checking GEO’s and the University’s claims about ongoing contract negotiations and strike appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

The University of Michigan announced Friday that it would be taking legal action against the Graduate Employees’ Organization by filing a complaint with Washtenaw County Circuit Court and seeking a preliminary injunction. In a hearing Tuesday morning, the court decided not to grant the injunction at that time, ruling that the University has not suffered irreparable harm because of the strike. Instead of granting a preliminary injunction, the court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for April 10 and may decide to issue an injunction then.

The University’s complaint claims that GEO’s ongoing strike constitutes a breach of contract and asks the court to call graduate students back to work immediately by affirming that the GEO strike is illegal under Michigan state employment law. 

The University filed a similar complaint against GEO the last time the union went on strike, in September 2020. At that time, GEO was protesting the University’s reopening plans during the COVID-19 pandemic, requesting greater health and safety protections for graduate workers and less funding for the U-M Division of Public Safety and Security. In 2020, the University requested a preliminary injunction six days after the GEO strike began; two days after that complaint was filed, and before the injunction could be granted, GEO voted to end their strike.

In an interview with The Michigan Daily, GEO President Jared Eno said he supports the court’s decision in the hearing Tuesday and believes that the University could end the strike through good faith bargaining with the union. 

“I think (the ruling) was the appropriate response to the situation,” Eno said. “Grad workers are on strike because they know that a better campus is possible. The university just argued in that hearing repeatedly, that the only way that they could end these negotiations was through an injunction to force us back to work. That’s absolutely untrue. The University can do this at any time by agreeing to pay its workers a living wage, by agreeing to make the workspaces on campus safe for everyone and to live up to its commitment to DEI.”

University spokesperson Rick Fitzgerald wrote in an email to The Daily that, following the hearing, the University will continue to pursue legal action and negotiation efforts simultaneously.

“The ongoing strike violates the law, defies the terms of the current contract and has created unnecessary disruption for our students,” Fitzgerald wrote. “The judge has given the University the opportunity to present evidence of the harm the strike has caused. We look forward to that hearing on Monday, as well as the continued progress of the negotiating teams.”

In a March 24 email sent out to the campus community, University President Santa Ono and University Provost Laurie McCauley said the University was planning to take legal action in order to continue their educational mission as soon as the strike started that same day.

“The University will take appropriate lawful actions to enable the continued delivery of our educational mission,” the email said. “Those actions will include asking a court to find a breach of contract and order strikers back to work, stopping the deduction of union dues, filing unfair labor practice charges, and not paying striking GSIs and (Graduate Student Staff Assistants) for time they do not work.”

In a University record article, GEO secretary Karthik Ganapathy wrote that GEO is frustrated that the University is taking legal action against the union instead of considering their demands.

“It is disappointing to me that instead of negotiating with us in good faith, the University has yet again decided to file an injunction against its own graduate students,” Ganapathy wrote. “When (the University) filed an injunction against us in 2020, the community rightly recognized it as an affront to grad workers and organized labor at large.”

Update 4/4: This article has been updated in include a statement from a University spokesperson.

Daily News Editor Riley Hodder can be reached at rehodder@umich.edu. Daily Staff Reporter Miles Anderson can be reached at milesand@umich.edu.

The post UMich requests injunction against GEO, decision delayed until evidentiary hearing appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

A few thousand graduate students, undergraduates, lecturers and Ann Arbor community members rallied on the Diag at the University of Michigan Wednesday in support of the Graduate Employees’ Organization’s decision to strike following months of unsuccessful contract negotiations with the University’s Academic Human Resources Department. 

The walk-out started at 10:24 a.m. to call attention to the fact that GEO is “walking away” from their current salary, which is just over $24,000. It was intended to mark the official start of GEO’s strike, which will continue until further notice.

The strike comes after months of activism by GEO, including filing an unfair labor practice charge, rallying at the February and March Board of Regents meetings, protesting University President Santa Ono’s inaugural procession and holding work-in at Haven Hall. 

In an interview with The Michigan Daily before the strike rally began, Rackham student Amir Fleischmann, chair of the GEO Contracts Committee, said graduate students want the University to bargain in good faith with GEO to address the issues graduate students are facing.

“I think we’re at a point in negotiations where things really aren’t moving quickly enough,” Fleischmann said. “Grad workers are very frustrated. They’re struggling to pay rent. They’re struggling to afford childcare. They lack access to gender-affirming care. And I think we’re saying enough is enough. The University needs to give us a fair contract now.”

At the start of the rally, GEO President Jared Eno spoke to the crowd and emphasized that the organization is on strike to fight for a better future for graduate students and the entire campus community.

“We are here right now because we know that a better world is possible,” Eno said. “We know that if we fight and we fight together, we will win.”

Following the opening speeches from GEO leaders, demonstrators marched across campus, starting at the Diag and ending at the Alexander G. Ruthven Building, where U-M administration offices are located. 

In an email to the campus community on March 24, Ono and University Provost Laurie McCauley wrote that the University may take legal action against GEO because they alleged that the work stoppage constitutes a breach of contract.

“The University will take appropriate lawful actions to enable the continued delivery of our educational mission in the event of a work disruption,” McCauley and Ono wrote. “Those actions will include asking a court to find a breach of contract and order strikers back to work, stopping the deduction of union dues, filing unfair labor practice charges, and not paying striking GSIs and GSSAs for time they do not work.”

In a press conference at the end of the rally, Eno said the University has yet to take any legal action against the union.

“The University has sent (GEO) multiple threatening letters,” Eno said. “We are not afraid of the University that would take us to court rather than pay us a living wage.”

In an interview with The Daily, University spokesperson Rick Fitzgerald confirmed that no legal action has been taken yet.

“There are some legal steps that we can take and I know the (legal) team’s carefully considering those right now,” Fitzgerald said. “(No legal action has been taken) that I’m aware of. That doesn’t mean it hasn’t taken place.”

LSA senior Kayla Tate, speaker for the Black Student Union, attended the rally and told The Daily she wanted to be there to support graduate students.

“We know this University is not a victim,” Tate said. “Rather, it is an active perpetrator of systemic injustice.”

Daily Staff Reporters Matthew Shanbom and Miles Anderson can be reached at shanbom@umich.edu and milesand@umich.edu.

The post GEO commences strike against UMich at 10:24 a.m. appeared first on The Michigan Daily.

In 2011, The Michigan Daily reported the University of Michigan spent about $40,000 annually replacing dinnerware stolen from campus dining halls. Now, more than a decade later, has anything changed?  

Susan Cramer, senior associate director of MDining, told The Daily in an email that the University now spends about $60,000 more annually than they did in 2011 to replace dinnerware. “Annually, MDining will spend close to $100,000 to replenish lost dinnerware and flatware, though our manufacturer replaces any broken or chipped dishware through a warranty program,” Cramer wrote. “Notably, MDining operational costs do not influence annual tuition rates, since tuition revenue pays for the core academic mission of the University (instruction, financial aid, academic advising, etc.).”

According to Cramer, thousands of items go missing from U-M dining halls each year. Not all of those are intentionally stolen, however. Cramer told The Daily she believes some dishes are accidentally thrown out and others are taken by students who do not know that all dinnerware and utensils should remain in the dining halls. 

“Over the course of an average academic year, MDining replaces (approximately) 22,000 pieces of flatware and dinnerware, which includes a combined 11,000 forks, knives and spoons; 4,000 plates; 5,000 bowls and 2,000 cups,” Cramer wrote. “Students may accidentally place dinnerware and/or flatware in compost bins along with their compostable items or may be unaware that dinnerware and flatware should remain in the halls.”

While it is difficult to pinpoint exactly why students take reusable dinnerware from campus dining halls, LSA sophomore Flynn Lyon theorized that many students may have simply forgotten to pack utensils and plasticware with them when they moved into their residence hall.

“I think the main thing is convenience,” Lyon said. “A lot of people when they first move in, their thoughts are ‘I need to get a lamp, I need to get bedsheets and to get all these big things for my dorm.’ And I think a lot of people don’t really think about dinnerware or smaller things like that.”

Lyon recounted a story from his freshman year when he frequented the Mosher-Jordan dining hall. Lyon said one day, there were no forks in the dining hall which made eating his meal a challenge. So the next day, when the forks had been replenished, he decided to take a few with him to ensure he always had a fork when going to eat. Lyon said stealing forks became somewhat of a game until he had accumulated over 200 of them in his dorm room. 

“It snowballed into this bit: ‘How many forks can I steal from the dining hall?’ ” Lyon said. “I think it got up to around 250 to 260, somewhere around there, before I eventually ended up getting in trouble and met with my hall director. I gave them back obviously.”

No matter the reasoning behind the missing items, LSA junior Ava Dobos, dining hall student manager, told The Daily the theft tangibly affects both dining hall workers and people who eat there. Dobos said the lack of silverware and dishes increases wait times in the dining halls. 

“With the amount of people we serve in a night, we can get really low on silverware very quickly,” Dobos said. “We get low on dishes for certain places and that creates a wait time for people. But I don’t know if I credit that just to stealing; stuff gets broken.”

To temporarily address shortages due to lost and broken dinnerware, U-M dining halls have occasionally had to rely on compostable alternatives, which were also used at all campus dining halls during the pandemic. Cramer noted that using disposable dinnerware may inadvertently make students more likely to take reusable dishes out of the dining hall if they become used to taking their meals to-go. 

“MDining often observes an increase in lost items when reintroducing permanent dinnerware and flatware after prolonged compostables usage, which may occur during periods of staffing shortages and equipment downtime,” Cramer wrote. “This increase in lost dinnerware and flatware may be due to students becoming more accustomed to taking compostable pieces with them outside dining spaces.”

Dobos said she often finds dinnerware thievery is blatantly obvious, though she and her fellow staff cannot do much to stop it. 

“If we’re up at the host end, it’s really easy to see when people are walking out with stuff,” Dobos said. “If we see it before they leave the dining hall, we can say, ‘Hey take that to the dish room,’ or something along those lines, but once they’re out, we can’t chase them down.”

To gently encourage students to return stolen dishes and silverware, Cramer wrote that U-M dining halls and residence halls place dish collection bins throughout the residence halls, especially towards the end of the term. That way students can return their dishes — no questions asked.

“M-Dining works closely with Michigan Housing to place ‘amnesty’ boxes throughout residential halls, where students can return dinnerware and/or flatware without fear of punishment,” Cramer wrote. “Dirty dishes may also invite pests and roommate arguments if not promptly removed or cleaned.”

Daily Staff Reporter Miles Anderson can be reached at milesand@umich.edu.

The post <strong>Silver-where?: Why are UMich students stealing dishes from campus dining halls?</strong> appeared first on The Michigan Daily.