By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following public outcry and a Guardian exposé revealing misconduct, the University of Michigan terminated its contract with City Shield, a private security firm, for undercover surveillance of pro-Palestinian student groups. The university president acknowledged the investigators’ actions violated university values and directives, stating that no one should be targeted for their beliefs. At least $800,000 was paid to City Shield between June 2023 and September 2024, with some evidence collected used to charge and jail students. While the university president claims no targeting occurred, critics argue the surveillance solely focused on pro-Palestinian activists.
Read the original article here
The University of Michigan’s recent decision to end all contracts with external vendors providing plainclothes security on campus follows revelations by the Guardian about the university’s use of undercover surveillance. President Domenico Grasso’s email to students and faculty, announcing the termination of these contracts, cited an employee of one of their security contractors acting in ways that contradicted the university’s values and directives. This explanation, however, feels somewhat lacking. It’s easy to see this as a case of damage control, reacting to being caught rather than proactively addressing underlying issues.
The statement avoids specifics, leaving many unanswered questions. While the university claims to have only recently learned of this employee’s actions, the timing raises eyebrows. The sheer amount of money involved – at least $800,000 paid to Ameri-Shield, City Shield’s parent company, between June 2023 and September 2024 – suggests a significant and established program. This expenditure, easily lost within a larger university budget, raises questions about transparency and accountability. The fact that this significant sum was paid out for what amounts to undercover surveillance within the university itself, should also give rise to questions about how this kind of activity is justified at a public institution. It’s certainly a sum that would be noticed in the tuition fees that students pay.
The “rogue employee” defense, while convenient, feels insufficient. It suggests a lack of oversight and accountability within the university’s security contracting process. The university’s claim to be terminating contracts only with those directly implicated leaves open the possibility that similar surveillance activities may continue under different vendors or arrangements. The statement does not directly address concerns about the nature of the surveillance or who was targeted, leaving unanswered questions about whether the university’s surveillance activities focused on particular student groups, for example.
This incident, along with other recent controversies, casts a shadow over the University of Michigan’s reputation. The apparent shift away from diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and the overall implication of a tolerance for actions deemed “fascist” by some, further erodes public trust. The university’s past reputation for excellence seems increasingly at odds with recent actions. This begs the question of whether the current administration truly understands the importance of maintaining a campus environment where students feel safe, respected, and empowered to voice their opinions freely, without fear of covert surveillance.
There’s a disconnect between the university’s stated values and its actions. The university seems to be responding to the negative publicity rather than engaging in genuine reflection on its practices. The email hints at a problem bigger than a “rogue employee” and leaves room to wonder about the extent to which university leadership knew about or was aware of the nature of the contracts they were engaging in and paying for. The emphasis on terminating contracts only with those who were directly implicated lacks a more holistic and meaningful examination of the underlying causes of the issues.
This raises broader concerns about the use of surveillance in higher education. The potential for abuse of such power, especially against marginalized groups, is a significant risk. The university’s response, while seemingly swift in its termination of the contracts in question, needs a far more thorough approach. This involves not just severing ties with contractors but also reassessing the university’s approach to security and its commitment to protecting the rights and safety of all students, faculty, and staff. Only then can the university begin to repair the damage to its reputation and regain the trust it has lost in this incident. The university’s response appears reactive and does not address the underlying concerns regarding the use of surveillance within a public university context.