## Overview
Students and employees at the University of Michigan are criticizing a new policy that governs the use of surveillance cameras across the university’s campuses. Many argue that the changes weaken oversight, transparency and privacy protections that existed in the prior rules, especially amid ongoing campus protests.
## Key changes in the policy
The updated document is a Standard Practice Guide that now applies to all U-M campuses and central administration. It was posted on October 27 on the university’s website, along with an article claiming the policy underscores U-M’s commitment to privacy, transparency and responsible use of technology.
Major changes include:
- Removal of the formal requirement to seek input from students and staff when shaping camera policies.
- Deletion of language that treated certain policy violations as misconduct potentially leading to termination.
- Elimination of explicit rules on access to and retention of video, including a written requirement to erase footage after 30 days unless it was needed for an investigation.
Previously, responsibility for the camera policy was assigned to an executive vice president and the university’s chief financial officer. Under the new rules, authority shifts to the executive director of the Department of Public Safety and Security, supported by the vice president and chief financial officer, which alarms activists given recent civil-rights lawsuits against campus police.
## Faculty and governance concerns
Some faculty members say they were not notified about the revisions despite earlier involvement in debates over surveillance. Derek Peterson, a history professor and chair of the Faculty Senate, said he had no prior knowledge of the new camera policy, even though the senate had staked out a position in July seeking robust regulatory oversight over camera deployment and use.
> “We had established a stance in July indicating that we want appropriate regulatory oversight regarding the deployment and usage of these cameras.”
In a previous letter, the Faculty Senate emphasized that the university should not share “information or data that would enable [others] to identify, locate, apprehend” U-M students, faculty or staff. Law professor Michael Steinberg recalled hearing at the start of the semester about a planned advisory committee on these technologies, but he was not aware of any broad consultation before the new policy was finalized.
> “This reflects a trend of diminishing shared governance at the university. It is troubling that this policy was adopted without an oversight board and without input from student government or the Faculty.”
## Student privacy and surveillance fears
Some of the most pointed criticism comes from law students and faculty worried about powerful new cameras installed in sensitive areas. A prominent example is a large camera on the law quad that can rotate 360 degrees and zoom in on spaces like the Lawyers Club, a residence for law students.
> “They have zoom capabilities and night vision, enabling them to observe dormitories. How can privacy be maintained in your own home when you are under constant surveillance?” said Lily Chavez, a second-year law student and co-president of the Law School’s American Civil Liberties Union chapter.
Chavez explained that 21 law student organizations have formed an Anti-Surveillance Coalition to oppose the policies. Around 70 people recently attended a luncheon focused on the issue, and coalition members have reached out to interim Law School Dean Mark West (as reported by the Free Press summary) to discuss their concerns, with a meeting reportedly agreed to.
## University’s defense of the policy
University officials declined an interview about the newly adopted rules but defended them in written statements. Spokesperson Kay Jarvis said the university has legal and ethical obligations to protect the confidentiality, privacy and security of its information and data and insisted that information is kept secure.
She stated that outside law enforcement agencies seeking camera footage must present appropriate warrants or subpoenas. Jarvis also said that use of security cameras complies with federal, state and local laws and does not violate privacy or civil liberties.
The Department of Public Safety and Security hosts a Q&A on its website explaining that cameras are generally not monitored in real time, that access to footage is restricted to trained personnel, and that recordings are stored for only 30 days unless needed for an investigation. However, critics note that these safeguards are not clearly written into the revised policy itself, which raises doubts about how binding they are.
## Policy language and protest activity
Surveillance worries on campus have intensified over the past two years as U-M has seen numerous demonstrations related to the Israel-Hamas conflict. The new policy states that cameras and related technologies may not be used “with the intent to chill, prevent or punish speech or association.”
Opponents argue that this framing focuses on intent rather than actual effect, which they see as a significant weakening of protection. Chavez suggested the wording leaves a “large loophole,” because the university can claim that recordings of protests or student gatherings are taken for safety or security purposes rather than to suppress expression.
> “It appears that if the university claims it’s for safety, it can still document protests or student gatherings. The previous policy prohibited surveillance that effectively restrained expression. Now, there seems to be a shift from focusing on outcomes to intent, which significantly weakens accountability.”
## Transparency and data access issues
Unlike some other universities that openly share how many security cameras they use, U-M has declined to release this information. The university denied a Free Press public-records request filed under the Freedom of Information Act that sought details about camera locations and numbers.
Citing a FOIA exemption, officials said they can withhold documents that would reveal security measures if disclosure could compromise ongoing security operations. For critics, this refusal further undermines confidence that the camera system is subject to meaningful public oversight.
## One-sentence summary
The article chronicles growing resistance at the University of Michigan to a revised campus security camera policy that centralizes authority, softens explicit safeguards and heightens fears about surveillance of protests and student life.
more
Detroit Free Press — 2025-11-29