LDB Applauds University of Michigan for Addressing Professor’s Discriminatory Conduct

On September 21st, the Brandeis Center’s President Alyza Lewin and Director of Legal Initiatives Aviva Vogelstein, sent a letter to University of Michigan’s President Dr. Mark D. Schlissel, urging his administration to take further action following a discriminatory incident by a professor. Professor John Cheney-Lippold refused to provide a letter of recommendation to a University of Michigan student upon realizing that she intended to study abroad in Israel.

The university has since disciplined the professor, condemned the actions of a second instructor who refused to provide a letter of recommendation to a student, and created a panel to examine “the intersection between political thought/ideology and faculty members’ responsibilities to students.”Additionally, the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs (SACUA) passed a resolution declaring that faculty should base their decision to write letters of recommendation on a student’s merit.

Professor Cheney-Lippold, who had previously agreed to write a letter of recommendation for the student claimed that “many university departments have pledged an academic boycott against Israel in support of Palestinians living in Palestine. This boycott includes writing letters of recommendation for students planning to study there … for reasons of these politics, I must rescind my offer to write your letter.”

University of Michigan has previously condemned academic boycotts. In 2013, the University President, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Provost released a statement regarding BDS, stating that “The University of Michigan strongly opposes the boycott of academic institutions in Israel.” In 2017, members of the university’s governing Board of Regents stated, “we strongly oppose any action involving the boycott, divestment or sanction of Israel.”

On September 18th, President Schlissel released a statement condemning the professor’s actions, saying:

“Injecting personal politics into a decision regarding support for our students is counter to our values and expectations as an institution. The academic goals of our students are of paramount importance. It is the university’s position to take all steps necessary to make sure our students are supported … While members of the University of Michigan community have a wide range of individual opinions on this and many other topics, the university has consistently opposed any boycott of Israeli institutions of higher education. No academic department or any other unit at the University of Michigan has taken a stance that departs from this long-held university position.”

On September 20th, he followed up by saying that “The Regents, Executive Officers and I have been deeply engaged in this matter. We will be taking appropriate steps to address this issue and the broader questions it has raised.”

In their letter, the Brandeis Center pointed out the fact that the professor’s refusal to write the letter of recommendation, solely based of his political views, violates the University’s Faculty Handbook, which declares that it is “an open and accepting community” where differences based on a multitude of factors are “welcomed, nurtured, and respected.”

Additionally, the professor’s conduct violates the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Michigan, and potentially violates state and federal anti-boycott law:

“The professor is surely aware that most of the students at the University of Michigan who choose to continue academically at a university in Israel are Jewish. Hence, regardless of his personal intent – which was, we believe, contrary to federal and state anti-boycott laws – the necessary effect of the professor’s refusal to write a letter of recommendation for any student seeking to study in Israel is to prejudice Jewish students at the University of Michigan. The United States Supreme Court has declared that discrimination is illegal and unconstitutional regardless of personal intent if it has a ‘disparate impact’ based on race or religion. E.g.Texas Dep’t of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 135 S. Ct. 2507, 2521-2522 (2015). The professor’s public declaration plainly has a “disparate impact” on Jewish students at the University.”

Furthermore, if a hostile campus climate develops for Jewish or Israeli students, the University risks violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs against anyone on the basis of their race, color, or national origin. In 2004, the Marcus Policy extended Title VI protection to Jewish students based on shared ethnic or ancestral characteristics. As the letter points out:

“Harassment rises to the level of a ‘hostile environment’ when the conduct is ‘sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities or opportunities offered by a school district.’ Jewish students have a proclivity to study in Israel due to the Jewish historic and spiritual connection to ‘Zion’/ the Land of Israel.”

Therefore, “If these students are denied letters of recommendation, they are denied the services and opportunities provided by the university – which by definition amounts to a hostile environment.”

On September 24th, the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs (SACUA) passed a resolution declaring that faculty should only base their decision to write letters of recommendation on a student’s merit, not their political beliefs. While the Brandeis Center was pleased to learn of the resolution issued by the faculty senate, the Brandeis Center recommended, as listed in their letter, that President Schlissel reiterate his position on the professor’s actions, direct the professor to write a letter of recommendation for the student, discipline him if he is found to have violated school policies, and make it clear to all professors that such conduct could lead to disciplinary action. Additionally, the university should provide “mandatory training and education to all faculty members on how anti-Semitism is often manifested as anti-Zionism, and make it clear to the university community that anti-Jewish discrimination will not be tolerated on campus, just like other forms of racial and religious hate have no place at the university.”

The University of Michigan has now disciplined Professor Cheney-Lippold. A letter from Elizabeth Cole, interim dean of the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and details the discipline Professor Cheney-Lippold will receive. According to the October 3rd letter, he will not receive a merit raise during this 2018-2019 school year. He will also not be allowed to go on his upcoming sabbatical in January or another sabbatical for two years. If he is found guilty of similar conduct in the future, he could also face dismissal.

Additionally, Cole expressed disapproval of his actions, saying, “Your conduct has fallen far short of the University’s and College’s expectations for how LSA faculty interact with and treat students. This letter is a strong warning that your behavior in this circumstance was inappropriate and will not be tolerated … In the future, a student’s merit should be your primary guide for determining how and whether to provide a letter of recommendation. You are not to use student requests for recommendations as a platform to discuss your personal political beliefs.”

On October 9th, it was discovered that a second instructor at the university had declined to provide a letter of recommendation for a student. When a half-Israeli student asked his graduate student instructor, Lucy Peterson, for a letter of recommendation, she said she would “be delighted.” However, after learning that he intended to study in Israel, she informed him that she would not write the letter. In an email that echoes that of Professor Cheney-Lippold, she said, “I’m so sorry that I didn’t ask before agreeing to write your recommendation letter, but I regrettably will not be able to write on your behalf. Along with numerous other academics in the US and elsewhere, I have pledged myself to a boycott of Israeli institutions as a way of showing solidarity with Palestine. Please know that this decision is not about you as a student or a person, and I would be happy to write a recommendation for you if you end up applying to other programs.”

That same day, President Schlissel released another statement condemning the actions of both instructors, reiterating the university’s stance on BDS, and announcing the creation of a “panel of distinguished faculty members to examine the intersection between political thought/ideology and faculty members’ responsibilities to students.” The primary objectives of the panel are to examine relevant university policy, gather and review relevant policy statements of peer institutions, gather input from stakeholders across the university, and “to recommend how to clarify current policy or create new policy that clearly articulates institutional principles and expectations at the intersection of faculty members’ responsibilities to students and their personal views.” He added:

“Withholding letters of recommendation based on personal views does not meet our university’s expectations for supporting the academic aspirations of our students. Conduct that violates this expectation and harms students will not be tolerated and will be addressed with serious consequences. Such actions interfere with our students’ opportunities, violate their academic freedom and betray our university’s educational mission … We will work to make absolutely clear that faculty members’ personal political beliefs cannot interfere with their obligations to our students with regard to letter-writing and all other modes of academic support.”