"Our causes are aligned," said Jesse Estrada White, a student organizer with the Hurriya Coalition. "We are both pushing for something from the university and … (the faculty) have supported us."

The Union of Tenure System Faculty

At the rally and during public comments, UTSF organizers insisted that a strong tenure-system faculty union would improve the university as a whole, and criticized the university for what they see as a stalling of the negotiation process. 

"Your representatives have wasted so much time, energy, and money on delay tactics," said Danny Caballero, a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, during public comment. "They’ve gone past their self-imposed deadlines, they’ve provided us incomplete and inaccurate information, they appear unserious and disrespectful in our meetings, and they have failed to uphold the values of this university."

The university administration is represented by South Carolina-based law firm Ogletree Deakins in union negotiations. 

MSU President Kevin Guskiewicz denied that administration and its legal representatives have been uncooperative. 

"I believe strongly that the administration is working in good faith, to resolve this, to do it right," he said during media availability following the meeting.

The union first launched its campaign in November 2023, hoping to gain more power in administrative decision making. 

The union made swift progress initially, announcing just the next month that it had received the majority support among tenure-track faculty needed for MSU to proceed with voluntarily recognizing the union. 

But progress slowed soon after, with union organizers first sounding the alarm in January that university administration was intentionally stalling the process by failing to provide a list of all employees MSU considered to be part of the bargaining unit.  

Since then, the parties have been at a stalemate, unable to reach an agreement on who exactly counts as tenure-system faculty. In March, the parties agreed on a third-party arbitrator to mediate these negotiations — as stipulated by a provision in the board policy governing unionization — who is tasked with hearing arguments from both parties before ruling if the union’s proposed bargaining unit is reasonable. 

The length of the negotiations has been particularly irritating to faculty members who have consistently argued that the board’s unionization policy, which passed along party lines in 2021 and was supported by Democrats, should uniquely position the university to promptly certify the union. 

Before that resolution, unions would have to go through the Michigan Employment Relations Commission — the state agency that solves labor-related disputes and can formally recognize unions — which would administer an election as long as the union could prove it had 30% support among the relevant subset of employees. 

But the 2021 resolution allowed unions to bypass that certification route and instead receive voluntary recognition directly from the university, a process union organizers have lauded as "more democratic." It also mandates that university officials stay neutral on any unionization efforts and regulates the sort of information the university can provide to the union.

The UTSF push has been the first test of how that new policy affects unionization efforts at MSU. 

As of yet, despite the intentions of the Democratic trustees who passed it in 2021, the policy has done little to quell frustrations among union organizers or expedite the negotiations. 

One public commenter, professor of psychology Erik Altmann, gave a contrasting view from union organizers on the board policy. He argued the neutrality provision places an unfair "gag order" on administrators during negotiations. 

"I need to hear from my chair and my dean how they think a union will affect the functioning of their units, because that's important for my work," Altmann said. "They have an important perspective to share, and they deserve to be heard."

Altmann also said he believes a MERC-administered vote is a better, more democratic process than the voluntary recognition process the board policy allows for. 

"Minority rule does not work out, so I hope you will allow this to be an open and democratic process," Altmann said. 

Divestment

Students and faculty continued their calls for divestment from Israel at Friday’s meeting, though their advocacy was more subdued than previous demonstrations, which have temporarily halted board meetings. 

Demonstrators held up "DIVEST NOW" signs during the meeting and spoke during public comment. 

Board Secretary Stefan Fletcher started the meeting by saying that major disruptions could delay the meeting and limit time allowed for public comment.

Guskiewicz has taken a different public approach to demonstrators in recent weeks, emphasizing the university’s commitment to "civil discourse" and saying he wants to encourage free speech within a safe and inclusive environment. 

Divya Victor, an English professor, asked the board during public comment to recognize that the students advocating for divestment are doing what MSU encouraged them to do. 

"Let us recognize the importance of their expression," Victor said. "They are demonstrating empathy with those who are needing it most urgently."

Daniel Ahlquist, a James Madison College professor, reminded the board of a policy requiring the university to "exhibit social conscience" in their investment strategy.

"It is not antisemitic to hold corporations and even the government of Israel accountable when their actions threaten human life, rights, and futures," said Ahlquist, who identified himself as Jewish during his speech. "We are told that divestment is complicated, and it no doubt is, but that’s not a good enough reason not to do it."

Activists have focused much of their attention on a $236,114 bond listed in the university’s 2023 investments as "Israel aid," which they say funds Israel’s war on Gaza. 

Their advocacy hasn’t gone very far. The board said in April that trustees would review the university’s investment portfolio but would not consider divestment. Guskiewicz said at the time the university is "doing everything to protect the endowment and our financial investments from any political influence." 

But activists argue that regardless of which direction the money is flowing or the life stage of the bond, it has a material stake in the state’s success — something they say is not a neutral or apolitical position by MSU.

"This investment aligns MSU with a state that is actively engaged in an illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, and a genocide in Gaza — actions that are condemned by international human rights groups and the International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world," said Jennifer Goett, a James Madison College professor.

Both the undergraduate and graduate student governments have passed resolutions calling for divestment in recent months. In April, 90 faculty members signed an open letter calling for divestment and criticizing an earlier Faculty Senate decision not to pass a divestment resolution.

MSU has insisted that Israel no longer receives money from MSU through the bond. At a meeting with reporters this summer, Chief Financial Officer Philip Zecher insisted that MSU isn’t actively giving Israel money through the bond. Israel is currently repaying the bond-holders, he said.

Divestment wouldn’t be feasible due to the complicated nature of MSU’s investment profile, Zecher added.

Student life reporter Demonte Thomas contributed reporting.