Table of Contents
Thought Reform and Compelled Speech at Michigan State
Today, 蜜桃直播 issued a press release on the simply stunning thought reform program at Michigan State University. The university鈥檚 Student Accountability in Community seminar (SAC) forces students whose speech or behavior is deemed unacceptable to undergo ideological reeducation at their own expense. While the 鈥渟eminar鈥 can be either a 鈥渧oluntary鈥 or mandatory sanction, according to Michigan State administrators a student can receive a mandatory sanction for something as minimal as slamming a door in an argument. A mandatory SAC sanction, by the way, means that if you do not complete the four pseudo-psychological 鈥渆ducational鈥 sessions a hold will be placed on your account鈥攊n other words, you are effectively expelled.
I鈥檓 not sure I would have believed it if I hadn鈥檛 actually been there. In 2002, I attended a session called 鈥How to Increase Student Accountability in Your Campus Community鈥 at the Association for Student Judicial Affairs (ASJA) meeting in Clearwater, Florida. The session was hosted by Michigan State administrators in an effort to promote the SAC program as a model for other universities to follow in dealing with their students. Before the session started, there was a graph on the white board. At the bottom of the graph they listed 鈥減ractical jokes鈥; at the top of the graph they listed 鈥渁ssault鈥 and 鈥渞ape.鈥
I thought to myself, 鈥減lease don鈥檛 tell me they are going to say what I think they are going to say.鈥 What I was worried they were going to say was 鈥渨e鈥檝e noticed that people who engage in lower-level behaviors such as practical jokes are often the ones who eventually commit offenses like assault and rape, and we think that it is important to sentence these students to 鈥榓ccountability training鈥 as early as possible.鈥 Lo and behold, that was essentially exactly what they said鈥nd it only went downhill from there.
The SAC program is essentially this: You are caught speaking or behaving in a way that may not be punishable in other ways but is deemed aggressive by a university administrator. You are made to sit down in a room with an administrator for four sessions鈥攚hich you have to pay for out of your own pocket!鈥攊n order learn how to take greater 鈥渁ccountability鈥 for what you have done. You first write down what you think you did wrong鈥攚hich, by the looks of it, is never the 鈥渃orrect鈥 way to say it. You are then given the 鈥Power and Control Wheel鈥 and asked to list the ways you may have used 鈥減rivilege,鈥 鈥渙bfuscation,鈥 or 鈥渉oneymooning.鈥 (I鈥檓 serious. Check out the program materials yourself). You are then asked to fill out the forms again and again until you give the 鈥渃orrect鈥 answer.
We elucidate what this training means in practice in our letter to Michigan State, referencing the 2002 ASJA session:
An example given at the conference was of a student who had been sentenced to mandatory SAC program 鈥渢raining鈥 for being rude to a dormitory receptionist. His initial explanation of what he had done wrong was 鈥淚 should鈥檝e been more polite.鈥 The leaders of the ASJA session, however, explained that this was not an adequate response, stating that the eventual 鈥渃orrect鈥 answer was 鈥淚 feel entitled to be in the residence hall and that鈥檚 wrong.鈥
Yup. Confess your sense of entitlement and you get to stay at Michigan State! (We also noted in our letter that 鈥済iven how much students have to pay to stay in dormitories at most colleges, perhaps his initial answer鈥攖hat he simply should not have been rude to the receptionist鈥攚as indeed the right answer.鈥)
The whole session was like that, just example after example of theories, practices, and pseudo-psychological counseling. Thankfully I was not the only person in the audience who was disturbed by this program, but there were others who seemed to buy into it hook, line and sinker. As we noted in our letter, one audience member asked, 鈥淗ow do I deal with people with religious beliefs that 鈥榡ustify鈥 their anger?鈥
How did the administrators from Michigan State leading the session respond? 鈥淩eligious beliefs may be a form of obfuscation.鈥 I could hardly believe my ears.
This quote, among many others, and the fact that the program was apparently designed by members of the school鈥檚 domestic violence program, helped me see this program for what it really is: a reeducation program intended to root out even appropriate or justifiable hostility among students. This is social engineering at its worst and utterly ignores the privacy, autonomy, and individual dignity of students.
I cannot do justice to the scale of wrongs embodied in this program. As I did in today鈥檚 press release, I urge readers to review our letter and the program materials. 鈥淥rwellian鈥 may be a bit over-used these days, but this program truly earns that description. The legal problems with the program鈥攑articularly at a public university like Michigan State鈥攍eave me flabbergasted. As we note in our letter:
Possible claims against MSU for operating such a program include federal and state constitutional claims for having and enforcing an unconstitutional speech code, for compelling people to speak against their will (something that has been anathema to free societies since long before the Barnette case), for basic denial of due process, and even鈥攇iven the statements of the hosts of the ASJA seminar and the specific assumptions required by the 鈥減ower wheels鈥濃攆or possible violations of both the constitutionally protected freedom of religion, and, according to at least one legal analyst who examined the policy, the establishment clause. Further, the SAC program arguably violates MSU鈥檚 contractual promises of free speech and due process, forces students to unlawfully self-incriminate under threat of expulsion, violates both state and federal privacy laws. Simply put, the SAC program is a legal minefield.
Nearly five years after I first attended the ASJA session, I had hoped that the SAC program had gone the way of the Dodo, but this summer we had a legal intern call to see if the program was up and running. The university confirmed that the program was still in place and remained essentially unchanged. We had originally intended simply to write a law review article about the myriad threats to individual liberty posed by such programs, but decided that we could not let the SAC program at Michigan State remain unchallenged. Michigan State has said it will review the program, but we can think of no way the university can rectify the situation except by abolishing the program entirely.
Recent Articles
FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.
Introducing Expression, 蜜桃直播's official new Substack
Free speech has a new home. 蜜桃直播 is now on Substack 鈥 delivering fearless commentary, analysis, and storytelling straight to your inbox. Join the conversation.
People want AI regulation 鈥 but they don鈥檛 trust the regulators
As AI reshapes the world around us, survey data shows rising support for its regulation. Are we protecting society, or baking censorship into our digital future?
No gay rights without free expression
蜜桃直播鈥檚 latest rankings show alarming support for censorship among LGBT students. But as Kirchick explains, there would be no LGBT rights without free speech.
University of Michigan has ended private surveillance contracts but the chill on free speech remains
After public outcry, UMich ditched its private spy firm 鈥 but the damage is done. Students may no longer be watched, but the chill on campus speech is alive and well.