The following article is an opinion and does not reflect the views of The Eagle or its staff. All opinions are edited and fact-checked for grammar, style, and argument structure, but the opinions are the author's own.
With a single press of the “send” button, American University’s administration has completely rolled back its previous freedom of expression policy, which was enacted in August 2022. The policy, which was effectively watered down by the administration, was carefully curated by members of AU's faculty, legal experts, and administrators.
On January 25, President Sylvia Burwell and other administrators strictly prohibited protests inside university buildings, required all posters to “promote inclusivity,” and announced that the club would “promote inclusivity.” issued a memo mandating that students be welcomed. Opposition to this ordinance is not rooted in students wanting to promote exclusivity, but rather in the impact this vague language has on students, clubs, and other organizations. As stakeholders in the university, students should have the right to express dissent on campus.
In enacting this ban, the university violated its own “Development and Publication of University Policy.” It states: “Responsible management should consult with relevant stakeholder groups and subject matter experts, as appropriate, to ensure that the overall impact of reversing the policy is achieved.'' ” is stipulated. “Considered” did not happen. Furthermore, the ambiguity mixed in with this memo is intentional and will likely dampen the student's speech. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the “chilling effect” refers to the phenomenon in which individuals or groups refrain from expressive activities for fear of disciplinary action, and typically occurs when “laws are too broad or too vague.” . .
The ban has received widespread attention, with prominent groups such as PEN America, FIRE, and the AU chapter of the American Association of University Professors, among others, opposing recent bans on free expression on campus. The memo states that AU has “allowed a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students to grow and thrive on campus.” Title VI complaints on behalf of Jewish and Israeli students It was enacted after it was submitted to the university.
This opposition suggests that these regulations are aimed at censoring the expression of dissent against particular views. The University has a legal obligation to follow and enforce federal harassment laws when someone is targeted by a protected class. Students have an affirmative right not to be harassed. This does not include witnessing demonstrations of opposing views. If student protests violated anti-harassment laws, AU had a duty to enforce anti-harassment laws. Instead, it issued a sweeping statement that categorically restricted freedom of expression.
Since January, there has been understandable confusion surrounding this ban, including what rights we actually lost. However, this lack of understanding surrounding free speech on campus is not a new concept. Many members of the university community have previously lacked adequate knowledge of the scope of freedom of expression. This in itself speaks to what universities should do to promote understanding of conduct rules that, if violated, can lead to disciplinary action. The memo, enacted in January, amends a policy that community members did not yet understand and provides no guidance for those affected.
Although there has been no communication from the university to faculty or students, a request has been made to the Freedom of Expression Committee to answer questions that the administration cannot answer. The only enforcement information provided is that a new administrator will be hired for enforcement. AU plans to pay new officials to limit student speech on campus, despite his $33 million deficit. This lack of guidance only perpetuates confusion and ambiguity. Introducing such fundamental policy changes must be accompanied by a clear implementation plan.
Previous policies in place were not developed top-down by administrators alone, but in consultation with faculty and First Amendment experts, and were designed to address dissent on campus. Provides a standard of confusion. Before their rights were completely taken away, students did not have unlimited rights to express their opinions or protest. Part E of the Freedom of Expression and Expressive Conduct Policy states:
“Freedom of expression necessarily includes the freedom to engage in dissent, including non-disruptive rebuttal and protest. In academic settings, members of the community are encouraged to ask questions, think critically, and express themselves. The right to dissent does not include the right to silence the protected speech of others. Universities have a responsibility to respect the right of others to communicate and be heard. Additionally, the University has long recognized the right to protest and demonstrate, including by disrupting University operations and those of others. It also includes a responsibility not to jeopardize safety.”
The substantial interference standard is a widely recognized concept for regulating student speech. Ambient noise is always present in virtually every building on a college campus. So “chaos” isn't just hearing protests on the quad coming from Kerwin's classroom. Rather, the anti-speech protest must clearly disrupt the normal use of the building and preclude the holding of an educational lawsuit.
In other words, the original freedom of expression policy indicated that the university valued student expression, particularly protest and dissent, but could not exceed a certain threshold of disruption. This new ban, in short, sends the message that the university doesn't care if your protests are quieter or quieter than the noise of the line at Hissho Sushi. . In theory, a protester blocking pedestrian access to a building would be treated the same as a student merely wearing an armband. Protests of any kind will not be allowed.
Not only is the wording of this ban problematic, but its ambiguous nature adds another layer to its worrisome nature. The policy also states that clubs cannot promote anything other than what is ” germane ” to the group's purpose, but what vague language like “promoting inclusivity” actually means, the community It's unclear. This means beekeeping associations cannot publicly support Black Lives Matter. This is because it is not “close” to the organization's philosophy. But if they don't promote inclusivity, they will “lose the university's visibility” and subsequently lose all funding. These two concepts are seemingly mutually exclusive. Clubs and organizations will cease involvement in issues such as arming the AUPD and pledging support for social justice issues. This is because they are at risk of being sanctioned by the university for actions that are arbitrarily determined by unknown administrators to be unrelated.
Vicki Wilkins, acting provost and chief academic officer, announced the creation of a “free expression task force to provide a forum for faculty and staff to discuss and consider these issues.” And when possible, provide guidance to the community. ” While this is a positive step in theory, Lara Schwartz, a professor in the School of Public Affairs who is the founder of the Civic Dialogue Project, wrote to Mr. Burwell and Mr. Wilkins that they “do not wish to serve on the committee.” He announced his withdrawal from the working group for the following reasons. Commission to Review Potential Restrictions on Freedom of Expression at American University. ” This illustrates the highly concerning nature of this ban. One of our faculty members, who was previously integral to our free expression policy, is concerned that the working group will encourage the continued restriction of expression on campus.
The Freedom of Expression Policy 2022 defines each element discussed and leaves no room for ambiguity. As of this year, the term “protest” is not even defined by the university. This makes it very difficult to measure or enforce what activities students are allowed to engage in. What is a protest? How does the university determine what is and is not pertinent to student organizations? The rules of conduct established by the university are not mandatory per se. The ambiguous nature of this policy is alarming to say the least. Ambiguity and ambiguity are harmful tools that chill speech, discouraging students from saying things that could get them into trouble for saying the wrong thing. This phenomenon is extremely harmful and will have a lasting impact on the very nature of the AU. If student voices continue to grow cold, the advocacy and transformative nature of this school will essentially cease to exist. It is clear to this university that if we want to address this deeply polarizing moment in our community's history, dialogue and opposition, not regulations and restrictions, is the only way forward. must.
Alice Still is a sophomore in the School of Public Relations and Communication and a columnist for The Eagle.
This article was edited by Alana Parker, Zoe Bell, Jerinda Montez, and Abigail Turner. Copy editing was provided by Luna Jinks, Isabelle Kravis, and Charlie Mennuti.
opinion@theeagleonline.com
