The Eagle’s editorial board is comprised of its staff but does not represent every individual staffer’s views. Rather, it provides an insight into how The Eagle, as an editorially-independent institution, responds to issues on campus.
American University’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine was placed on disciplinary probation for alleged violations of the indoor protest ban directive issued on Jan. 25. A Feb. 8 silent protest of around 30 demonstrators walking through buildings was enough to trigger a violation of University directives. These directives were made purposely vague to allow administration to enforce them however they deemed fit.
SJP’s probation is the first publicly-known enforcement of the indoor protest ban, according to the Student Organization Conduct Violations website. This disciplinary action is a show of force that the University’s vague blank-check policy has consequences — especially for organizations like SJP that are being punished, suspended and disaffiliated in colleges and universities across the country.
American University needs to decide whether it truly values preventing disruptive protests to maintain civility on campus or if these directives just serve to halt all protest speech indoors — regardless of disruption.
The Jan. 25 email describes the indoor protest ban as being placed to “ensure that protests do not disrupt university activity, including classes and events.”
Ostensibly, the established Freedom of Expression and Expressive Conduct policy already has provisions that require speech and protests to not “substantially disrupt or interfere” with University operations, have obtrusive volume or prevent free movement.
This begs the question, why outright ban indoor protests? Perhaps because SJP’s Feb. 8 protest would not have violated the standing free expression policies. The protest was silent, so volume wasn’t a factor. It was conducted in a single-file line that moved continuously in and out of University buildings, so it didn’t prevent others from freely moving or disrupt University operations. SJP stated in an Instagram post announcing their probation that the University’s own conduct report called the protest non-disruptive.
In developing the protest ban and other directives, the director of AU’s Jewish Studies Program worked with “university administrators on the guidelines, alongside members of the campus Jewish community and outside experts from the Anti-Defamation League,” according to a Jan. 25 article from Jewish Insider. These directives were developed following the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law’s complaint filed with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.
These directives were made “content-neutral” to avoid directly calling out certain groups, but at the same time the only stakeholders that were contacted to formulate these mandates were all aligned with a single issue and only included perspectives from Jewish Studies and Israeli advocacy groups. No Muslim or Palestinian organizations, free speech organizations or other campus groups that value expression through protest were considered.
The University’s Formulation and Issuance of University Policies guideline explains that new or revised University policies must go through a development process that addresses potential stakeholder groups that would be affected by the policy. However, the indoor protest ban and accompanying restrictions on clubs were never referred to as “policies,” but “actions,” “requirements” and “directives.”
“A University Policy is a governing principle that typically mandates or constrains
actions, has institution-wide application, changes infrequently and sets a course for
the foreseeable future,” according to the document. The difference between this definition and the Jan. 25 directives is that they allegedly will be re-evaluated at the end of the semester to determine whether it will become a permanent policy. No further notice on when or if the actions will be re-evaluated has been released since the initial Jan. 25 communication.
The document further stated, “substantive changes can only be made by following the process for policy approval set forth in this policy.” Is banning indoor protest altogether not a substantive change to the free expression policy?
The supposed temporal nature of the directives does not change their harmful effects, and does not excuse the University from avoiding essential stakeholders in this issue. The undefined development process of these directives further muddies transparency on how the University makes decisions that impact the entire campus community.
Ultimately, this ban and expression restrictions were developed hastily in reaction to the Office of Civil Rights complaint, which urged quick and substantive action to cease antisemitic activity on campus. However, protest against Israel is not inherently antisemitic, and neither is aligning with Palestinian or humanitarian causes. The indoor protest ban is a thinly veiled attempt to punish and silence certain organizations from protesting — and it’s achieved its goal.
The University must prioritize re-evaluation of these directives, living up to its initial promise that this ban will be temporary.
This piece was written by Jelinda Montes and edited by Abigail Turner. Copy editing done by Luna Jinks, Isabelle Kravis and Charlie Mennuti.
