American University administration held an open student forum Sept. 9 on AU policies related to expression, focusing specifically on social media and the use of University facilities.
Panelists reviewed the drafted Social Media Policy and Faculties Use Policy that were first made available to students for online comment on Sept. 4, which remains open until Sept. 18. The floor was then opened for questions, comments and suggestions from the approximately 50 attendees.
The forum was moderated by AU Vice Presidents Matthew Bennett, Traevena Byrd, Bronte Burleigh-Jones and Raymond Ou. Earlier that day, administration met with members of Student Government to discuss the drafted policies, according to the panelists.
SG put together an annotated packet of the drafts titled “The Truth About the Draft Policies” as a guide for attendees. Minutes into the forum, members of SG walked into the room and distributed the packets. Bennett, who was speaking at the time, ignored the interruption.
The packet highlights what SG classifies as “glaring issues” with the drafted policies that “if left unchecked …could threaten free expression,” according to its front page. Attendees throughout the forum referred to the packet to ask questions about specific policies.
“We’re here to make sure that the study body has the same resources that we do, that they come prepared to advocate for what they believe in and to hold administration accountable for repressive free speech policies,” Kaden Ouimet, SG senator-at-large and a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs, said.
According to Ouimet, SG’s annotated policy packet was first presented to administration at their earlier meeting, which was attended by SG President Arusa Islam, Vice President Julia Comino and Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer Salvatore Cottone.
Islam, a senior in SPA, said that there was some confusion during the meeting regarding the wording of the policies since Ou and Burleigh-Jones are spearheading the policy formulation, and there are others involved in the precise wording. She expressed appreciation of them nonetheless.
The Eagle reached out to the University to confirm who wrote the policy drafts discussed at this forum.
“Subject matter experts from across the university developed the draft policies, engaged with stakeholders, reviewed external research and benchmarking, and worked with the office of the general counsel to follow the policy development process,” Elizabeth Deal, assistant vice president for community and internal communication, said.
The Eagle also reached out to the University for comment on the meeting that occurred prior to the forum.
“At the request of representatives of AU’s student government, members of the administration met prior to the Student Open Forum on Sep. 9th. The administrators who participated in the meeting were very open and appreciative of the feedback shared and moved quickly to implement recommendations,” said Deal. “As with all feedback to university policies, we welcome all perspectives and appreciate student feedback in all forms.”
On Sept. 13, Islam said she and Comino had a follow-up meeting with Ou.
“It went well,” Islam said. “[Ou] said that they have taken in a lot of our suggestions to the chairs of the policy committee and that now there's going to be two students serving on the committee.”
The Sept. 9 forum comes in a series of administration’s efforts to hear from students and faculty on revising expression policies. After a spring semester of controversy over the Jan. 25 directives that banned indoor protests and enacted restrictions on postering, University President Jonathan Alger, in one of his first acts, rescinded the directives on Aug. 13.
However, the University is still finalizing updated policy related to speech and expression. Over the summer, administrators hosted a forum for faculty and staff on Aug. 9 and an online public student forum on Aug. 19, both regarding the developing policies.
Before opening the floor to questions, the panelists summarized both the Social Media and Facilities Use policies.
Bennett began by explaining that the Social Media Policy is an update to the Social Media Guidelines, which were last revised by the administration over a decade ago. The new proposed policies apply to personal account use by faculty, staff and students when using the University name or branding, as well as student organizations and official University accounts.
This policy draft lays out a clear definition of official AU accounts – either accounts managed by the Office of University Communications and Marketing, or by a University department, office or organization – with guidance on how they’re operated, branded and authorized.
The Facilities Use Policy, which became more of the focus during the question and comment period of the forum, was summarized by Burleigh-Jones. Similar to the social media policy, this applies to activities and events held by “students, faculty, staff, department programs and recognized student organizations,” Burleigh-Jones said.
Burleigh-Jones explained that a Facilities Working Group of faculty and staff helped with these drafted policies. In reference to the earlier meeting with SG, Burleigh-Jones said, “Going forward we will have student representation on the committee. We’ll work together to identify those students but wanted to make that announcement here.”
During the question and comment period of the forum, a major topic of concern among attendees included subsection C-7 of the Facilities Use Policy, which states that engaging in demonstration activity within 20 feet of an entrance or exit from a building requires proper approval from a University official.
Early in the forum, a student asked how demonstrators should measure that 20 feet, and Burleigh-Jones clarified that it is from the door itself.
“It’s the spirit of ensuring that individuals, members of our community, can both enter and exit that building safely,” she said.
Later, another student recalled Burleigh-Jones’ use of the word “spirit.” They asked how students are supposed to know when they’ve encroached on this 20 feet, if administration is not precisely measuring this boundary.
“As I said earlier, de-escalation would be part of that process,” Burleigh-Jones reiterated.
“These [are] not unusual. Many universities have similar policies. And these are going to be informed by practice,” Byrd added on. She explained that adjustments can still be made after policies are in effect.
In the Facilities Use Policy, administrators laid out definitions for clarification. In particular, “disruption” became of interest to students during the question and comment period of the forum.
“We were asked to define disruption, what activities will not be permitted without advance approval, and to what extent should this policy address such issues as indoor protests,” Burleigh-Jones said.
According to the draft policies, disruption is defined as, “activities and behaviors that significantly interrupt, interfere with, or prevent the orderly conduct of a University function or activity, or prevents an individual from exercising their ability to participate in a University function or activity.”
Multiple students expressed dissatisfaction with these definitions, claiming they were too broad and vague.
In regards to disruption, one attendee said that protests are loud and disruptive in nature. They wondered how administrators expected students to express these opinions.
Burleigh-Jones responded to the student and said that administration sees disruptive as preventing “an activity that is currently underway.” Ou added on, explaining that “with disruption, there’s always de-escalation.”
“We would have a faculty member to tone down the activity taking place, and AUPD would also take action to de-escalate the situation if it were deemed disruptive,” Ou said.
Byrd also emphasized that it would be made clear to demonstrators if they have crossed a line of significant disruption.
“It’s not like, you’re disrupting that and you’re in trouble, and you didn’t know where that line was,” Byrd said. “There are always levels of engagement in regards to giving folks an indication as to when they’re encroaching on that line.”
Some also expressed concern with vigils being included in the definition of demonstration in the Facilities Use Policy draft, which states that a demonstration, “often involves chanting and/or the holding of signs; also includes rallies, vigils and similar assemblies.”
One student mentioned losing family members in the ongoing conflict in Gaza. They asked why a vigil falls under the term demonstration, and the audience snapped in approval. Many attendees were also wearing keffiyehs, a scarf that signifies solidarity with Palestine.
“In an attempt to be content-neutral, we were trying to define a gathering of people, who are collecting together, whether to express mourning, whether it’s political motivation, whatever it is,” Byrd said. “They are not restricted on this campus. Vigils are important.”
Many also requested clarification on the term “Assigned Units” within the policy draft, which are defined as “a formally designated University department, office, or group responsible for … specific Facilities or spaces.”
One student asked if these Units included AUPD personnel. Burleigh-Jones denied that AUPD would be included in these Units, clarifying that AUPD would be “assigned representatives.” She said that will be clarified in the final policies.
Students inquired less about the social media policies during the forum, but some students requested clarification on the online expression of political opinions.
“There is no limitation on student organizations posting about political content or issues,” Bennett said. He explained that restrictions apply to official accounts run by the University, which cannot take a stance that AU hasn’t officially taken.
One attendee also expressed concern about doxing, and its lack of mention in the policy drafts. Doxing is publishing private or identifying information about an individual on the internet, typically with intent to harm.
Ou pointed the student to the Student Conduct Code, where doxing is incorporated into the harassment policy, though the term isn’t explicitly mentioned. He also explained that there have already been discussions with SG on expanding the language.
The same student wanted to know why these certain policies are being implemented now. Ou explained that the administration's intention is to ensure safety in the community.
Throughout the forum, panelists referenced their earlier meeting with SG and ensured that they were continuously working towards including students in policy revisions.
“You will see a reflection of those organizations in the revisions made to the policies going forward,” Burleigh-Jones said.
Ouimet also spoke on SG’s continuous advocacy work through awareness campaigns, resolutions and statements that will work in conversation with administration’s work on expression policies.
“[Administration] said this is an incremental process, so we’ll have to see if they stop it here or if they want to continue going. I think students are still concerned,” Ouimet said. “We’d like to see inclusion in a working group and we’re glad to see that there’s gonna be some process to put student representatives on there.”
Islam shared a similar sentiment.
“I think when it comes to these working groups that affect students directly, there should be more student involvement on them, and we shouldn't really always have to ask to be in those spaces. The opportunity should come to us,” she said. “But, again, I think administration in the past hasn't always worked with students this closely, and it's a relationship that we are building, and so I think there just needs to be a bit more transparency when it comes to both sides.”
This article was edited by Payton Anderson, Maya Cederlund, Tyler Davis and Abigail Turner. Copy editing done by Luna Jinks, Ella Rousseau and Ariana Kavoossi.
