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.
In Sept. 2024, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President, and Treasurer Bronté Burleigh-Jones announced that American University would begin to hold open forums to “facilitate community engagement and input” around arming the American University Police Department. Before these open forums, Burleigh-Jones and Assistant Vice President of University Police Services Phillip Morse led a Security Review Working Group to develop the review process, outline key questions, and plan for the fall community engagement. The working group went on to host nine forums from Oct. 1 to 17, 2024, for students, faculty and staff to discuss their perspectives on the potential arming of officers. Each group had forums dedicated to participants who supported, opposed, or were undecided on the policy, with a final forum open to all viewpoints.
These open forums have encouraged little engagement between people with varying opinions. While groups like March For Our Lives AU have shown up at every forum to represent anti-arming, attendance has otherwise been small, with only about six students showing up to the “arming AUPD is a good idea” forum. Forums may seem like a constructive environment, but in reality, they are only attended by people who already feel strongly or are highly educated about an issue. Forums fail to reach the broader student body and cannot be used to gauge a collective consensus.
While the forums do not have to be dissolved altogether, the University should consider the recent AU Student Government election results, which showed substantial opposition to arming AUPD. Of the over 2,000 students who participated in the election, about 80 percent voted against “the Administration arm[ing] AUPD officers and supervisors with sidearms during their regular patrol duty on campus,” about 71 percent voted against “station[ing] firearms in AUPD squad cars,” and about 59 percent voted against, “arm[ing] AUPD officers and supervisors with ‘less-than-lethal’ weapons such as tasers or rubber bullets while on normal patrol duty on campus.”
Despite this fervent opposition, AU still deems it necessary to seek more opinions through their University-conducted survey, which was released to the community on Oct. 31. In the message preceding the survey, Burleigh-Jones announced that its results would be published next spring, but the decision on whether to arm will be made this fall.
Although surveys can be helpful, the University shouldn’t use them in place of existing student votes on referendums. Additionally, as over 2,000 people have already participated in an election regarding AUPD and arms, they are unlikely to participate in a new survey. Especially since they have already made their voices heard through a democratic vote, these processes may seem unnecessary or excessive.
Nearly a quarter of the undergraduate student population, 1,678 students to be exact, voted against the arming of AUPD. It is extremely concerning that AU appears to be willing to dismiss these undeniably verifiable votes for a survey with severe methodological flaws. Although the University stated they would take note of student voices, this approach minimizes them. AU needs to view SG’s results as a legitimate reflection of campus opinion rather than downplaying the impact of student elections.
During one forum, Burleigh-Jones said that the decision to arm AUPD would ultimately fall on President Jon Alger, who stepped into his role at AU after these discussions began following the Morgan State University shooting in October 2023. While Alger’s initial decision to revoke former President Sylvia Burwell’s Jan. 25 directives on protesting was widely appreciated by the student body, this is truly the decision to decide his fate at the University.
Students will not forget if Alger chooses to willfully ignore their opinions. This will be Alger’s defining legacy, and he needs to make the decision that best represents the students he serves. Students need assurances that AU and Alger will handle their safety comprehensively and consistently, especially when the Metropolitan Police Department is already better equipped than AUPD to address armed threats, such as in their arrest of a “dangerous subject” on campus in April 2024.
AU’s approach to gathering feedback needs to be completely reevaluated. Forums and surveys definitely have their place, but as noted, they have significant methodological flaws. Any avenues taken by the University need to increase direct engagement with students. If the University insists on surveys, it should use accessible platforms like Canvas or have such surveys completed in class.
A survey sent by email is not and will not be representative of the student body’s perspective. Of equal importance, AU must begin to better build trust with marginalized communities on campus that could be disproportionately affected by these decisions. The AU student body is 57 percent white, making it undeniable that minority and POC voices are already underrepresented in the SG vote and will continue to be underrepresented in surveys and forums.
If AU claims to be anti-racist, they must carry out this claim and actively work to hear from POC and marginalized communities on campus. Arming AUPD already presents a greater threat to students of color, as well as disabled students, as noted at the Oct. 9 forum. The University can’t claim to be anti-racist if they are actively putting students of color at risk.
AU also needs to publish all findings from the survey before the end of the semester and certainly before Alger makes a decision. The University has a duty to be transparent with students about these findings before they draft a report as well. Publishing the results after a decision has already been made is disingenuous and devalues student perspectives.
To meet student perspectives, we urge AU to speak directly with campus organizations like March For Our Lives AU to discuss their concerns. Meeting with MFOL would be a strong step forward to ensure that inclusive decision-making, a vital component of this process, takes place.
AU’s commitment to student safety must include transparent and meaningful dialogue with those who live, work and study on campus — not just with those who run it.
This piece was written by Alana Parker and edited by Rebeca Samano Arellano and Abigail Turner. Copy editing done by Luna Jinks. Fact checking done by Luna Jinks and Sasha Dafkova.
