The Eagle’s editorial board is composed 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.
After over a year of deliberation, American University President Jonathan Alger chose not to arm the AU Police Department, keeping the current armament policy with “less-than-lethal equipment including pepper spray and [Armament Systems and Procedures-manufactured] batons.” This decision was somewhat of a surprise given the University’s history of ignoring student voices on pertinent issues. The administration’s choice to keep AUPD unarmed, following the recommendation of the Security Review Working Group composed of faculty, staff and students, reflects what many in the AU community have been advocating for since October 2023 when arming AUPD was initially proposed. While this outcome is commendable, it can’t be the end of the conversation on campus safety.
The discussion of arming AUPD first came up in an email sent by American University Chief Financial Officer, Vice President and Treasurer Bronté Burleigh-Jones on Oct. 4, 2023, the day after a shooting at Morgan State University. From the beginning, students showed widespread opposition to the possibility of arming AUPD through protests, an AU Student Government referendum where about 80 percent of student participants voted against arming AUPD with sidearms and multiple forums about the potential dangers of increasing the presence of firearms on campus. The fact that students organized, voiced their concerns, sat on the working group and were, ultimately, heard is a huge victory and should be a model for future decision-making at AU.
While this outcome is reassured that the University and administration listen to and understand student desires, the handling of the announcement was lackluster at best. For an issue that sparked so much campus discourse, the decision was buried in a long email from AU Board of Trustees Chair Gina Adams, rather than being shared more directly and transparently. Given students’ significant role in shaping this policy, the administration should have celebrated the engagement process rather than quietly announcing it in a long email. Furthermore, while AU has confirmed to The Eagle that it will release the survey results conducted by the University, there is currently no clear timeline or clarity on when that will happen. Transparency can’t stop once a decision is made.
Beyond deciding not to arm AUPD, AU also needs to address students’ deeper, underlying concerns about campus safety. Some students generally don’t trust AUPD to handle security problems effectively, armed or not. For many, including The Eagle Editorial Staff, the concern is not whether the officers have firearms, but whether they respond in a timely and competent manner to actual threats. Students report slow response times, poor communication and confusion over AUPD’s jurisdiction versus that of the Metropolitan Police Department. Addressing these concerns is just as vital as deciding against the arming of AUPD.
If the University is serious about improving campus safety, it needs to take further action. First, the administration should conduct and publish a transparent review of its existing safety measures, including blue light emergency systems, emergency preparedness for students and faculty and the effectiveness of AUPD’s current responses and practices. The University also needs to improve communication regarding AUPD’s role, including clarifying their partnership with MPD so students understand who is responsible in emergencies. The University should also make safety training and personal defense resources more widely accessible to students to ensure they feel empowered on campus, not vulnerable.
The decision to not arm AUPD is a step in the right direction, and the major inclusion of student voices is something we would like to see more. The relative transparency that came with the Security Review Working Group should be the baseline for all future working groups. The administration often throws around the word “working group,” and generally, these groups lack sufficient results. Now that AU has had success in the Security Review Working Group, they need to take the same processes — a website, published goals, timelines, etc. — and apply them to all working groups to ensure the student body can hold administrators accountable.
The administration has shown that they can listen to student voices and now, more than ever, it’s crucial that they continue listening.
This piece was written by Alana Parker and edited by Abigail Turner. Copy editing done by Luna Jinks, Olivia Citarella, Emma Brown, Nicole Kariuki and Hannah Langenfeld.
