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.
Last week, University President Jonathan Alger joined over 150 other universities in signing the American Association of Colleges and Universities’ “A Call for Constructive Engagement,” reaffirming its commitment to academic freedom amid growing government interference. Alongside the letter, AU issued a Spring 2025 Federal Policy Update outlining its support for international students, inclusive excellence initiatives and federally funded research.
These statements represent the most substantial public move AU has made in response to recent federal threats against colleges and universities — and they are a meaningful shift from the University administration’s past reluctance to speak out. While this movement deserves recognition, it should be viewed as a starting point, not the ultimate goal.
Signing onto a joint statement — even one AU helped lead, given Alger’s role as AAC&U board chair — is not enough by itself.
If the University wants to assure students that it will stand up to government interference, it must move beyond generalized commitments and provide transparency about how it plans to do so. Right now, we still have more questions than answers.
The University’s new policy reiterates support for international students, noting that AU International Students and Scholar Services is working with affected students and that guidance is being updated. Yet AU has not directly addressed the fact that AWOL reported and The Eagle confirmed that some international students at AU have already had their visas revoked. The University cannot expect students to feel protected if they only learn about these developments through student media.
Another question left unaddressed surrounds the University’s communication with the government. AU said it has responded to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights as part of a federal review of 60 universities accused of failing to protect Jewish students. The Federal Policy Update references a “comprehensive response” but does not share what that response included.
This response should be released to the community, as we need to know how AU is defending its record on freedom of speech and campus safety and what exactly has been communicated to federal officials. If the University wants to claim transparency and accountability, then it needs to practice both.
AU has also failed to address the demands of students who are directly affected by federal crackdowns. The administration has not responded to the Student Government referendum calling for AU to become a sanctuary campus, which was passed by over 86 percent of voters.
The Federal Policy Update describes a range of working groups and administrative offices but says nothing about the ongoing visa crisis, the SG referendum or how student information is being protected.
AU continues to issue statements that reaffirm existing commitments but stops short of implementing new protections or clearly outlining what steps it will take. Administrators claim to support free expression — yet continue to keep student organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine on probation and fail to address incidents of censorship on campus, such as the removal of a graduate student for silently holding up the Palestinian flag at Alger’s inauguration.
We recognize that the administration is taking a more public-facing stance than it has in the past. But public stances are not the same as public accountability.
If AU is serious about protecting academic freedom, it must clarify what information is collected about students and how that information might be used or shared in the context of federal investigations. It must commit to consistent policy enforcement, transparent decision-making and the creation of proactive rather than reactive support systems — particularly for international and marginalized students.
The administration should look to the examples set by peer institutions, including those who signed onto the AAC&U letter. Columbia University has committed to providing legal counsel to international students at risk of deportation; AU’s Washington College of Law also has this resource for undergraduate and graduate students alike and needs to make it more widely known across campus. Boston University published a public resource guide outlining its commitments and services related to immigration. These are the kinds of tangible steps that AU should consider — not just internal working groups with no means of accountability and a weekly email newsletter.
A joint letter is a good starting point, but it needs to be followed by real action. Our expectations remain high, and we are not satisfied with the mere signing of a letter. This needs to be the beginning, not the end, of AU’s action. The stakes are too high to accept symbolic gestures in place of substantive change.
This piece was written by Alana Parker and edited by Walker Whalen Copy editing done by Luna Jinks and Olivia Citarella.
