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.
The Center for Student Involvement sent updated requirements to student organization advisors on Aug. 8, including an expanded Recognized Student Organization manual from 32 to 93 pages and introducing a new advisor agreement. CSI revised the language once after pushback about mandatory trainings, then held firm on an Oct. 15 signing deadline.
Section 3 of the agreement requires advisors to “alert the organization if what they are planning or doing is not in compliance with university policy, illegal, or risky” and take “appropriate action when they are made aware of information that may be cause for concern for student safety and/or well-being.” Advisors must attend events with over 100 people and be present at “complex events” requiring safety considerations. At least 15-20 advisors refused to sign.
American University claims this new agreement provides clarity and support, but it doesn’t. The policy turns people who used to be mentors into compliance officers; students are taught to fear rather than confide in them.
CSI sent the requirements to advisors in early August and, as usual, students were not included in this conversation. When faculty raised concerns about the liability language and vague terms like “risky,” CSI made minor revisions but held the deadline to sign.
The agreement claims that advisors are “volunteering their time outside of their official duties” while simultaneously mandating annual trainings, attendance at large events and compliance monitoring. That is unpaid labor, and the University has chosen to impose potential professional consequences for not adequately following through on something that many do out of their passion for the subject area in which the RSO operates.
It makes no sense to punish advisors so heavily. It is a common complaint among students that CSI is difficult to reach and work with. In an office that is likely, given AU’s track record, already understaffed, why create such an undesirable situation for RSO advisors who are sacrificing their unpaid time to help?
AU claims it modeled the policy on peer institutions, such as Washington University in St. Louis and Tulane University, but both schools are more transparent about liability limits. Tulane explicitly states that advisors are covered by university insurance while serving as “ambassadors of the University.” However, the coverage does not extend to “intentionally harmful, willful acts of negligence, or omissions.”
AU’s agreement offers no such clarity, instead pointing to an indemnification policy that excludes coverage for “dishonesty, gross negligence, recklessness, willful misconduct, or the intentional infliction of harm.” Advisors who fail to report what CSI later deems “risky” could lose legal protection entirely.
The 93-page manual includes “climate concern” categories, allowing CSI to freeze organizations for conduct that is “negative and based on protected status, and/or subjectively and objectively offensive, and/or severe or pervasive” without clear policy violations. Section 3 of the advisor agreement requires advisors to monitor and report anything “risky” — a term left undefined and entirely subject to the University’s interpretation.
AU has spent two years restricting student expression. From indoor protest bans to social media mandates, each new policy gives the University more discretion over student activity. These policies were developed with little to no input from students and disproportionately affects activist organizations and groups serving students of color.
Subjective language, such as “risky activities” and “climate concerns,” enables administrators to restrict organizations it opposes, while claiming neutrality.
AU and CSI need to extend the deadline for advisors to sign the agreement immediately and halt its implementation. Students and faculty deserve consultation for policies that will affect and possibly censor them.
The University must also eliminate vague enforcement language. “Risky activities” and “climate concerns” exist to enable arbitrary restrictions. AU will essentially be able to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to student organizations. This policy is also incredibly detrimental to student organizations that are intended to be fun or impactful outlets for AU’s student body.
The University needs to stop treating student organizations as something that requires surveillance and crackdowns. Clubs build community and develop the leaders that AU loves to boast about. These policies fundamentally undermine AU’s educational mission, and implementing restrictive policies without student input betrays AU’s stated values.
President Jonathan Alger claimed in his announcement about revising expression policies that “free expression and the creation of a safe and welcoming community for all are bedrock principles” of the University; however, the advisor agreement contradicts both principles.
AU can either support or undermine student organizations through this bureaucratic surveillance process, which it appears to be set on implementing. Students, faculty, staff and alumni need to demand that AU reverse course. Contact CSI, email administrators and make opposition to this impossible to ignore. Student organizations are the cornerstone of AU’s community and they deserve so much better than administrators manufacturing crises to justify restrictions.
This piece was written by Alana Parker and edited by Quinn Volpe and Walker Whalen. Copy editing done by Sabine Kanter-Huchting, Emma Brown, Arin Burrell, Paige Caron and Andrew Kummeth.
