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.
When water pooled across the pavement outside the Mary Graydon Student Center on Oct. 9, erasing messages supporting Palestinians soon after their being chalked, American University sent a message about whose speech is valued and supported on this campus, and whose is not.
The selective enforcement of policies is designed to silence specific groups while permitting others to speak freely. When confronted with chalked messages calling to “Save Gaza” and “Free Palestine,” as well as messages like “AU Funds Genocide,” facilities management responded by power-washing them away.
University communications said the chalk removal was “consistent with the University’s Chalking Policy,” and confirmed that “there was no violation” of those rules.
This is not a new problem at American University. Last year, during a similar Oct. 7 demonstration, students using megaphones to read names of Palestinians killed in the war were met by threats of arrests and zip ties.
The University maintains that this incident involved “multiple violations” of the Facilities Use and Amplified Sound policies, citing repeated refusals to comply with officials’ directions. Yet when roughly 100 students and community members walked out of classes and events to protest President Donald Trump’s federal takeover of D.C., no comparable administrative action occurred.
When asked about this disparity, the University replied that “the latter event did not feature amplified sound and thus did not create a policy violation.” Still, inconsistencies remain. The walkout demonstrators gathered outside campus buildings, including on the stairs of the School of Public Affairs, and gave speeches during class hours.
The administration’s position appears to be that you can protest what and how you want, as long as it does not clash with administrators’ preferences and the interests of major donors.
The University faces clear budget pressures and relies on major donors like Alan Meltzer, who donated $2 million to the Center for Israel Studies and another $10 million for athletics facilities. When donors, like Meltzer, are also advocates for Israel, the incentive structure seems to require a silencing of speech that makes your donors uncomfortable.
By calling the powerwashing “routine maintenance,” the administration can claim neutrality while systematically favoring certain donor perspectives over student speech.
The University called this line of critique “inaccurate,” arguing that University decisions are “guided by our academic mission, institutional values, and compliance with all relevant laws.” The University cited the Gift Acceptance Policy, which reserves “the right to return or refuse gifts which do not align with the University’s mission,” and emphasized IRS restrictions on donor influence.
Yet these assurances do little to dispel the perception that AU shields certain political or financial interests from scrutiny while holding student activism to rigid standards.
If the University truly opposes political speech on campus, it should say so. It should apply that rule uniformly and transparently. Instead, it is picking and choosing which speech to permit, which clubs to disband and which students to intimidate.
It is claiming neutrality while protecting the interests of its financiers and board members. It is claiming commitment to free expression while systematically suppressing certain kinds of speech.
The University must issue a comprehensive, updated statement on protest policies, chalking, tabling and student expression. This statement must include clearly defined enforcement procedures, public advance notice when cleaning schedules will affect campus activities and transparent criteria for when and how policies will be enforced.
Most critically, the University must commit to consistent enforcement. If megaphone restrictions exist, they should apply to all protests. If protest rules stand, they should apply to all groups. If tabling policies govern the quad, they must be enforced regardless of which organizations are tabling or what messages they convey.
The administration must also reckon with the atmosphere of fear it has created. When students and faculty supporting any cause feel unsafe speaking out, the University has failed.
Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly named the Center for Israel Studies as the Center for Israeli Studies. It has been updated to reflect the correct name.
This piece was written by Quinn Volpe and edited by Alana Parker and Walker Whalen. Copy editing done by Sabine Kanter-Huchting, Emma Brown, Arin Burrell, Paige Caron and Andrew Kummeth. Fact-checking done by Aidan Crowe
