American University is in the process of rewriting its Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation and Sexual Misconduct Policy, a change that has sparked concern and confusion throughout campus.
The Office of Inclusive Excellence announced a series of in-person and virtual forums to gather feedback on the draft policy in a campus-wide email sent on Oct. 30. These sessions were offered to the AU community, with the University encouraging all of its stakeholders to review the draft and submit commentary.
As AU invited students, staff and faculty to attend review forums and submit feedback, some community members said they are still unsure why the policy is being rewritten at all, and some are concerned that the proposed changes may weaken protections rather than strengthen them.
Assistant professor in health and education equity Liana Petruzzi said the draft omits legal details that have previously guided AU’s decision-making.
“If you look at the proposed policy, they actually don’t specifically cite any federal or District law that they are utilizing to draft and implement that policy. So I think that is a major concern,” Petruzzi said.
The rewritten policy affects the structure that decides how the University handles discrimination, harassment, retaliation and non-Title IX-related sexual misconduct, such as conduct that occurs off campus or does not meet the federal definition required for a Title IX case. Those issues are regulated by federal, as well as D.C., law.
Some faculty who reviewed the draft said that the new version removes some references that connect AU’s policy to protections like Title IX, a fundamental sex-discrimination law Title VI, which prohibits race, color and national-origin discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the D.C. Human Rights Act. While the previous policy clearly listed out these standards, the new draft does not.
The rewritten definitions of harassment have also provoked concerns.
“The only examples provided in the document are related to antisemitism. What’s concerning is that it’s excluding all other racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual identities and minorities that also experience harassment,” Petruzzi said.
The new definition considers harassment as actions or words that are “subjectively and objectively offensive,” but students, faculty and staff examining the policy note that the draft does not explain how these subjective judgments will be made or who will be responsible for making them.
Other phrases, such as language about “association with others of a different Protected Status,” referring to protected classes covered under Title IX, Title VI and the D.C. Human Rights Act, have been interpreted by some as vague and confusing, creating uncertainty about how the University will determine what counts as harassment.
In addition to concerns about unclear wording, faculty also noted that the new policy excludes several of the process-making steps, including how decisions will be reviewed and evaluated. Under the draft, investigators would have the discretion to make credibility assessments and dismiss complaints, but the policy does not specify the standards they are expected to use.
John Bracht, an associate professor of biology and the president of the American Association of University Professors chapter at the University, said the draft of the policy raises “serious issues around academic freedom, one of the core values of AAUP.”
Bracht noted that the policy’s vagueness, primarily regarding its definitions, could be used to restrict legitimate political expression and civil discourse.
“Antisemitism is not defined in the document and can be problematic depending on how it’s defined,” he said.
He added that vague language may allow the University to label criticism of the Israeli government, or participation in clubs advocating for Palestinian freedom, as a form of harassment.
Additionally, the use of the term “association” led to confusion around club membership. Bracht questioned the potential for members of on-campus organizations to be at risk of being penalized individually, whether they participated directly in the actions at odds with the policy or not.
Bracht said this ambiguity threatens free expression both inside and outside the classroom. Since harassment policies regulate all campus speech, he said a vague standard could have a chilling effect on free expression.
To address these concerns, the University opened a public comment period through the Office of Inclusive Excellence, serving as a set window during which students, faculty and staff could submit and share feedback on the draft policy.
After that first comment period, the University confirmed via the Office of Inclusive Excellence that no second comment period will be opened after any additional revisions. A working group composed of faculty, professors and students was formed to bridge the community and the administration during the proposal’s revision process.
“For quality shared governance, we’re going to need a second comment period. And it’s not that we want to drag the process out, but it’s that we want a solid, strong, good policy. All of us are going to be under this [policy],” Bracht said.
Kaleigh Olsen, a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Public Affairs, serves as a senator-at-large in Student Government and sits on the Equity and Title IX Advisory Council’s policy working group.
As one of the few student representatives involved directly in the revision process, Olsen said she wants to ensure that the policy reflects the needs and concerns of the broader student body. She said a major focus of the working group has been tightening and clarifying definitions so the policy cannot be misinterpreted or applied unfairly.
The goal of this is to ensure the policy feels inclusive to all communities at AU, she said.
Olsen explained that the revision of the policy partially stems from changes made by the Trump administration.
“We want to make sure the policy fills any gaps left by federal changes that may no longer protect certain people,” she said, adding that the Trump administration’s approach feels “more discriminatory,” especially in determining whose experiences of harm are recognized.
“Federal policies aren’t the only reason why [the policy] is changing,” Olson said.
The new Title IX office head’s changes have led to an advisory committee and a new approach to policy changes, according to Olsen.
Kristi Harris was named the new interim assistant vice president for equity & Title IX coordinator in October.
Olsen hopes the changes will contribute to a safer and more representative campus culture.
“This is a really important policy to revise, in the times we are living in right now, especially in D.C., where we are seeing a lot of changes,” Olsen said.
Olsen explained that despite there not being a second comment period offered following the revisions, she and other members of the working group were encouraged to reach out to peers and other community members during the process with the goal of including their input in the updates. She presented her work to her peers during the student government's weekly senate meetings and invited feedback.
There is no definitive timeline for completing the policy due to its complexity and length, according to Olsen. The working group is currently drafting a list of specific definitions pertaining to words mentioned in the policy to provide further clarity on their meanings.
“We’re in the revision process, it’s something that’s continuing to expand and evolve. We’re realizing how big this policy really is, it’s important to be picky about certain things,” Olsen said.
Some community members say that these issues indicate more significant issues with how the school is approaching the revision process, and that the draft was developed without the appropriate amount of transparency or involvement from faculty, staff or students.
Faculty said the University moved forward with revising the policy without using the committees typically responsible for reviewing discrimination and harassment policies. These committees include the Faculty Senate, Staff Council, Student Government Association, Graduate Leadership Council and the Student Bar Association. Petruzzi said this lack of consultation has raised concerns about shared governance, especially given the broad language included in the proposal.
“Some of the language in the policy seems to overlap with political and ideological speech, including social media posts, and this does seem to be potentially encroaching upon students, staff and faculty protected speech,” she said.
In response to concerns about transparency and shared governance, Nkenge Friday, vice president of inclusive excellence, said in an interview with The Eagle that the revision process is much more extensive than many community members may realize.
According to Friday, the last full revision of the policy occurred in 2021. Since the policy is technical and full of legal implications, she said its revision requires coordination of multiple offices, consisting of the Office of General Counsel, Equity and Title IX, Student Affairs and Human Resources.
“I want people to know that this is a safe space. We’re trying to be more transparent. We’re trying to make sure we’re working with the community based off all the needs that the community has,” Friday said.
She explained that the revision has investigated how the policy relates to AU’s administrative structure, and how administration engages with student conduct offices, employee relations and the faculty and staff manuals. While the original version was written with a strong focus on students, the current update seems to help the policy function more evenly across all groups who are reliant on it, Friday said.
Friday added that the process of updating procedures and clarifying responsibilities is also intended to simplify and make reporting incidents more straightforward for those seeking support. She said that by explaining grievance categories, the University strives to create a functional system that is easier to navigate during times of stress.
“At one point, I do hope it moves beyond [being just a set of rules] and people understand the value of the policy for AU, because the work is dynamic, it changes, but the needs of the community can consistently stay the same,” Friday said.
For some community members who attended the commentary forums, the issues raised indicated a sense that the structure of the draft may be detrimental to community trust, rather than strengthening it. Whether through mandatory reporting changes or the absence of shared governance, these attendees said the University must pause and rethink how the policy is being shaped.
“Invest in shared governance, and this is for everybody. Give it the time and do it right, and it will be better,” Bracht said.
This article was edited by Cara Halford, Owen Auston-Babcock, Neil Lazurus, Abigail Hatting and Walker Whalen. Copy editing done by Sabine Kanter-Huchting, Emma Brown, Avery Grossman and Ava Stuzin.
