A revised version of American University’s Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation, and Sexual Misconduct Policy Title IX policy was released in December 2025 without a campus-wide announcement, provoking criticism from the community, with some saying the new policy excludes key concerns.
In a campus-wide email sent on Oct. 30, 2025, the Office of Inclusive Excellence announced a series of in-person and virtual forums encouraging stakeholders to review the draft and submit commentary. The original language and contents of the policy prompted feedback from professors and students who took issue with vagueness and unclear explanations. In response, the University composed a working group to improve clarity and consistency in the document.
Following a brief feedback period, the policy was officially updated on Dec. 15, 2025. Dr. Nkenge Friday, vice president of Inclusive Excellence, confirmed there will be no additional comment period or changes.
As the University 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 the University’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,” Petruzzi said. “So I think that is a major concern.”
The rewritten policy affects 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 for a Title IX case. Those issues are regulated by federal, as well as Washington, D.C., law.
Some faculty who reviewed the draft said the new version removes references connecting the University’s policy to certain Title IX protections like the 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 also raise 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.
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.
Under the draft, investigators would have the discretion to evaluate the credibility of those involved and dismiss complaints, but the policy does not specify the standards they are expected to use.
Professor of Biology and President of the University’s American Association of University Professors chapter John Bracht, expressed concerns with the language and drafting process. The faculty who comprised the group were disproportionately term faculty, meaning their employment contracts are subject to renewal and do not have tenure protections.
“Tenure exists to protect academic freedom. You cannot have freedom to speak your mind if you can be fired for doing so,” Bracht said in an interview with The Eagle. “If contingent faculty are on a committee, they may be more likely to go along with things and not raise objections.”
Another concern Bracht highlighted was the fact that there was no announcement to the community regarding the updated and final policy. While an announcement is not required according to the University’s Formulation and Issuance of University Policies guidelines, Bracht highlighted concerns about the procedure.
“[It’s] not a shared governance process. There is no vote, no requirement to respond to concerns, and no announcement to the community. Our institutional policy is messed up,” he said.
Bracht said the revised policy still raises some significant concerns about free expression and the language stating how the University’s free speech protections do not apply if speech violates another University policy. This means that the discrimination and harassment policy could override some free speech protections in certain conflicts.
The policy’s continued use of antisemitism as an example of how it could override free speech protections led Bracht and others to worry about how the term could be interpreted and enforced without a clear definition.
“It opens the door to misuse and could be used to silence groups the University does not like, such as Students for Justice in Palestine,” Bracht said.
He said the definition of harassment remains broad, especially with political ideology listed as a protected category, which could allow for expressions of disagreement to be interpreted as harassment.
As president of AU’s AAUP chapter, Bracht said the organization is drafting a statement outlining its concerns and developing a reporting portal for those who believe the policy is being used to suppress protected speech.
“If people’s speech is being suppressed, we want to know,” Bracht 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.
