Jonathan Alger became the 16th president of American University on July 1, after 12 years leading James Madison University in Virginia. A lawyer by training, he previously served as senior vice president and general counsel at Rutgers University and assistant general counsel at the University of Michigan. He has written and spoken extensively on higher education policy and legal issues related to diversity and free speech, among others.

He stopped Inside higher educationOn Wednesday, he visited the DC office – which he informed us was World Kindness Day – to answer a few questions. He then returned to the UA campus to hand out cookies and gift cards.

His responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.

1. How was the post-election period on campus?

I would say in general what I’m seeing is a lot more muted than it was in 2016. I think people weren’t surprised in the same way they were eight years ago years. And we must remember: there are people in the community who are happy, others who are upset; others are simply deeply concerned and unsure of what it means. So you’re dealing with this whole mix of emotions.

One of the ways we tried to solve this problem was to have what we called unit dinners – and that was a real risk. The first took place on the night of October 7, when we invited the entire campus (professors, staff, students) but you had to confirm your presence to avoid the arrival of outside groups. The idea was to bring the community together. it’s not so much about dwelling specifically on the world events of that day as it is about our common humanity. During this first conference, we heard speakers from the Muslim, Christian and Jewish faiths.

The second took place the day after the election, and my office co-sponsored it with College Republicans and Democrats. You can imagine, as you’re planning this, asking yourself, “OK, what’s the day after the election going to look like?” » But actually, it went very well. We had people sitting at tables with people they might not know, might not agree with politically, but the emphasis was on the fact that we’re still here . We are all in this together.

This is part of my civic life initiative, which is the signature of what I do on campus. The idea is to look at the deep polarization, the epidemic of misinformation in our country, and say, “How do we not get them all to think the same way, that’s not the goal, but how do we help them to the rules of engagement? And it starts with civil discourse, to develop the skills of leadership and teamwork, communication, critical thinking, ethical reasoning, information and data literacy.

There are a number of components. We have already named a group of Civic Life Scholars, 34 of them, from freshmen to Ph.D. students. They are taking a course to prepare for this role, where they will help lead dialogues on campus about difficult topics and bring people together. We are going to have teachers. And then in the core of AU, which is our general education program, there will be a course where students will work on these skills of dialoguing across differences. How do you participate in debates and discussions based on facts, evidence and research without defaming people you disagree with? That’s what we try to help our students do.

2. Your last job was at a public institution in Virginia, where Governor Youngkin appointed members of the Board of Visitors and declared that public university administrators serve the state rather than their institutions. Did that play a role in your decision to accept the AU position and, more broadly, how do you think institutions of higher education should respond to efforts by state or federal politicians to exercise more control over them?

Certainly, when you’re a public university, you know you’re going to have to deal with the state government, right? This is how things are structured. In Virginia, the entire board is appointed by the governor. I always thought it was important in my role to try to get along with people, regardless of which governor appointed them. I was there 12 years and I think there were four different governors, from both parties. The best conversations I’ve had with board members were ones where it was truly impossible to know which governor had appointed them.

For me, the opportunity to come to AU was, of course, because it’s a private university, so there wasn’t that dynamic. But what really attracted me was the mission as well as the location. AU is a school I’ve always had my eye on.

Ultimately, it is the educational mission that we must protect. There can be government overreach of all kinds, coming from both sides of the aisle. We need to speak up when this happens. Attacks can come from both sides, stating how to teach or what to teach. That’s when we have to stand up and say, “No, these are pedagogical judgments that must be made by educators. » This is what our role must be.

3. Under your leadership, JMU has become an integral part of Campus call for free expressiona group committed to preserving free speech on campus. How do you decide where to draw the line? Does freedom of expression include the slogans “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”? Camps? How do you balance free speech with the need to maintain safety and security on campus?

These are very nuanced questions that need to be examined in context. But the balance that I think we’re responsible for is that, on the one hand, we have a legal obligation to prevent discrimination and harassment on campus, right? And there are legal definitions of that. This is balanced by the right to free speech, knowing that there are expressions that are going to be offensive to people on campus, that they are not going to agree with. I recognize that it’s a difficult balance to strike and one that many people struggle to understand.

Part of this is an educational problem: it’s about helping people understand that these are two different responsibilities that we have to take into account as a university. And although they seem to be in tension with each other, both contribute fundamentally to what it means to be in a democratic society. That’s kind of the starting point. I do not draw clear and absolute lines to say that this or that statement is permissible; This is actually not generally how the law works in this area. We have to look at the context: are individuals threatened in relation to more general statements?

You also have to make people understand that you may have the right to say something, but is it the right thing to do at that moment? These are rights and responsibilities – if you want to live in community, recognizing what that balance means in terms of your own conduct – and that’s another topic we talked to students about.

4. AU is in the middle of a debate over whether to arm campus police. According to the student newspaper, a majority of students are opposed to this project. Would you approve it over their objections, and why is it necessary?

I haven’t made my decision yet. This is a great example of a real process, isn’t it? And, you know, one of the things that’s important to me is that we need to educate the community about all the issues that are going on here. It’s actually very complicated: many campuses have armed police officers; there are some who don’t. I was at JMU when we had to send officers to Bridgewater College when two of their security guards were killed by a gunman who came onto campus. Virginia Tech was just down the street and more than 30 people were killed in an attack. So part of it is making sure that our students and our faculty and our staff understand: What are the issues involved? What is the relationship with the Metropolitan Police (DC)? How does it work?

The focus is on campus safety – that’s the goal. And then the question is: what is the best way to achieve this goal? What we are trying to model is an educational process. I think we’ll get better results by discussing the nuances, when we hear the law enforcement experts say, “Here’s what works, here’s what doesn’t work,” when we hear the community’s concerns. By following this process, whatever decision we make will be the best one. I just don’t know yet what it’s going to be, because we’re not at the end yet.

5. What do you think a second Trump term will mean for higher education in general and higher education in Washington in particular, given his threat of end Home Rule?

I haven’t been here before during the Home Rule discussion, so I’ll be curious to see how that plays out.

I think a lot of areas are going to change, right? One of the first that comes to mind is the Title IX policy. And I think we all feel like – those of us (who) have been around for a while – like it’s a real whiplash, back and forth. With one administration, and there’s a certain set of regulations that you have to follow, and then the next one comes along, and they go in the completely opposite direction. Again, I think we’re going to experience this when it comes to Title IX cases, and it’s very difficult for the staff as well as the students, because you have to train people so that they know how to do this, in accordance with what can be quite complicated rules and regulations.

I worked in the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education and experienced a political transition. We went from Bush I to the Clinton administration, so I saw how there might be changes in the emphasis on civil rights enforcement, and I hope we see more of that based on named persons. And things like student loans — I’m not sure where this is going to take us, but my main concern is that regardless of the rules, I want students to have access to higher education. I think there is a lot of uncertainty at the moment and many of us believe that a lot will depend on who is ultimately appointed, and the Education Secretary will certainly play an important role.