Jonathan Alger became American University’s 16th president on July 1, after 12 years at the helm of James Madison University in Virginia. An attorney by training, he was previously senior vice president and general counsel at Rutgers University and assistant general counsel at the University of Michigan. He has written and spoken widely on higher education policy and legal issues related to diversity and free speech, among other issues.

It stopped there In higher EdDC’s office on Wednesday — which he informed us is World Kindness Day — to answer a few questions. He then returned to the AU campus to hand out cookies and gift cards.

His answers have been edited for clarity and brevity.

1. How was the tenor at the post-election on campus?

I would say that overall what I’m seeing is a lot more subdued than it was in 2016. I think people aren’t caught by surprise in the same way they were eight years ago. And we must remember: there are some people in the community who are happy, others who are angry; others are just deeply concerned and unsure of what it means. So you’re dealing with the whole mix of emotions.

One of the ways we tried to solve this is we started what we call unity dinners – and that was a real risk. The first was on the night of October 7th, when we invited the entire campus—faculty, staff, students—but you had to RSVP so we didn’t have outside groups come. The idea was to bring the community together. let’s not dwell so much on the world events of that day as talk about our common humanity. At the first, we had speakers from the Muslim, Christian and Jewish faiths.

The second was the day after the election, and my office co-sponsored it with fellow Republicans and fellow Democrats. You can imagine, as you’re planning this, thinking, “OK, what’s the day after the election going to be like?” But it actually turned out really well. We had people sitting at tables with people they might not know, might not agree with politically, but the focus was that we’re still here. We are all in this together.

It’s 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 and disinformation in our country and say, “How do we not make everyone think the same way, that’s not the point, but how do we help them with employment rules?” And that starts with civil discourse, to develop leadership and teamwork skills, communication, critical thinking, ethical reasoning, information and data literacy.

There are a number of components. I have already appointed a group of students to civic life – 34 of them, freshmen to Ph.D. the students. They are taking a class to prepare them for this role, where they will help lead conversations on campus about difficult topics and bring people together. We will have college mates. And then in the AU core, which is our general education program, there will be a course where students work on these skills of dialogue across differences. How do you engage in debate and discussion based on facts and evidence and research without denigrating 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 to the Board of Visitors and said that public university administrators serve the state rather than their institutions. Did that play a role in your decision to take the UA job, and more broadly, how do you think higher institutions should respond to efforts by state or federal politicians to exert more control over them?

Surely, when you’re a public university, you know you’re going to have to deal with the state government, right? That’s how things are structured. In Virginia, the entire board is appointed by the governor. I’ve always felt it was important in my role to try to get along with people, regardless of the governor who appointed them. I was there for 12 years and I think there were four different governors, from both parties. The best conversations I had with board members were when you really didn’t know which governor appointed them.

For me, the opportunity to come to AU was, of course, that it’s a private university, so you didn’t have 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.

At the end of the day, the educational mission is what we need to protect. There can be government overreach of any kind of income from either side of the aisle. We need to talk when it happens. Attacks can come from both sides saying how to teach or what to teach. Then we have to stand up and say, “No, these are educational judgments to be made by educators.” This is our role.

3. Under your leadership, JMU became part of Call campus for free expressiona group committed to preserving free speech on campus. How do you decide where to draw the line? Does free speech cover chants of “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall 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 you need to look at in context. But the balance that we’re responsible for, as I see it, is, on the one hand, we have a legal obligation to prevent discrimination and harassment on campus, right? And there are legal definitions for that. This is balanced with free speech rights, knowing that there is speech that will be offensive to people on campus that they will not agree with. I admit that this is a difficult balance and it is difficult for many people to understand.

Part of it is an educational issue—helping people understand that these are two different responsibilities that we have to consider as a university. And while they may seem in tension with each other, both contribute to what it means to be in a democratic society. This is kind of the starting point. I do not draw absolute, bright lines to say that this statement or that statement is permissible; Actually, that’s not how the law works in this area. You have to look at the context – are individuals threatened versus 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 particular time? There are rights and responsibilities—if you’re going to live in the community, to recognize what that balance means in terms of your own conduct—and that’s what I talked about with the students.

4. AU is in the middle of a debate over whether to arm campus police. According to the student newspaper, most students oppose the plan. Would you approve it over their objections and why is it necessary?

I haven’t decided yet. That’s a great example of actually going through a process, right? And, you know, one of the things that I feel very strongly about is that we need to educate the community about what all the issues here are. It’s actually very complicated: there are plenty of campuses that 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 officers were killed by a gunman who came onto campus. Virginia Tech was right down the road and over 30 people died in an attack. So part of that is making sure our students, faculty, and 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 a better result as we talk about the nuances, as we hear from law enforcement experts about “here’s what works, here’s what doesn’t work,” when we hear concerns from the community. By going through this process, any decision we reach will be a better decision. I don’t know yet what it will be, because we are not at the end.

5. What do you think a second Trump term will mean for higher education in general and DC higher education in particular, given his threat to end house rules?

I haven’t been here before with the house rules discussion, so I’ll be curious to see how that plays out.

I think many areas will change, right? One of the first that comes to mind is the Title IX policy. And I think we all feel—those of us (who) have been around for a while—like it’s been this whip, back and forth. With one administration, and there’s a certain set of regulations you have to live by, then the next one comes along, and they go in the complete opposite direction. So again, I think we’re going to experience that when it comes to Title IX cases, and that’s very difficult for both the staff and the students because you have to train people to know how to do that, consistent with which can be quite complicated rules and regulations.

I worked at the Office of Civil Rights in the US Department of Education and experienced a political transition. I went from Bush I to the Clinton administration, so I saw how there could be changes in emphasis in civil rights enforcement, and I expect we’ll see more of that depending on the appointees. And things like student loans — I don’t really know where it’s going to go, but my main concern is that whatever the rules are, I want students to have access to higher education. I think there is a lot of uncertainty at the moment and many of us feel that it will depend a lot on who the appointees are in the end and certainly the education secretary will play a big role.