The Fence Files
THE FENCE FILES
The record behind Carnegie Mellon's censorship of student expression on The Fence.
The Fence Files collects the timeline, transcript record, coalition correspondence, university responses, Working Group history, and evidence showing why students are demanding formal written protections for The Fence.
CMU's own record shows the standard shifting in real time.
Return to Action Page Contact President Jahanian Review Timeline
Source Note
The transcript discussed on this page was provided to the coalition anonymously. It is one part of a broader record that includes official university communications, public documents, and the coalition's correspondence with Carnegie Mellon.
Executive Summary
Who decides what students are allowed to say?
Carnegie Mellon has repeatedly described The Fence as a place for student expression. But the record shows a more troubling pattern: protected speech was painted over, attribution became part of the justification despite not being a clear rule, and administrative judgment appeared to shift based on controversy, reputation, and outside perception.
The coalition is demanding a formal written policy that protects student expression and prevents protected speech from being erased because it is controversial, unpopular, embarrassing, or politically inconvenient.
Transcript Record
What President Jahanian Said
The transcript does not just raise process concerns. It shows the President's own words.
Protected Speech
“Is this protected by free speech? Yeah, absolutely… It is absolutely protected by free speech.”
President Jahanian acknowledged the censored Fence message was protected expression.
Meeting with Farnam, July 17, 2025, 00:12:53–00:13:08
Personal Responsibility
“I will accept full responsibility for this… I decided to paint a fence.”
President Jahanian took responsibility for ordering The Fence painted over.
Meeting with Farnam, July 17, 2025, 00:14:41–00:14:47
Student Dismissal
“The young, these are kids, they don’t know shit.”
President Jahanian described the students behind the message this way.
Meeting with Farnam, July 17, 2025, 00:21:20–00:21:25
Privilege Remark
“They’re young, and to be very honest… three white kids from privileged families…”
President Jahanian continued describing the students whose speech had been painted over.
Meeting with Farnam, July 17, 2025, 00:21:36–00:21:48
Speech Reclassified
“Listen, I’m not going to take any position on Zionism or Hinduism. I will take a position on Nazism… it’s no longer free speech. It’s graffiti.”
President Jahanian said CMU would not take a position on Zionism or Hinduism, then described another anonymous Fence message involving Zionism, Hinduism, and Nazism as “no longer free speech” and “graffiti.”
Meeting with Farnam, July 17, 2025, 00:24:43–00:25:00
Protected speech. Painted over anyway. Students dismissed. The standard shifted.
Hypocrisy Timeline
How student expression became institutional risk
1. The Fence was treated as student expression.
CMU's public posture recognized The Fence as a student expression space.
2. Students were told they had every right to protest.
The university's own record treated student protest as protected activity, not official university speech.
3. The censored message was acknowledged as protected speech.
On July 17, 2025, President Jahanian acknowledged the Fence message was protected expression.
4. The President ordered it painted over anyway.
The record connects the removal decision to presidential responsibility.
5. The standard shifted toward outside perception and institutional risk.
The administration's discussion moved from student rights to controversy, attribution, reputation, and administrative judgment.
6. Attribution became part of the justification.
The record raises serious questions about whether students were punished under a standard that had not been clearly written into the rules.
7. Another anonymous Fence message was called graffiti.
The transcript shows controversial anonymous Fence speech being reclassified through administrative judgment.
8. Students were dismissed personally.
The transcript includes remarks describing the students behind the message in dismissive personal terms.
9. The coalition demanded written protections.
The coalition asked CMU to adopt formal, objective rules protecting student expression on The Fence.
10. Students still need a written policy.
Without clear written protections, the next controversial message can face the same shifting standard.
Promises vs. Record
CMU's public standard does not match the record
CMU says The Fence is for student expression.
The record shows student expression was painted over after becoming controversial.
CMU says it supports free expression.
The record shows protected student speech was removed.
CMU says rules matter.
The record shows attribution and administrative judgment becoming part of the standard after controversy.
CMU says it wants clarity.
Students still do not have a formal written policy protecting The Fence.
Unanswered Questions
Questions CMU still has not answered
- What written rule authorized the removal of protected student expression from The Fence?
- Who made the final decision to paint over the message?
- What objective standard will prevent future viewpoint-based removals?
- Will CMU adopt the coalition's requested written protections?
Coalition Demands
What students are demanding
- Adopt a formal written policy protecting The Fence as a student expression space.
- Limit removal to narrow, objective categories such as true threats, unlawful harassment, obscenity, vandalism outside Fence rules, or unlawful conduct.
- Ban censorship based on viewpoint, controversy, donor reaction, media attention, alumni pressure, reputational risk, or political embarrassment.
- Provide students a clear appeal path if expression is removed.
Campaign Update
Where the fight stands now
The Carnegie Mellon Free Speech Coalition delivered a letter to President Farnam Jahanian representing more than 535 students, alumni, faculty, and community members across 10 organizations.
The coalition urged Carnegie Mellon to follow through on its stated commitment to free expression and adopt formal written protections for The Fence. That request followed months of student concern, the Fence Working Group process, and the coalition’s earlier recommendations calling for clear, objective rules that protect student speech.
The problem is not resolved.
The Fence Working Group’s recommendation risks creating a dangerously vague standard for removing speech under the pretext of concerns such as “legal liability” or “fiduciary responsibility.” Without clear limits, that kind of language can chill expression and give administrators broad discretion to remove controversial speech.
The coalition raised these concerns directly. In President Jahanian’s response, he did not commit to adopting the coalition’s requested protections. Instead, he pointed to the Working Group process and said the petition had been forwarded to the group.
Now, as Carnegie Mellon approaches the fall and President Jahanian prepares to make decisions about the future of The Fence, students cannot remain silent.
This campaign is continuing because The Fence needs policies that protect free expression, not policies that chill it. Students, alumni, faculty, and campus partners are demanding a clear, written, viewpoint-neutral policy that prevents protected student speech from being erased when it becomes controversial, embarrassing, or inconvenient.
