American University's School of International Service announced a Friday evening symposium titled "Tracing the Impact of 9/11 Forever Wars: From 2001 to the Present." The event will feature Maha Hilal, co‑founder of the Justice for Muslims Collective, alongside scholars and journalists. Hilal's participation has ignited a debate on campus about the limits of free expression and the political message the university wishes to convey.
Hilal is best known for her criticism of United States counter‑terrorism tactics. In an August 2022 article for the UK‑based outlet Middle East Eye, she described the killings of al‑Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al‑Zawahiri as "extrajudicial assassinations" that undermine the rule of law. She argued that the United States used "victimhood" to justify targeted strikes without a legal process, even though al‑Zawahiri was killed in a drone attack nearly 21 years after the September 11 attacks.
The panel will also address the October 7, 2023 Hamas assault on Israel, which Hilah framed as "resistance" in a social‑media post. She has repeatedly called for "Palestinian liberation" and praised the self‑immolation of Air Force specialist Aaron Bushnell outside the Israeli embassy in Washington, describing the act as a "call to action." Those statements have drawn condemnation from Israeli officials and from groups that view the Hamas attack as a terrorist act comparable to 9/11.
American University, a private institution with tuition exceeding $60,000 per year, has a history of hosting contentious speakers. Its alumni include former national security adviser Susan Rice and scholar Ibram X. Kendi. The university's recent marketing campaign aimed at attracting Jewish students underscores the sensitivity of the current controversy.
Campus free‑speech debates have intensified across the United States and Canada in recent years. Universities grapple with the tension between protecting robust debate and preventing hate speech. In Canada, the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in R. v. Khan affirmed that universities must balance academic freedom with the safety of students, a principle that informs how Canadian campuses respond to similar events.
Hilal's criticism of President Joe Biden's August 2022 executive order also entered the discussion. The order authorized $3.5 billion in frozen Taliban assets to be redirected as humanitarian aid for Afghanistan, while also providing assistance to families of 9/11 victims. Hilal argued that the move continued the "war on Afghanistan" and diverted resources away from the Afghan population. The policy was defended by the administration as a means to address long‑standing humanitarian needs and to honor victims of the 2001 attacks.
The legal backdrop for the targeted killings Hilal condemns dates back to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which granted the president broad authority to combat terrorism. Subsequent Supreme Court rulings, such as Boumediene v. Bush (2007) and Al‑Salafi v. United States (2022), have examined the constitutional limits of drone strikes, but the courts have largely deferred to the executive on matters of national security.
Critics of Hilal argue that her focus on the deaths of al‑Qaeda operatives distracts from the nearly 3,000 American lives lost on September 11, including 184 victims in the Washington, D.C., area. The attacks remain a defining moment in U.S. foreign policy, shaping the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and influencing immigration and security legislation.
Supporters of Hilal contend that her perspective highlights the human cost of U.S. counter‑terrorism policies on Muslim communities worldwide. They point to the rise in hate crimes against Muslims after 9/11 and argue that a more transparent legal process would reduce the perception of "victor's justice." Hilal's book, Innocent Until Proven Muslim, expands on these arguments, linking Islamophobia to broader civil‑rights concerns.
The panel will be moderated by Mariam Durrani, a professor at the School of International Service who previously sparked controversy with an op‑ed in 2002 questioning the patriotic sentiment that followed 9/11. Durrani's involvement signals the university's willingness to engage with dissenting voices, even when they generate strong backlash.
Student groups have already organized petitions both supporting and opposing Hilal's appearance. A coalition of Jewish student organizations called the event "insensitive" and urged the administration to rescind the invitation. In contrast, a campus chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union defended the panel as a test of the university's commitment to free expression.
From a policy standpoint, the symposium arrives at a moment when Congress is debating a new defense authorization bill that would codify limits on drone strikes and require congressional notification for targeted killings. Lawmakers in both Washington and Ottawa are watching the campus debate as a barometer of public sentiment on the issue.
For Canadian observers, the event offers a comparative lens on how North American institutions handle the legacy of 9/11. Canada's own "War on Terror" involved the 2001 Anti‑Terrorism Act and the 2015 anti‑terrorism amendments, which have been critiqued for curtailing civil liberties. Canadian universities have faced similar protests over speakers who question Western military interventions.
American University has not responded to requests for comment on Hilal's participation. The university's spokesperson declined to discuss the specifics of the panel but reiterated a commitment to "fostering rigorous dialogue on global security challenges."
The outcome of the symposium could influence how other universities schedule anniversary events. If the panel proceeds without incident, it may embolden other institutions to host speakers with controversial views on U.S. foreign policy. Conversely, a significant protest could prompt administrators to reconsider the balance between open debate and community standards.
Regardless of the immediate reaction, the event underscores the enduring political reverberations of September 11. The attacks continue to shape debates over national security, legal accountability, and the role of higher education in mediating contentious historical narratives.