The Tartan

Following President Donald J. Trump’s 2025 inauguration, students from Carnegie Mellon University painted the Fence with a message of protest reading “F*ck Trump,” with the “U” replaced by a raised fist symbol. 

One day later, the message was painted over by Carnegie Mellon Facilities Management Services, directed by the university administration. The removal sparked concerns about censorship, leading students to repaint the Fence with a new message, “Don’t fencership my censorship,” directly addressing the administration’s decision.

Carnegie Mellon University’s historic Fence, often regarded as a symbol of freedom of speech on campus, has become the focal point of controversy following these events. The incident, which unfolded over the course of several days, has sparked debates over censorship, free speech, and the role of the university administration in mediating student expression.

On the night of Jan. 19, a group of anonymous students painted the words “F*ck Trump” on the Fence, with the “u” replaced by a raised fist to symbolize solidarity and to self-censor the profanity. The statement, posted to the Instagram account @cmufence, explained that the message was in response to Trump’s inauguration the following morning.

By the evening of Jan. 20, the message had been completely painted over in black by an unknown party. Students expressed frustration, arguing that the administration had not only censored profanity but had also erased the political intent of the message entirely.

One of the students involved in the original painting, Danya Kogan, a second-year undergraduate in CIT, described the situation: “I understand that there are policies about profanity, both at Carnegie Mellon and possibly within the city of Pittsburgh, but we had already self-censored the word. Instead of making minor changes, the administration completely erased the message, which feels like political censorship.”

Administration Response

In an email shared by the Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students Gina Casalegno and Provost and Chief Academic Officer Jim Garrett to The Tartan, the administration elaborated on its decision: “It has long been our posture that neither obscenities nor incitements to violence would be tolerated on The Fence. Over the years, university leadership has directed Facilities Management Services to paint over obscenities, consistent with Carnegie Mellon’s Disorderly Conduct Policy.” The statement emphasized the administration’s respect for The Fence as a space for student expression while asserting that “obscenity has no place on this landmark in the middle of our campus.”

Undergraduate Student Senate President Francesca Renzelli Cain confirmed that the university had directed Facilities Management Services (FMS) to repaint the portion of the Fence containing the message. “On the night of January 20, leadership from the Office of Student Affairs contacted Undergraduate Student Senate and Graduate Student Assembly leaders to discuss the need to cover the obscenity,” she stated.

She further explained that after no student organization repainted the Fence after midnight, FMS was instructed by university leadership to fully paint over the message to ensure compliance with university policy and local regulations.

Graduate Student Assembly (GSA) President Mary Anna Ebbert corroborated this timeline, stating that she and Cain were informed of the situation by Gina Casalegno. “Since it was a holiday, neither of us were on campus, so we had not seen the Fence. Gina asked for our input, and we referred to a similar incident in November when a comparable phrase was painted,” Ebbert explained.

The university has dealt with multiple incidents of profanity on the Fence in the past academic year. In November 2024, students painted “Fuck Trump” on the rightmost pillar of the Fence from the front. To comply with policies, Student Government covered only the letters “U”, “C”, and “K,” leaving “F Trump” visible with the intention of preserving the message’s original intent.

In Dec. 2024, another instance of profanity occurred when README, a campus magazine, painted “Fuck you Kevin it’s cold.” This time, the entire word “Fuck” was painted over. The January incident, however, marked the first time the university opted to completely erase the entire phrase “F*ck Trump,” even though the original painters had self-censored the “U.” 

Olivia Haberberger, GSA Vice President of Campus Affairs, attended a follow-up meeting with Student Affairs on Jan. 21. She acknowledged the inconsistency in how such incidents were handled.

“That’s an extremely fair question and something we’ve struggled with understanding,” Haberberger said. “Historically, the Fence has rarely required administrative censorship, so the fact that this has happened three times in one academic year is unusual. It raises questions about changing norms around language and expression.”

Haberberger also noted the complexity of regulating messages on such a public landmark: “It’s a landmark that’s visible from campus and even from off-campus areas like Forbes Avenue. That brings up issues like the Captive Audience doctrine, which means that, unlike verbal protests, people can’t simply walk away from the message on the Fence. There are broader implications to consider.”

Haberberger emphasized the need for clearer policies moving forward: “It’s going to be a challenge to determine what qualifies as profanity and how it should be handled. But one thing is clear — students need a more explicit set of guidelines so they can express themselves without fear of arbitrary censorship. That’s why we’re working with Senate to refine these policies.”

In response to the full censorship, a group of students repainted the Fence on Jan. 29 with the phrase, “Don’t fencership my censorship,” protesting what they saw as excessive administrative intervention. The back of the Fence was painted with “Sincerely, ‘campus stakeholders’” in reference to an email sent by President Farnam Jahanian recently in regards to Trump’s recent executive orders that used the phrase to refer to students, faculty, and staff. The painters stated that they felt the term minimized those most directly affected by Trump’s policies.

Student reaction

Ryan Tosh, a first-year in Dietrich involved in the Jan. 19 painting and the later “Fencership” message, explained his motivation: “We self-censored the U in the original message, hoping that would be enough. When the university completely erased the entire phrase without any official communication, that’s when frustration set in. When Student Government censored a similar message in November, they preserved the intent by leaving it as ‘F Trump’ and explained their decision publicly. This time, it was done without transparency.”

“We were going to paint ‘Fuck Profanity’ on the back because it was pretty funny in our view,” Tosh said. “But CMUPD walked up to us while we were putting a base coat down, and talked to me about an unrelated incident involving me, so we decided to go with a design which couldn’t get us in trouble once we knew that CMUPD could identify who painted it.”

Tosh also described how the “Fencership” message came to be. “I came up with the ‘Don’t fencership my censorship’ message while joking around with README,” he said. “The night that we painted the Fencership fence, we had been expecting a different group to paint, but at midnight they hadn’t shown up. We decided to go ahead and paint it, using some leftover paint from the ‘F*ck Trump’ fence, pretty much on a whim.”

Future Policy Changes

The perceived inconsistency and the full erasure of the political message led to broader campus discussions about the role of free speech at Carnegie Mellon. Haberberger acknowledged the need for clearer guidelines on what constitutes acceptable language on the Fence. 

“We are strong supporters of free speech, and the administration has been open to discussions. However, there needs to be a clear, explicit standard — both for students to express themselves freely and for the university to remain consistent in its approach,” she said.

Student government leaders have committed to revising the university’s graffiti and poster policy, which currently governs the Fence. They have suggested that an open forum or campus-wide survey could help shape future regulations.