March 9, 2025 - 5:30pm

Over the last two months, Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Edward Martin has forcefully demanded that Georgetown University’s Law School eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from its curriculum or risk jeopardising Department of Justice career opportunities for students.

“It has come to my attention that Georgetown Law School continues to teach and promote DEI,” Martin wrote in a letter. “First, have you eliminated all DEI from your school and its curriculum? Second, if DEI is found in your courses or teaching in anyway, will you move swiftly to remove it?”

Georgetown Law School Dean William Treanor responded on Thursday that the school would not comply with Martin’s demand, citing First Amendment protections for academic freedom.

The response to this exchange fell mostly on partisan lines: progressives celebrated what they saw as Dean Treanor’s bravery in standing up to government bullies, while conservatives joyfully watched as ivory tower elites finally got their comeuppance. But irrespective of one’s views on DEI, Martin is wrong to make this demand: the school should not be compelled to stop discussing DEI in courses if it wishes.

DEI initiatives have justifiably earned backlash. Although sold as programmes designed to increase fairness for groups perceived as oppressed, DEI programmes unfairly take away opportunities on the basis of race and enact censorious demands, from universities requiring diversity statements as political litmus tests to engaging in racial discrimination in hiring to meet diversity quotas.

But those against DEI should be very concerned with Martin’s threats to Georgetown. The movement against DEI has built broad support, even among some on the Left, by appealing to basic principles of fairness and protecting freedom of speech. But every time opponents of DEI impose new forms of censorship and restrictions on freedom, they stand to lose credibility. It might seem straightforward to simply order DEI to be removed from wherever it is found. And to some DEI crusaders, criticism of such actions by fellow opponents of DEI will be seen as a lack of will to win, or perhaps even betrayal. But wasting time on illegal moves that damage credibility is not “winning”.

Opponents of DEI need to recognise that there is a difference between regulating conduct and regulating speech, with the latter protected by the First Amendment. Eliminating DEI in hiring, promotional decisions, and admissions is lawful because it is banning conduct. But eliminating the discussion of DEI in the classroom regulates what people can say or think, and there isn’t always agreement on what exactly counts as DEI. The courts have repeatedly struck down educational content restrictions on the grounds of academic freedom, an important principle that protects faculty from political interference on what they can research and teach. Regulators and lawmakers who try to go after DEI in courses will hit a legal brick wall.

Solving the DEI problem requires a different approach. The cause of DEI’s ubiquity in academia is the activist faculty who relentlessly push for it in courses, programming, and policies. If there were fewer progressives working in universities, the DEI push would somewhat subside. Therefore, the hiring pipeline needs to be addressed. Some of these issues can be resolved by the government clarifying that racial discrimination and the use of racial proxies will not be tolerated. Shortly after the Trump administration made this clarification in a 14 February letter, the University of Virginia announced the elimination of DEI programmes across its system.

State governments can also leverage their authority to roll back DEI programmes. Iowa lawmakers, for instance, have proposed to tie access to student grants to the elimination of DEI offices at its private universities. The state government can also eliminate mandatory DEI course requirements at public universities, relegating activist faculty to the sidelines of instruction.

Other issues related to hiring must be solved by universities themselves. This means for public universities whose leadership can be appointed by state governments, selecting the best leaders matters. Tenure audits could help university leadership reevaluate faculty who were wrongfully retained under a corrupt hiring system. A great deal of trust could be salvaged if universities were willing to let go of the faculty ruining the credibility of these institutions.

Eliminating DEI and returning universities to value merit, rigour, and colourblindness must be approached with respect for the law. Otherwise, we risk losing valuable time and political momentum.


Neetu Arnold is a Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute and a Young Voices contributor. Follow her on X @neetu_arnold

neetu_arnold