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
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeGreat article, imo. In particular, the author proposes workable solutions to the dei problem that are likely to withstand legal scrutiny.
“… they stand to lose credibility”. This is pretty weak tea threatwise.
DEI, fundamentally, is a genocidal anti-white conspiracy theory. The additional elements—women, gay, trans, and neuro-diverse, etc—are not essential to it—they merely disguise it.
From start to finish, DEI is about race, specifically as defined by the extremist fringes of the left. These extremist fringes are explicitly and genocidally anti-white.
Removing this filth from education is critical to safeguarding freedom of speech. If you disagree, you reveal your hypocrisy, as you are comfortable banning neo-Nazism in higher education while permitting anti-white genocidal rhetoric to persist.
You take away someone’s free speech today. They take yours away tomorrow.
Ours was taken away. Try saying that there are only two genders / sexes, COVID came from a lab and massive lockdowns are harmful and or so-called climate change is not an existential threat and look what happened to you.
Indeed and SADLY in euro zone nations we STILL have no free speech but have to keep taking this DEI bs!
Not hardly.
The Author is conflating critical constructivism (Wokeness) with DEI. DEI is Equity. The D&I acronyms are window dressing. DEI is a systemic program of administering “equitable justice.” You can’t “teach DEI” because DEI is about enforcement.
Discussing the merits of Imposed Equality can’t be prevented but you absolutely can prevent Imposed Equality from being implemented under ordinary principles of non-discrimination.
QTWTAIN
DEI can be discussed at University , alongside Flat Earthers, Creationism and Dr Fauci
Of course the universities can continue to do as they please but their is no obligation for the federal government to continue giving them grants whether for STEM or anything else.
“the school should not be compelled to stop discussing DEI in courses if it wishes.”
Private organisations should be free to pursue and promote whatever ideas they like, but very few universities are fully private these days – all accept federal government grants.
It’s fair enough for Trump to stop funding universities that promote toxic beliefs, and to refuse to hire their indoctrinated students.
During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, something very unusual happened. Everyone was isolated, and, for the first time, nearly everyone was watching the same news or a new Chinese social media called Tiktok which no one at the time thought may breach national security. Across screens worldwide, people witnessed a man being killed on a sidewalk—an officer’s knee pressed against his neck. The world collectively reacted with shock and outrage.
Because people had been isolated for so long, left alone with their emotions and thoughts for the first time, they emerged from lockdowns full of empathy, demanding change; others emerged from detachment and displacement. There was a widespread recognition of the need to respect essential workers, an acceptance that working from home was viable, and a broader desire for systemic reform. There were many other interesting development then around vaccinations groups called vaxxiers! but I digress.
Then, something strange occurred. Corporations seized upon an idea—let’s call it “XX.” This idea spread rapidly, becoming entrenched in various aspects of society. People everywhere were discussing XX, advocating for it, implementing it but many were also afraid about it. Some even wonder what this is about and seemed extremely perplexed. But soon, some took it further, expanding XX into XY, then XYZ, then XYYZZZZZ. The concept grew, evolved, and became increasingly dominant. So dominant that it has covered even issues that do not have anything to do whatever original XX intended! Many people were angry and frustrated at XX as well but were sort of marginalized.
Talking about XX created us vs them or them vs us mentality.
Eventually, something shifted within businesses and institutions – a new boss came to town. Suddenly, XX—and everything associated with it—was erased, forgotten, and deliberately suppressed.
One day, when future historians—or perhaps even aliens—study this period, they will encounter a gap in the record. They will notice that something significant happened between 2020 and 2025, something that shaped the world, and yet, they will find only silence. “What was XX?” they will ask, puzzled by its absence. And how did XX became X+++++?
That is the paradox of a world where people demand not just the removal of an idea as if that is even conceivable, but the erasure of even the discussion of that idea.
The absurdity of all is extremely entertaining but also extremely alarming!
If another virus came along, dangerous for elderly, ill people, largely benign for the rest of us, do you think the world would react in the same way? Would governments behave in the same way? Would corporations behave in the same way? Would the same XX idea predominate?
You have missed the point. DEI is a destructive philosophy that has done untold harm to the US. Universities can of course do and teach what they want. But there is also no obligation for the federal government to then fund those universities. It’s really simple. Once federal funding is withdrawn, you watch the universities come to their senses in a New York minute.
The author doesn’t know what he’s talking about and doesn’t understand just how deeply DEI is embedded in the University Sector. There is only one way to bring the universities in line and come to their senses and adopt MEI (merit, excellence and intelligence) instead of DEI. just remove all federal funds (including funds for NIH and NSF grants) to all universities who continue to pursue DEI and allow anti-semitism to flourish. Youw atch how quickly the universities will turn around.
Yes but watch it re-emerge in a different form.
Agree. Gentle measures and a stern talking to will achieve nothing. The most powerful tool the government has is the tax free status afforded to universities – including private ones. Think of how quickly Harvard would jump if their endowment was threatened with taxes.
In the classroom, the principle should be to both discuss DEI and critiques of DEI – particularly at university level. Students shouldn’t be fed just one viewpoint, but need to learn the skills to challenge any theories they are taught.
Yes. The problem, I suppose, is hiring activists as instructors and especially as administrators and heads of departments. You’ll never get a reasonable and fair discussion of any topic if the instructors bring their own opinions to class. And the students will learn a dogma, instead of the critical thinking process they should be learning.
Writer is wrong to conflate ‘discussing’ with ‘teaching’ DEI, perhaps a bit of pushing of ones own preferences. Apart from that the left seems to be all in favour of academic freedoms, unless, of course, they benefit the right.
“.. 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 Trump administration is 100% right to demand that universities (law and medical schools in particular) eliminate DEI from from their curricula. DEI regulates what is fed to undergraduates, who are taught what to think, not how to think. DEI admits no challenge or alternatives – and those who do question it are brutally ostracised (at best) or summarily cancelled. It is a cancerous philosophy that has been blatantly employed to brainwash receptive young minds on the one hand, and to secure a stranglehold or corporate power at every level, from the part-time toilet cleaner to the CEO. DEI is pernicious, evil and utterly toxic. It should have no place in a balanced and quality curriculum. It is akin to Nazi ideology imposed on educational curricula in Hitler’s Germany, or Stalin’s awful stranglehold on school and university education, and is a poison in society that has to be likewise eradicated as they were in Germany and ultimately Russia.
And good for the Department of Justice if it refuses to employ graduates who have emerged brainwashed from DEI law schools. Such people have caused immense harm in western democracies around the Globe. This supply of entrenched evil has to be stopped.
DEI should be discussed. The problem is that hitherto it has not been. It has been presented as a de facto undisputed virtue and benefit to society. It should be considered as a political strategy which benefits some at a cost to others. What has not and should be discussed in particular are the significant contradictions and flaws in the strategy, the costs of the conflicts it creates.