Georgetown Law School’s dean rejected on Thursday a warning from the top federal prosecutor for Washington D.C. that his office will not hire the school’s students if it does not eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs (DEI).
Edward R. Martin. Jr, US Attorney for the District of Columbia wrote in a letter that his office will not accept any application for fellowships, internships, and employment from Georgetown Law students as long as the school continues to “teach and utilize DEI.”
Georgetown Law’s Dean, William M. Treanor, rebutted the letter as a challenge to the school’s mission as an educational institution that was founded on the Catholic and Jesuit principles of discourse “among people of different faiths, cultures, and beliefs.” Treanor added that the First Amendment guarantees a university the right to “determine, on academic grounds, who may teach, what to teach, and how to teach it”.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right to freedom of expression from government interference, permitting universities to select their faculty, areas of study, and which students to admit.
On January 20, President Trump signed Executive Order 14151, titled “Ending Radial and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” in an attempt to eliminate the usage of DEI programs by the Federal government. Trump rescinded Biden’s Executive Order 13985 to support DEI programs, calling it discriminatory, shameful, and wasteful of taxpayer money.
Executive Order 13985, the first signed by Joe Biden as President, encouraged federal government agencies towards having more inclusive policies in employment opportunities, particularly for persons of color and other under-served groups.
Several human rights organizationsfiled a lawsuit against Trump’s administration, claiming his recent executive orders “falsely assert” that diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives are “illegal.” Another lawsuit wasfiled by the city of Baltimore and three civil rights organizations seeking to overturn the executive orders, which argued the orders violated constitutional protections and undermined efforts to promote equal opportunities.