Georgetown University’s DEI Policy Changes Spark Controversy

As a sophomore at Georgetown and the President of the Georgetown College Republicans, I recently shared an article that highlighted significant changes in the university’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) office. After its publication, there was quite a buzz—over 50,000 views on social media, shares from well-known conservatives, and discussions in one of Georgetown’s classes, where my article was labeled as hate speech.

By the end of the week, the administration took swift action. They removed references to the controversial DEI initiatives I mentioned in my article from the Office of Equal Opportunity Compliance’s website, previously known as the Office of Institutional Diversity Equity and Affirmative Action.

Originally, their website included sections that showcased “Diversity Recruitment Sources” and stated Georgetown’s intentions to prioritize hiring minority individuals, women, veterans, and persons with disabilities in alignment with their Affirmative Action Plan. Now, however, the new “Outreach and Recruitment” page has dropped any mention of diversity. This shift erases all references to prioritizing certain demographics and eliminates the Affirmative Action plan entirely.

Furthermore, the “Academic Positions” page, which encouraged faculty search teams to consider diversity during hiring, has vanished. It used to link to resources aimed at identity-based recruitment, including organizations like the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association. So, it’s not surprising that this document has also been removed. Interestingly, Georgetown has yet to publicly comment on these changes.

Still, it’s important to recognize that these website updates should not be mistaken for true reform. By simply renaming pages and erasing documents, Georgetown appears to be engaging in damage control rather than accountable action. This approach hints at an acknowledgment of their previous policies’ potential illegality, yet it doesn’t erase the history of systemic discrimination implied by these removed documents. The university’s actions may even prompt the Department of Education to investigate further to ensure adherence to established civil rights law.