Experts in constitutional law and diversity said they are uncertain about the impact that the Department of Education’s probes into university diversity, equity and inclusion policies could have on GW due to their lack of a clear legal basis and the likelihood of future legal battles.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week that called on the department to identify and carry out up to nine “potential civil compliance investigations” at universities with endowments over $1 billion, which cast a spotlight on 130 schools, including GW. The order tasked the department with examining whether these universities have engaged in discriminatory practices through policies intended to advance DEI, like using race as a criteria in their admissions, hiring or funding decisions.
The order was part of Trump’s larger mission to erase DEI practices and return the country to one that evaluates individuals exclusively based on merit.
Legal experts and professors have conflicting opinions on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order and whether potential future civil suits against universities would hold up in court. No lawsuits have yet been filed concerning the education department’s anti-DEI directive as of Sunday, but 13 Democratic attorneys general penned a joint statement condemning all of the president’s recent attempts to eliminate DEI initiatives and policies.
Two of GW’s 12 peer schools — Northeastern University and the University of Miami — preemptively shut down DEI offices and removed all mentions of DEI from their websites since Trump’s executive order. Northeastern officials said the school shut down its offices to comply with federal law.
It is not clear when or why UMiami took down their DEI websites. One of UMiami’s DEI webpages was active as recently as Dec. 22, per internet archives.
GW has not made any changes to the website of the Office of Diversity, Equity and Community Engagement as of Sunday. GW released a diversity action plan in September that stated the University allocated new funding for nearly every individual school to create a DEI office, which will regularly meet with the ODECE beginning next academic year.
University spokesperson Shannon McClendon said officials are analyzing and assessing the “multiple, varied and complex” implications of Trump’s executive order but declined to comment on how GW plans to respond if the DOE were to ask the University to terminate its diversity programs.
She also declined to say if the University has contingency plans in place to continue supporting underrepresented groups if GW’s DEI offices or programs are terminated but said officials will continue to share information and support as it becomes available.
“GW is committed to sustaining a community where all of our members feel welcome to learn, teach, and work to their fullest potential in an inclusive and equitable environment,” McClendon said in an email.
University President Ellen Granberg echoed similar sentiments in a message to community members this week, writing that officials, faculty and alumni are working with GW and its partners to understand the orders while complying with the law and “staying true” to the University’s educational mission.
Gary Orfield, a professor and co-director of the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles, said there’s no way to tell which universities the department will investigate, given the Trump administration’s lack of specific standards outlining what policies they believe violate the Constitution.
“I don’t think there’s any way to predict what they’re going to do because so much is purely arbitrary,” Orfield said. “They haven’t defined standards. They haven’t defined definitions.”
Orfield said Trump’s actions do not have “clear legal authority” and fall outside the boundaries of power vested in the executive branch. Many of Trump’s recent executive orders are pending lawsuits, including his order to end birthright citizenship and his order barring transgender people from serving openly in the military.
“This is all the president who’s trying to make the law, prosecute it, enforce it, implement sanctions,” Orfield said. “These are all the different branches of government. He’s acting like a king.”
Orfield said potential legal opposition from Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court will check the power of the executive order. He said GW, which he believes will likely not be investigated by the DOE, would also be able to take legal action against the department if needed, since Trump is making claims that universities have broken the law without hinging his argument on a specific federal law.
Universities must “stand up” to their legal threats and should challenge any anti-DEI pressure in court, Orfield said.
“They’re trying to scare everyone at the same time. But, the influx of tools, and they’re going to try to use them, but we have legal systems and we have political systems which will rise up against,” Orfield said.
Harry Holzer, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University, said if the lawsuits are taken to court, the Trump administration is likely to argue DEI policies are “discriminatory” and violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs that receive federal funding.
But DEI programs are not meant to be “discriminatory” and can be there to protect people, he said. GW’s DEI office’s website states its goal is to “facilitate first-rate teaching, learning, scholarship and service in a climate that is welcoming and inclusive.”
“The Trump people might do this, but outlawing DEI itself may not hold up in court,” Holzer said. “Specific actions against specific universities may also not hold up in court.”
Tyrone Howard, a professor of education at UCLA who specializes in race in education, said higher education institutions should prepare for criticism by the DOE and the Trump administration for their DEI programs. He said GW and other institutions will “probably” be targeted if they continue to promote DEI.
“If you have specific programs that are targeted towards underrepresented groups, be ready,” Howard said.
Howard said money and public perception will be used as tools to punish universities with DEI policies. He said the government can revoke federal funding — which often helps finance research — and engage in a “public shaming” process that discourages students from applying to universities that choose to protect their DEI policies. GW received 82 percent of its research funding from federal sources in FY2024.
“Essentially, what that public shame would be is ‘Don’t go to GW because you’re not going to be given a fair shot to be admitted because they’re going to admit DEI students before they admit highly qualified students,’” Howard said. “That kind of shaming is dangerous.”
Tim Rosenberger, a legal policy fellow at The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, said he doesn’t believe the department will investigate GW since the University hasn’t previously legally challenged anti-DEI policy.
He said other “elite” universities, like Georgetown, are more likely to be singled out because the university signed an amicus brief in August 2o22 with 56 other religious universities in support of upholding race consideration in admissions, or affirmative action. The lower courts upheld this practice in 2022, but the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action in 2023.
Since GW has no history of challenging the courts, Rosenberger said that it is not at a high risk for investigation.
Rosenberger said the DOE is likely to select a mix of religious, state, public and private colleges and universities to “reflect the breadth” of higher education in the United States. He also said smaller institutions, like Sarah Lawrence College, are not likely to be investigated compared to larger schools.
Rosenberger said universities will most likely file civil lawsuits against the Trump administration but Congress will not challenge the executive order. He said DEI policies are unconstitutional and the civil suits will not hold.
“I think ultimately the Trump administration’s position on this is going to prevail,” Rosenberger said.