We’re tired of writing staff editorials with the same thesis: GW needs to communicate more. Every week, when we sit down to choose an editorial topic, we comb through The Hatchet’s top stories looking for an issue worth digging into. Week after week, the seemingly obvious follow-up questions we have after reading the headline aren’t answered by officials in the piece. From staff layoffs to visa revocations, diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives to broader shifts in federal education policy, our editorial boards have centered around questions we were shocked officials declined to answer in news coverage.
When GW is pressed on urgent issues by The Hatchet’s news team, the editorial board feels the statements officials provide for the pieces are at times so vague they verge on misleading. A prime example came with the University’s response to the education compact: A spokesperson initially said GW would confer with top advisers, only for officials to later issue a clarification confirming that the University was not considering signing on. In its effort to say as little as possible, GW ended up saying something it didn’t mean. That kind of overly cautious communication signals to the community that officials assume stakeholders don’t need, or won’t seek, further information.
To be clear from the outset, this editorial is not a debate over institutional neutrality. We are not asking GW to take a political stance or comment on every policy shift under President Donald Trump’s administration. Nor are we saying that, in the case of the education compact, the University should — or shouldn’t — have weighed in on its specific provisions. What we are saying is that GW should have clearly stated where it stood in the process, including what information it could share and what it could not. We recognize that GW cannot always disclose every detail or rationale behind its decisions. But when that’s the case, the University should say so directly. Silence or vague statements shouldn’t leave the community guessing whether GW is withholding information or simply doesn’t think its stakeholders deserve to be informed.
Over the past year, officials have shared little with their community about some of the most consequential decisions on campus. The semester began with the Department of Justice’s antisemitism investigation findings, which officials have continued to remain largely quiet on months later. When it came to staff layoffs, GW disclosed the total number of employees affected but offered no details on which departments were impacted or how much money the cuts were projected to save. Similarly, the University has yet to inform the community — many of whom are students paying to be part of this institution — about the current size of the structural deficit or the rationale for withholding that information.
We understand that in the case of issues like the number of visa revocations last spring, for example, GW may not have had the exact number of students at first. Our editorial board at the time understood that the Department of Homeland Security isn’t required to notify visa holders before withdrawing their documents. But even within that atmosphere of uncertainty, we felt that GW’s transparency has fallen short compared to peer schools. If GW could estimate the share of affected individuals — distinguishing alumni from current students — and felt comfortable describing the number of impacted students as “small,” it’s reasonable for the community to assume the University knows more than it’s choosing to share.
Officials have rolled back security, made temporary changes to Gelman Library hours and shortened dining schedules without clear explanations, leaving the community to infer that these measures were linked to budgetary pressures. Transparency is also lacking around GW’s DEI policies, with officials not clarifying their reasoning for postponing the Diversity Summit or halting the search for the vice provost of the Office of Diversity, Equity and Community Engagement. When Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids occurred near campus, GW relegated the update to a single sentence in an email, offering no additional context. The same was true for last month’s bomb threat, when University President Ellen Granberg did not issue a statement to the community. Officials may believe silence or vagueness on certain issues is the safer option. But silence is still a choice, and in a community that depends on timely and transparent communication, choosing not to communicate is itself a decision that speaks volumes.
When we examine communication from GW’s peer schools, it becomes clear that while many universities employ similarly polished public relations language, they are often far less vague. For example, when the University of Southern California updated its community on Trump’s education compact, it clearly stated that it had “declined” and even included the letter officials sent to the administration. As one of the original 10 universities directly offered the compact by Trump’s administration, USC’s decision to decline was significant, and we were not expecting GW to do the same. But this level of transparency — providing the community with a decision, reasoning and proof with a copy of the response — is something we wish we saw more of at GW.
For example, officials have not shared a summary of the University’s response to the DOJ’s campus antisemitism findings. Earlier this semester, officials indicated interest in negotiating with the DOJ but offered no details, despite several requests from The Hatchet’s news team for information about GW’s plans and responses. Communication with the DOJ over a potential voluntary resolution agreement is a prime example of an issue GW could have proactively communicated about. We recognize that legal constraints may limit what the University can disclose. But when that’s the case, the community should be told as much. The University should not wait for the student newspaper or a governing body to press for a response before offering even basic context on significant developments. Proactive communication is essential to maintaining trust and accountability within the community. Providing the community with a copy of GW’s response to the DOJ — similar to how USC shared its letter about the education compact — would have gone a long way toward building trust and demonstrating transparency.
The current approach of vague, overly cautious messaging has never been effective and won’t start working now. In the past, the University has acknowledged, like with the Medical Faculty Associates’ financial challenges, that it couldn’t provide full details at the time. If that is the case, it should be communicated clearly. Obscuring information undermines trust, shows little respect for stakeholders and leaves the community in the dark about decisions that directly affect their lives. GW may be concerned about optics or internal challenges, but transparency with the people who invest their time, money and energy in the University is not optional.
The editorial board consists of Hatchet staff members and operates separately from the newsroom. This week’s staff editorial was written by Opinions Editor Andrea Mendoza-Melchor, based on discussions with Contributing Opinions Editor Ava Hurwitz, Contributing Culture Editor Carly Cavanaugh, Contributing Sports Editor Grant Pacernick and Social Media Director Max Gaffin.