Luke Clark Moody is a senior majoring in international affairs.
Recent U.S. news coverage has been dominated by the federal government’s flagrant flaunting of due process both domestically and abroad. From the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s unprosecuted killings to the illegal military operation extraditing Venezuela’s then-President Nicolás Maduro, everywhere you turn, protections of due process are rapidly eroding. A similar pattern is unfolding at GW. Officials’ proposed changes to the Student Code of Conduct — which include removing panels and implementing broad and discretionary clauses to define violations — eviscerate due process, replacing reasonable rules with unchecked administrative power. If you are a GW student, this should terrify you.
The code outlines the rules we must adhere to as members of the GW community and the procedures by which the administration determines guilt and punishes students. Those punishments can be as severe as suspension, expulsion and removal from housing — consequences that threaten the significant financial investments students and their families make in GW, along with future employment and educational opportunities. The severity of these consequences cannot be overstated.
The procedures that determine life-changing punishments must be clear and fair. When they are not, biased, inconsistent and destructive results are inevitable. Unfortunately, the administration’s proposed overhaul of the code falls far short of these expectations. Even more chilling is the fact that, according to students I’ve spoken to, many of these changes appear to be a response to the Conflict Education & Student Accountability office’s inability to punish pro-Palestinian protesters en masse after the spring 2024 encampment.
Under the current code, students facing the most serious consequences — suspension, expulsion and removal from housing — face a panel comprised of students, faculty and staff. This process ensures no individual has the power to levy consequences, and any student facing severe penalties can present their evidence and story to a panel of peers. If GW implements officials’ proposed changes, the panels disappear. GW officials could arbitrarily expel students for political reasons without input from the community — something University President Ellen Granberg appears to have explicitly said she wished she could do in November 2023.
Under the proposed code, administrative case managers would handle the entire case. They do not require the involved students’ input at all. That means an administrative case manager would gather evidence, determine guilt, assign the consequences and ensure they are appropriately carried out. They would literally be the detective, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
The changes are all the more concerning because they appear to be politically motivated. Officials have claimed the updates are part of a normal overhaul as the current code is more than 30 years old. If this were true, students would have been substantially involved in the creation of the proposed code. That wasn’t the case. At the public forums I attended, they claimed the changes reflect an industry standard. If this were true, evidence of this undemocratic standard — like the lack of panels — would be forthcoming. It is not. Research conducted in December by the Student Advocate’s Office into seventy other comparable universities shows 90 percent have panels in their disciplinary process. Out of GW’s peer schools, Georgetown University is the only one of 13 without panels.
With the official explanations not adding up, it is hard not to make the connection to CESA’s organized repression of student protesters after the spring 2024 pro-Palestinian encampment. Students facing CESA’s repression plead their cases to a jury of peers, which facilitated fairer outcomes than what might have resulted if the administration had unchecked discretionary power. The new code appears to be a concerted effort by the administration to strip those protections away.
Students I’ve spoken to have said officials reworked the clauses historically used against organizers — access without authorization, discriminatory misconduct and failure to comply — to be vague or replaced them entirely with more discretionary clauses. The entire overhaul rewrites clauses to be excessively vague, leaving rules and regulations up to interpretation.
For example, the proposed code does not include an explanation for what standard of evidence applies, what evidence can and can’t be used, how much evidence is required for a decision or how much weight is given to different pieces of evidence. Without these questions answered, it is impossible for students to adequately defend themselves. Additionally, officials say the list of prohibited conduct “should not be considered all inclusive,” meaning students could be punished for things not included in the code. It is unreasonable for a student to face consequences for an action not explicitly outlined as prohibited conduct.
Another example is the new “harming behavior” clause. Without giving examples of what includes “physical harm” or “severe emotional harm,” this charge can be applied differently depending on the biases of the case managers. Identical actions could have vastly different consequences depending on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, country of origin and more of the involved students, even if this bias is unintentional. That level of administrative discretion is in many of the new or updated clauses. You can find more examples here.
Officials also revised the “Failure to Comply” clause to be so vague that any command by faculty, staff or administrator must be followed by students. The current code includes this stipulation but not nearly so broad: Any request must be “reasonable.” What unreasonable commands does the GW administration wish for students to follow? In addition to this clause being condescending and belittling, it is obviously dangerous for students.
With different case managers handling different cases, bringing different biases into each specific case, the proposed changes guarantee unequal and thus unfair outcomes. That is not to mention what happens if Granberg, a Board of Trustees member, a wealthy donor or the federal government calls to put their thumb on the scale.
That level of discretion is especially concerning at a time when many students are upset and passionately speaking out about the GW administration’s disregard for immigrant neighbors, systemic destruction of the Graduate School of Education and Human Development and significant and abhorrent ties to the genocide in Palestine. Administrative discretion over the disciplinary process means officials will determine when and where protections for student protesting, speech and dissent apply. The new code would be a dangerous weapon for an administration with a history of repressing student voices.
Now is not the time for students to cede power to a GW administration found to be guilty of illegal bias by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights — an administration that is cooperating with Trump’s administration in the Justice Department’s Title VI probes. If you believe in the dignity of your fellow students and wish to maintain your rights to free speech, protest, dissent and due process, please fill out the official feedback form and email the administrators responsible for these changes your thoughts at [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]. You can find a template for feedback here. If you’re interested in taking a more active role in fighting for students’ rights at GW, please apply to be a student advocate at the newly formed SAO.
Freedom is not guaranteed. It requires vigilance and action. What will your action be?
