As an editorial board, we’ve been tough on the University this year. We’ve criticized its communication around budget cuts, staff layoffs, perceived rollbacks to diversity initiatives and the strategic framework. We’ve argued that GW’s vague and overly cautious communication leaves its community uninformed and undermines trust and that when officials fail to clearly explain decisions — or acknowledge when they can’t share details — they create confusion and signal a lack of transparency and accountability. We stand by those critiques. But while we’ve discussed internally the moments when GW later took steps we had previously criticized officials for not taking, we haven’t actually published follow-up pieces acknowledging those changes. At the end of The Hatchet’s 122nd volume, we would like to take a moment to do so.

We are part of a community that expects a great deal from officials because we believe strongly in the University’s power and potential. GW attracts faculty, staff and students who are deeply invested not just in being part of the institution but in actively shaping and improving it. An active Faculty Senate, Staff Council and Student Government Association hold officials accountable when they fall short of commitments or shared governance principles. We have criticized the Faculty Senate this year for not sufficiently using its platform to press officials on the issues that matter most to our community, and since then, we believe it has stepped up. Our editorial board, and The Hatchet more broadly, is part of that dynamic. We pour our hearts into covering this University because we want to equip stakeholders with the information and perspectives they need to drive change. As students, we choose and pay to be here, and we will carry the GW name with us long after we graduate. We ask a lot of the University because we believe it can meet those expectations. Increasingly, it seems GW is picking up those calls.

In recent months, we have documented numerous occasions when GW has proven itself malleable to community demands. At a time when President Donald Trump’s attack on universities is forcing a broader reckoning with the value of education, and GW is grappling with internal budget challenges, we believe GW is making a clearer effort to meet the community’s requests for more transparency.

A frequent critique we’ve had of officials is their failure to explain why they are unable to share additional information with the community when they choose not to do so. We have urged them to be more upfront when legal or confidentiality constraints limited what they could disclose. In recent months, we have seen GW do just that, explicitly citing confidentiality as the reason it could not share further details about the Virginia Science and Technology Campus sale. Previously, we interpreted these moments as refusals to provide information, which left us and many in the community confused and frustrated. While we remain frustrated by the lack of information and consultation on certain decisions, we have also come to better understand the constraints officials may be operating under when they cannot disclose more. We urge GW to continue communicating in this way moving forward. This is a community that wants to be informed, and greater clarity around the limits of what officials can share goes a long way toward building trust and understanding.

In December, we argued that GW was not being sufficiently transparent about the future of its diversity, equity and inclusion commitments amid growing Trump-era pressures. We warned that the University’s postponement of DEI programming, pause to a key diversity-related position search and increasingly cautious public framing of equity initiatives signaled officials’ broader retreat from its stated commitments without clearly acknowledging what those changes meant for the community. We asked GW to be transparent and explicit about its DEI-related decisions and the reasoning behind them. Earlier this month, Interim Provost John Lach sent a campus-wide email reaffirming GW’s commitment to DEI and stating that the University is not retreating from those values. We appreciated that step toward clarity and hope to see this more transparent and direct communication from officials moving forward.

In February, we wrote about GW’s lack of public response to federal actions and other global events affecting students and communities, which marked a departure from its previous practice of issuing messages of support in the wake of crises. We emphasized the importance of the University publicly acknowledging these moments and providing resources for those impacted. Shortly after, when federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security entered a Columbia University building, Dean of Students Colette Coleman sent an email recognizing student concerns and reminding the community of the legal limits on federal agents entering non-public spaces without a warrant. Our editorial had called for GW officials to be more vocal and to include context and resources in their communications, and, in this instance, that is what they did.

That same week, following cartel-related violence in Mexico, GW reached out directly to students whose families or communities may have been affected. A member of our editorial board received a message primarily directed to parents or guardians explaining that GW had contacted students it believed might need additional support, and in the student email they received a follow-up from Coleman titled “We are here for you: Support and Resources Available.” It was notable to see how quickly the University appeared to respond in ways aligned with what we had called for in our staff editorial, even if we cannot confirm whether all affected student groups received similar outreach. Being on the receiving end of those messages was both encouraging and validating, and is something our editorial board had pushed officials to do.

GW has taken meaningful steps in recent months to better support and connect with its community, and for that, we are grateful. Still, the University must continue to improve how it communicates and how it incorporates students, faculty and staff into decision-making processes that directly affect them. Calls for stronger shared governance have been consistent across campus, reflected in this year’s SGA elections and raised frequently in Faculty Senate meetings. Too often, the community is left without the information necessary to fully understand the University’s challenges and decisions, making it harder to meaningfully participate in them. For shared governance to be real, GW must not only invite feedback but also ensure that stakeholders are equipped with clear, timely and accessible information about what is happening across the institution.

We have critiqued the University frequently this year, but that is because we believe in its power and potential. GW is working to do good in the world, and it has the capacity to do so while preparing its students to go out and make an impact of their own. Officials still have substantial work to do on communication and consultation, but we recognize and appreciate the progress they’re making. At its core, this is a University that aspires to be better and is taking steps that reflect that aspiration.