Georgetown Law Dean Schools Trump-Era Appointee on Constitutional Literacy
Rex Huppke’s recent USA Today column shines a spotlight on a compelling clash between academic integrity and partisan zeal, highlighting the sharp rebuke delivered by Georgetown University Law Center Dean William Treanor to Ed Martin, a Trump-appointed former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. This incident, Huppke argues, provides a valuable lesson for Democratic lawmakers who have often appeared hesitant in confronting the political theatrics of the Trump era.
Martin, seemingly eager to curry favor with his former patron, Donald Trump, sent an email to Dean Treanor expressing his disapproval of Georgetown Law School’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Martin declared that his office would no longer consider applications from students or individuals affiliated with any law school or university that "continues to teach and utilize DEI." This blatant attempt to impose ideological conformity on an academic institution, Huppke notes, comes from an individual who previously promoted the false narrative of a rigged 2020 election and demonstrated a rudimentary understanding of the U.S. justice system.
Dean Treanor’s response was a masterclass in intellectual and constitutional defense. He firmly reminded Martin that Georgetown University, as a Catholic and Jesuit institution, is founded on the principle of fostering intellectual exchange among people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs. Treanor emphasized that this principle is not merely a matter of policy but a moral and educational imperative.
More importantly, Treanor invoked the First Amendment, reminding Martin that the government cannot dictate what Georgetown or its faculty teach. He cited Supreme Court precedent affirming a university’s right to determine its curriculum and teaching methods. Treanor further pointed out that even the Trump administration’s Department of Education had acknowledged the statutory prohibition against restricting First Amendment rights or controlling school curricula.
Treanor’s response effectively dismantled Martin’s argument by highlighting its constitutional flaws and its blatant disregard for academic freedom. He concluded by requesting confirmation that all Georgetown-affiliated candidates would receive fair consideration for employment in Martin’s office.
Huppke applauds Dean Treanor for his decisive action, contrasting it with what he perceives as a pattern of "supine acquiescence and mildly agitated brow-furrowing" from congressional Democrats in response to Trump’s policies and pronouncements. He suggests that Democrats should emulate Treanor’s approach by confronting such instances of ideological overreach with clarity, confidence, and a firm grasp of constitutional principles.
The core of Huppke’s argument is that dealing with individuals driven by partisan agendas requires a strong backbone and a willingness to stand up for core values. Dean Treanor’s response serves as a blueprint for how to effectively counter attempts to undermine academic freedom and intellectual diversity. It is a reminder that principles matter and that they must be defended vigorously, especially in the face of politically motivated attacks.
Beyond the immediate context of this particular exchange, the article raises broader questions about the role of DEI in education and the workplace. While DEI initiatives are often framed as efforts to promote inclusivity and opportunity, they have also become targets of criticism from those who view them as divisive or discriminatory. This debate is likely to continue, and Dean Treanor’s defense of Georgetown’s commitment to DEI is a significant contribution to the discussion.
The incident also underscores the importance of having individuals in positions of authority who are willing to defend academic freedom and intellectual integrity. Dean Treanor’s response demonstrates that a strong leader can effectively counter attempts to undermine these values, even when those attempts come from powerful political figures. His action serves as an inspiration for other academic leaders who may face similar challenges.
Furthermore, the article implicitly critiques the practice of appointing individuals to government positions based on political loyalty rather than competence or qualifications. Ed Martin’s lack of prosecutorial experience and his promotion of election conspiracy theories raise serious questions about his fitness to serve as a U.S. Attorney. This incident highlights the potential dangers of prioritizing political allegiance over expertise in government appointments.
In conclusion, Rex Huppke’s column effectively uses the exchange between Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor and former U.S. Attorney Ed Martin to illustrate the importance of standing up for constitutional principles and academic freedom. It is a call for Democrats to adopt a more assertive approach in confronting political overreach and a reminder that a strong defense of core values is essential for preserving a healthy democracy.
