Addition on Apr. 4 at 2:45 p.m.: A previous version of this article did not acknowledge the co-authors of Amanda Hichez’s letter.

On Mar. 26, seventy-nine law school deans signed a letter to reaffirm the basic principle that the government “should not punish lawyers and law firms for the clients they represent, absent specific findings that such representation was illegal or unethical.” After careful consideration, GW Law Dean Dayna Bowen Matthew decided against signing this letter.

Students took note of this, voicing opposition to the decision. Complaints grew in classwide group chats that GW Law failed to stand up for one of the core tenets of an independent judiciary. Responding to these concerns, on Mar. 28, Student Bar Association (SBA) President Amanda Hichez drafted a letter on behalf of student groups urging Dean Matthew to reconsider her decision. This letter was co-authored by Rachel Khoury and Kaci Wasguespack. Pres. Hichez’s letter expressed that the student body expects the same level of zealous advocacy from our administration as our administration should expect from us. The letter was circulated, and seventeen law school student organizations signed. 

Dean Matthew wasted no time responding to Pres. Hichez’s letter. She invited one or two representatives from each of the organizational signatories to a meeting. The purpose of the meeting was for Dean Matthew to express her view on the deans’ letter and her perspective on whether she would sign it. She chose to hold the meeting in person to “acknowledge the gravity of the moment” and to respect the views expressed.

Note: The following is a high-level summary of the discussion with Dean Matthew and has been reviewed and approved by her office.

The meeting took place in Burns 418, a small classroom conducive to personal discussion. Dean Matthew noted upfront that she did not consent to being recorded. She then delved into a considerate, intelligent, and nuanced explanation of the potential impact that signing the deans’ letter might have had on our law school.

After providing her analysis, Dean Matthew opened the floor to questions. She was challenged on her perspective, but held firm. She did, however, seem to welcome and appreciate the various viewpoints and considerations that were shared. She took notes during certain comments, as if to remind herself to address them later. 

Students who went into the meeting expecting to change Dean Matthew’s mind were disappointed. Personally, I came to the meeting expecting platitudes and obfuscation. I was pleasantly surprised to find a level of candor and genuineness that I had never experienced in my three years at GW Law.

Dean Matthew made sure to express her agreement with the deans’ letter. She said she was very happy upon receiving Pres. Hichez’s letter and that, in fact, she was hoping students would raise concerns. Dean Matthew then explained that, as dean, she must represent the entire law school and do what is best for the law school — which sometimes restricts her ability to voice her personal beliefs. She highlighted four main considerations that ultimately persuaded her against signing the letter: 

1. The law school is already being scrutinized, and she did not want to attract further undue attention.
2. For various reasons, she did not like how the deans’ letter was coordinated or the pressure being exerted by certain organizers.
3. Big law firms are not defenseless and do not necessarily need GW’s support.
4. Signing the letter would have detracted from her ability to make pivotal internal decisions that will have lasting effects for GW Law.

Notably, Dean Matthew emphasized that the decision was not an easy one, and that she lost much sleep over it. In fact, she said that she did at one point sign the deans’ letter, but later removed her signature after further consideration.

I wish that Dean Matthew had spoken to us in this manner more throughout my tenure here. By hosting this discussion, Dean Matthew took an important step to facilitate trust between the administration and the students, and to show that we the students are and will remain her first priority. I hope that going forward, she continues to foster discussions like this.

I cannot emphasize enough how important it was to have been at the meeting to understand the full picture of the views expressed. For various reasons, much of what was said cannot be published in this article. I would strongly encourage any student interested in the continued success of GW Law and its evolving mission to pay attention to the actions of our law school. Pressing for more opportunities to seek clarity and challenge our administrators on the decisions they make is the best way to guarantee our opinions are not only heard, but taken into account.