Georgetown Law Set To Reward Graduating Law Students By Replacing Graduation Gala With A School Happy Hour & Other Unpopular Changes

Dear [Reader],

In recent weeks, Georgetown University Law Center has repeatedly professed that it “remains committed to hosting a joyful and meaningful commencement” for its class of 2026— regardless, apparently, of whether the graduating class actually attends.

After months of student advocacy, a growing contingent of the Law Center’s class of 2026 is preparing to skip our upcoming commencement. The night before Christmas Eve, Georgetown’s administrators announced several sweeping changes to our upcoming commencement weekend, including a change in venue that would make the ceremony inaccessible for many students and families. In response, students circulated a petition that received over 1,100 signatures from students and alumni, and met with administrators repeatedly to propose solutions for student concerns. Despite their efforts, and despite being inundated with messages from alumni warning administrators that proceeding with these changes would irreversibly damage the school’s relationship with the graduating class, the school has refused to even acknowledge or address any of the concerns raised by the petition’s signatories, and refuses to reconsider any aspect of the planned commencement programming.

Commencement— and particularly commencement at a world-renowned T14 institution— is meant to celebrate the achievements of the students who earned the degree. There is no universe in which that occasion should center the preferences of administrators at the expense of the graduates, and yet that is precisely the arrangement that my institution expects us to accept. Each of us have paid over $83,500 per year to attend this school primarily because we believe that a degree from Georgetown Law carries a level of prestige that merits the astronomical price tag. Nevertheless, our administrators, all of whom have undoubtedly celebrated their own milestones with commensurate grandeur, have abruptly stripped this occasion of the traditions which my class had come to expect— all while continuously pressuring my class to participate in the “Graduating Class Gift Campaign.” The traditional Graduation Gala at the Portrait Gallery was replaced with a cocktail hour in the lobby of the office building where we attend classes every day; our intimate section-by-section graduation ceremonies crammed into an inaccessible, all-in-one production where all 1,300+ of us will wait in direct sunlight for 5+ hours for an automated voice to call our names. Despite these cuts, donations were required to participate in some of the pre-commencement arts & crafts events that the school has held thus far.

There is no good-faith argument that these changes were made primarily to benefit the student body, especially when over 1,100 of us made our opposition heard as loudly and clearly as possible. Nevertheless, this institution— one dedicated to teaching the very art of advocacy— dismissed our concerted efforts entirely, reportedly accusing student organizers of lacking “perspective” and “professionalism.” The hypocrisy of such a statement is striking coming from the leaders of a law school, as it suggests that advocacy can only fit within the bounds of “professionalism” when it is sanctioned by those in charge— an idea which seems utterly antithetical to the profession’s core values.

If cost was the deciding factor motivating these changes, then the school could have communicated that to the student body. Instead, the school chose to make these changes quietly, providing students with only a partial announcement the night before Christmas Eve, when most of us were offline and at home with our families. The cuts to commencement have since been communicated either disjointedly or dishonestly, with neither explanation nor apology. The cancellation of the Gala was never publicly announced, and the school insists to this day that the automated reader they plan to use for the ceremony is “not AI,” even though the provider’s website explicitly confirms that the software uses AI. Similarly, the school provided no justification for canceling the accessible and beloved section ceremonies— the “Commencement FAQ” page vaguely mentions wanting to restore the format of commencement to how it was pre-COVID, but prior iterations of the program historically included section-based ceremonies. Nor did the school ever acknowledge the fact that the impetus driving the change— planned construction on the law campus— no longer applied, since that construction had been delayed indefinitely.

The school’s reasoning for canceling the Graduation Gala was similarly dubious: when pressed, the school cited accessibility concerns, claiming that the prior venue, with a capacity of 1,500, could not accommodate all who wanted to attend. Rather than opt for a larger venue like the Air and Space Museum, where the university just hosted the School of Foreign Service Diplomatic Ball, or the National Building Museum, where the Alumni Gala will be hosted in October, the school inexplicably chose to host the replacement reception in a lobby which could not comfortably accommodate the 650 J.D. students alone— let alone the 3 guests each student will supposedly be permitted to bring. While the school also pointed to the Dean’s desire to make the event free to attend, the school has repeatedly confirmed to student representatives that funding the Gala—and thereby making it free rather than partially student-funded, as it was in years past—- would not be a financial burden upon the school’s ample reserves, particularly in light of the fact that it would cost the school less than the total tuition revenue collected from just two students. By the school’s own admission, cost was never the issue, and neither was feasibility since students had already provided the school with a booking of the venue and several reduced-cost catering packages. Nor, clearly, was accessibility. The school’s explanation for each change has thus far been completely inadequate on every count— and yet nearly every official at our world-renowned Law Center has doubled down on it, embracing a line of reasoning that collapses under the weight of its own inconsistencies.

It is mystifying to me why the interim leadership of the law school seems hell-bent on destroying the relationship the school will have with the class of 2026 on the cusp of their transition into alumni. At every juncture where the school could have made amends or offered at least some acknowledgement of the student body’s advocacy, the school has chosen, perplexingly, to cling to the notion that the preferences of administrators rightly outweigh the interests of the students that the event is ostensibly intended to recognize. Over and over, students have told the school that the way it has chosen to handle our commencement and our advocacy has stripped the joy from this accomplishment, and over and over, the school has dismissed our voices, stating only that the Dean is “excited to celebrate as planned,” and that because “students and alumni have never been consulted in planning commencement celebrations,” they should not expect to be considered now. Georgetown has turned a once-in-a-lifetime milestone into a mockery of the generational sacrifices it was meant to honor, and has transformed an occasion meant to celebrate students into one that seems, against all reason, to be structured around celebrating the interim Dean.

There are some who will ridicule my class for focusing on something as trivial as our commencement while there are much bigger things going on in the country, and in the world at large. However, the fact that there are worse things going on—- things which unquestionably have a disproportionate impact on international students and students of color —- makes it even more reprehensible for an educational institution to strip down one of the few occasions of joy that students and their loved ones have been looking forward to for years, particularly when the school has done nothing to acknowledge the impact that those larger issues are having on so many members of their student body. In times of uncertainty, institutions like Georgetown have the opportunity to lead by example. Georgetown, however, chose to use the ongoing chaos as an opportunity to quietly make an extraordinarily difficult year even worse, knowing that the consequences of that choice would not be borne by the interim administrative team.

There are also many members of the legal community who will agree with the school’s argument that commencement rightly falls under the exclusive purview of administrators, and that students who protest for consideration in those choices are acting from a place of entitlement and privilege. That may be so. However, I urge those attorneys to remember that my generation is in the somewhat unique position of having lost our opportunities to experience the milestone moments that prior generations remember so fondly: like many of my peers, I only had one normal, in-person year of college, and I did not graduate in person. I did not have the luxury of an adjustment period when I started law school, as an accelerated recruitment timeline meant that I was applying for a full-time job while figuring out how to navigate civil procedure. I am one of the few who were fortunate enough to land a job during that chaotic process, and yet even with a hefty starting salary, I won’t be able to afford a home until I’m at least in my mid-forties. My generation was born into a world where occasions for joy are increasingly scarce, and where milestone moments are precious and few. I do not find it unreasonable for us to want our institutions to account for that, and to furnish us with a celebration that honors tradition as well as the astronomical price we paid for the accomplishment itself.

As a student who graduated from undergrad during the COVID-19 pandemic, this commencement will be my one and only opportunity to experience an in-person graduation celebration at any institution. Yet because of the school’s gross mishandling of the occasion, I and a growing contingent of my peers will not be attending. When presented with that likely scenario two months ago, the Dean said that “that would be a shame for the students” —- not for the school. A commencement where the presence of the graduates is not ultimately necessary is not a celebration of the students’ accomplishments: rather, it is a content-grab masquerading as pomp and circumstance, bought and paid for at the students’ expense. For administrators, commencement is an annual event that lacks any personal significance. But for students and families, that occasion represents a once-in-a-lifetime milestone, and an opportunity to honor the sacrifices made by prior generations. Georgetown, apparently, has lost sight of that reality entirely.

Sincerely,

A Member of Georgetown Law’s Class of 2026