I was raised, like many of the members of the Georgetown University community, in a large Catholic family. Our traditions were shaped by multiple ethnic influences, but were grounded in the same faith. It was in a Catholic elementary school, enrolled alongside classmates of many beliefs, that I first learned about Islam. Years later, this religious diversity is still something I value greatly in my time here at Georgetown, even as I now fall more in line with being a humanist atheist. As for the debate of which faith is more moral, more pure or more deserving of salvation, I have no stake in the fight other than I believe humans deserve respect, dignity and safety.
Georgetown prides itself on being an inclusive and implicitly progressive community committed to social equity, exploration of ideas and honoring each individual’s unique needs and abilities. On March 8, the Georgetown University College Republicans (GUCR) tweeted a short two sentences: “Let’s Be Honest: Muslims have no place in American society. Their religion is incompatible with our Christian Nation.” This post reflects none of these Georgetown principles. This sentiment is not one of political expression but an outright dehumanization, and we must treat it as such.
Georgetown’s leadership must not allow student organizations to publicly deny membership to an entire religious group under the guise of theological debate. If the university refuses to impose meaningful consequences such as eliminating funding, it undermines the very values it claims to uphold.
GUCR’s response to the backlash, that the post was published without the executive board’s knowledge, is revealing in practice. In addition to being a student, I am also a communications consultant. I hold the keys to a number of clients’ social media accounts, and posting from an official organizational channel is a deliberate action that usually requires review. If the executive board did not authorize the message, that points to a failure of leadership and oversight.
Operational issues aside, GUCR’s official response’s pivot to criticism of Sharia law only reinforces their Islamophobia. Reducing an entire religion to its most extreme or politicized interpretations is an illegitimate critique and act of prejudice — full stop. As if this ignorant characterization was not bad enough, the official position they offered instead doubled down on Islamophobia and xenophobia, albeit in a more academic tone. Both their original post and follow-up statement erase the diversity within Islam and flatten millions of people into a single, harmful narrative.
If we are going to scrutinize religions based on their most oppressive interpretations, we should be consistent. Christianity, too, has been used to justify harm — particularly toward women, LGBTQ+ folks, Black, Indigenous, and other people of color. Selectively applying that same scrutiny to Islam is not principled; it is a convenient tactic to promote Islamophobia.
This has consequences greater than just being one bad social post — it reinforces stereotypes that contribute to the inaccurate and harmful national narrative about Muslims. According to the 2025 American Muslim Poll from the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding, Muslims are the most likely religious group to report having experienced religious discrimination in the prior year. Georgetown’s own student organization standards are clear: student groups that target groups based on protected characteristics, including religion, are prohibited.
These policies exist to protect students and define the boundaries of acceptable conduct within this community. When a university-recognized organization publishes a statement excluding an entire religious group, and then doubles down in an attempt to revise it, it fails to meet those standards.
The question, then, is not whether the post was offensive; it is whether Georgetown is willing to enforce its own rules.
Allowing the organization to continue without meaningful consequences is not a politically neutral choice. It is equally a signal to Muslim students that their belonging is conditional, as it is a signal to other organizations that there is flexibility in how the university enforces policies prohibiting discrimination.
Georgetown has an opportunity and a responsibility to be clear about what kind of community it wants to be. Revoking funding or access to benefits moves beyond statements of condemnation. It is a concrete enforcement mechanism built into the university’s own policies for organizations that foster intolerance.
Georgetown should also consider whether additional measures are warranted, like holding leadership accountable, requiring education on bias and inclusion or formally reviewing whether they should be allowed to associate themselves with the university at all.
Taking these actions would reinforce that university standards mean something and are consistently applied. And that while student organizations are free to express ideas, they are still accountable for how they use university platforms and resources.
Georgetown must determine if its commitment to inclusion is real or merely an empty promise invoked when it suits the university’s interests.
Jen Peters is a graduate student at the Georgetown School of Continuing Studies.
