Officials moved last week to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a 2025 alum alleging GW retaliated and discriminated against her after she criticized the University’s ties with Israel during her graduation speech, arguing the complaint fails to show GW deliberately defamed or discriminated against her.

GW’s motion, which Jason Schwartz from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP — the firm representing the University — filed on July 17 in the D.C. District Court, requests the judge hear an oral argument from the University about its motion to dismiss Cecilia Culver’s complaint against GW and its officials with prejudice, which would prohibit Culver from refiling the suit. Schwartz filed a separate memo alongside the motion, arguing University officials’ remarks following Culver’s speech — which included statements that Culver had deviated from her preprepared graduation speech and that her statements do not reflect the views of the University — were true and therefore do not meet the requirements for defamation. 

“As a threshold matter, virtually all of Culver’s claims are based on the contention that two University officials falsely claimed her delivered remarks were different than those she had shared with GW in advance,” Schwartz’s memo states. “But Culver herself concedes that her delivered remarks were different than those she had shared with GW.”

Culver filed a lawsuit against GW, her former employer Ernst & Young and a dozen GW and EY officials on April 16, claiming they defamed and violated her civil rights following her speech at the Columbian College of Arts & Sciences undergraduate graduation ceremony on May 17. Culver used her speech to condemn the University for suppressing pro-Palestinian activism related to the war in Gaza and urge graduates to withhold donations from GW until officials disclose all financial investments and divest from companies tied to Israel.

CCAS Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students Rachel Riedner said following Culver’s speech that she had deviated from her approved speech and that her remarks did not reflect GW’s views, and former University spokesperson Kathy Fackelmann said in a statement Culver’s remarks were “materially different” from her prepared speech and that officials were investigating whether Culver violated the University’s events protocol or the Code of Student Conduct. GW barred Culver from all campus and University events three days later.

The suit also alleges EY placed her on administrative leave less than 24 hours after her speech and terminated her employment five days after she made her speech. Her suit argues her association with and advocacy for Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims motivated EY’s decision to fire her, which constitutes as racial discrimination.

Culver also sued GW officials in their individual capacity for defamation and racial discrimination, claiming officials disseminated false statements about her following her speech due to her association with and advocacy for Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims.

Culver is seeking financial compensation for the economic and emotional harm she has experienced over the last year, acknowledgment from the University and EY that they violated the law and an end to her ongoing ban from campus. She is also seeking restoration of her CCAS Distinguished Scholar status, from which she says she lost the unspecified “full benefit of” as a result of the University’s response, termination of the University’s alleged ongoing investigation into her conduct at the ceremony and punitive damages against GW and three officials.

Culver’s complaint must show the University had spread false information that caused her damages to prove defamation. The complaint must also show the University intended to discriminate against Culver on the basis of her association with a protected community to prove racial discrimination.

Culver’s attorney did not return a request to comment on GW’s motion. A University spokesperson declined to comment further about the motion.

Here’s a breakdown of the University’s arguments in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit:

Arguments against alleged race-based discrimination and civil rights conspiracy

Culver’s lawsuit claims the University’s actions — including an ongoing investigation into her conduct at the ceremony and barring her from entering campus — racially discriminated against her association with Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. The lawsuit cites the D.C. Human Rights Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their association with or advocacy for protected classes. 

GW’s motion to dismiss argues Culver fails to plausibly allege that any officials took actions based on race. Instead, GW argues that at most, outside criticism from to her speech from third parties were motivated by race and put pressure on GW to respond, which does not equate to race-based discrimination from the University. 

Culver alleges that a “pressure campaign” launched by StopAntisemitism, including a post on X that received over 500,000 views and affixed a “false antisemitism label” to her, contributed to GW and EY’s response to her speech. Following her speech, multiple accounts posted the video of her speech and identified her name and employer, besides StopAntisemitism.

“While that might be an allegation that the University acquiesced to race-based external pressure, it is not an allegation of race-based action by anyone at the University,” the motion states.

The motion further argues the University’s alleged hostility against pro-Palestinian expression — which Culver argues in her suit dates back to the 2015 GW Police Department order to remove a student’s Palestinian flag from his residence-hall — do not constitute a hostile environment for Culver, as she was not directly involved in those incidents. It continues to argue Culver’s claims that GW created a racial hostile educational environment lacks merit, since the University did not deny her access to any of its programs or activities on the basis of race while she was a student at GW.

Culver’s suit also claims officials conspired with EY to deprive her of her civil rights. It also argues University President Ellen Granberg, former Board of Trustees Chair Grace Speights, former Provost Chris Bracey, CCAS Dean Paul Wahlbeck and CCAS Vice Dean for Programs & Operations Kimberly Gross failed to prevent the conspiracy, suing them in their individual capacity.

GW’s motion argues Culver does not present adequate evidence to plausibly allege GW’s violation of her rights and any agreement between GW and EY to deprive her of them.

“The EY and GW Defendants acted at the same time because they were responding to the same public event: Culver’s decision to go off-script in her speech and denigrate her alma mater,” the motion states while quoting the D.C. District Court’s opinion on U.S. Dominion, Inc. v. MyPillow, Inc. “At best, these allegations establish ‘parallel conduct,’ which, ‘without more, does not adequately allege a conspiratorial agreement.’”

Arguments against defamation, invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress

Culver argued in her suit officials defamed her, placed her in a false light — a category of invasion of privacy where someone spreads falsehoods that causes another personal harm — and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. She cited Riedner stating Culver “strayed from” her prepared speech, Fackelmann calling her remarks “materially different” from those she submitted to GW in advance and the University’s publicly announced investigation against her as examples of defamatory statements.

The University’s motion argues all of these statements are “factual” and “truthful,” with GW’s attorneys including exhibits which show differences between Culver’s preprepared speech and the one she delivered at the graduation ceremony, which occur toward the end of her speech when she condemns GW’s suppression of pro-Palestinian activism.

Culver says in her suit that the first five paragraphs of her speech were the same as her draft, which the University approved.

“Where, as here, a complaint itself makes clear that the statements at issue are true, a defamation claim must be dismissed,” the motion states.

The motion also adds officials did not allege anything defamatory — or would injure her reputation — in its statements, like accusing Culver of committing a crime or challenging her personal or professional reputation, which disqualifies both the defamation and false light claims. The motion further argues the First Amendment — which bars defamation and false light claims against protected speech — protects GW’s right to defend itself against Culver’s allegations, including that the University was complicit in genocide and had “blood on its hands.”

“GW’s statements were speech on matters of public concern and thus sat on ‘the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values,’” the motion states while quoting the D.C. District Court’s opinion in Farah v. Esquire Magazine.

The motion further argues GW’s statements do not meet the D.C. District Court’s threshold for “outrageous and extreme” conduct, which Culver’s complaint requires to allege infliction of emotional distress. It adds Culver did not plausibly allege “severe emotional distress” in her complaint.

“In the course of a 167-page, 400-paragraph complaint, Culver’s allegations of severe emotional distress are confined to a single (and conclusory) paragraph,” the motion states while quoting the D.C. District Court’s opinion on Morton v. D.C. Housing Authority. “Despite stringing together conclusory phrases, Culver does not plausibly allege ‘an emotional response so acute that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.’”

Arguments against alleged breach of contract and tortious interference with contract

Culver’s lawsuit claims she and GW entered a contract when Culver joined the CCAS Distinguished Scholar program, and alleges officials broke the contract when they characterized her conduct as a policy violation. Culver’s lawsuit further claims that even if the scholar program is not considered a formal contract, promissory estoppel — a doctrine requiring parties to uphold promises in absence of a formal contract — protected her rights to the program’s benefits.

Culver argues in her suit GW made three promises: to select her as the commencement speaker for the May 2025 CCAS graduation, evaluate her performance of the speech exclusively by their written guidelines and that the approval of her preprepared speech would fulfill her obligation as a speaker.

GW’s motion argues Culver’s complaint fails to identify anyone who made her these promises. It further argues the promises are too vague to support a promissory estoppel claim.

“Culver has not alleged anything comparably clear or concrete here,” the motions states. “Culver does not plausibly plead facts suggesting what specific actions GW promised to take (or not take), such that Culver could have reasonably relied on the promises.”

The motion further adds Culver herself failed to uphold her end of her asserted promise — where she promised she would deliver the address she submitted to the University in advance — since the address she delivered was different from the one she submitted.

The motion argues against Culver’s claim that GW “tortiously” interfered with her employment contract with EY since she fails to allege her former employer breached a contract with her. It also argues she has not shown facts that demonstrate GW intentionally interfered with her employment contract.

“Although Culver throws in the word ‘intentionally’ throughout the count, that bare allegation is insufficient to demonstrate that the GW Defendants took any action for the express purpose of prompting EY to breach a contract with Culver,” the motion states.

Culver and her attorneys have 14 days after GW filed the motion to respond with an amended complaint or more facts regarding the class, after which the judge will decide to either deny or approve the motion. The lawsuit will continue if the judge denies the motion, while it will end if the judge approves it.