Over the weekend, the faculty senate at the University of Virginia passed a resolution of “no confidence” in the school’s governing body, a consequence of the tumultuous resignation of President James Ryan under pressure from the Trump administration.
This is what they call “a teaching moment.” Unfortunately for members of the faculty senate, they are the ones about to get schooled — not by me, but by the state’s political system.
Faculty members are understandably upset by Ryan’s departure, or at least the way it happened. In theory, everyone should be unhappy about the latter: He was forced out by two midlevel Justice Department lawyers, and the members of the board of visitors were made to look like bystanders. Do we really want midlevel federal appointees to have that much power? The hiring and firing of a college president is the purview of the school’s governing board. Where was that board when the Department of Justice was demanding that Ryan go? If Ryan had to go, the board should have been the one making that happen. While conservatives might be temporarily cheered by Ryan’s resignation (“good riddance to him and DEI,” said Republican lieutenant governor hopeful John Reid), the way it happened sets a precedent that a future liberal administration in Washington might someday use. We should always be wary of setting such precedents.
In calling on the board of visitors “to provide the Senate with an immediate and complete accounting of its efforts and activities in response to all inquiries and demands made upon the University by representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice in the spring of 2025,” the faculty makes a legitimate request.
Sometimes, though, it’s better to say less than more. The faculty senate said more. That’s where it may be about to learn some lessons the hard way. In the eighth and final “whereas” in the resolution, the faculty representatives resolved that, “whereas, contrary to norms and principles of UVA’s commitment to shared governance, the Faculty Senate was not directly informed of any demands made upon the University by representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice, nor consulted about any negotiations between the Board of Visitors and the U.S. Department of Justice.”
I realize that many colleges adhere to the concept of “shared governance” between administration and faculty and maybe even other “stakeholders,” to use the popular lingo — so maybe the University of Virginia’s academic leaders really do have a “commitment to shared governance.” Here’s where I must break some bad news to the faculty: None of that means a thing.
Legally speaking, the University of Virginia is the board of visitors. That’s the body empowered by state law to govern the school — and there’s nothing in state law that refers to “shared governance.” That’s a quaint academic notion. In the eyes of the law, faculty members are simply employees, and they have no special right to take part in how the school is run — or to be consulted about legal matters.
That may sound harsh, but the world often is.
As part of its resolution, the faculty senate called for a presidential search committee that is “comprised of at least 75% UVA employees.”
I would not count on that happening. Whether it should is a different matter; that’s not my area of expertise. The same with “shared governance.” Others can debate whether that should or should not be the norm. All I can do is describe the politics involved as they currently exist.
Here are the fundamental facts: What we have here is a culture clash. Most universities today are liberal institutions; there’s a reason college towns are typically blue islands, politically speaking. Meanwhile, the board of visitors at the University of Virginia is now entirely appointed by a Republican governor.
We’ve had this situation before, in the final years of previous Republican governors. The state’s appointment process is set up so that a governor appoints a few members each year; by the end of his term, the entire board of each school consists of his appointees. In years past, the politics of board members didn’t matter that much, but we now live in different times — and so they do.
At some Virginia colleges, maybe this isn’t a big deal at all. At the University of Virginia, it is. The school has long had a more politicized environment than other schools, and recent events have only accentuated those politics.
The best guess for why the UVa board was so silent during the recent tussle between Ryan and the Justice Department is that board members agreed with the Justice Department. The issue at hand was whether Ryan had really eliminated the school’s “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs, as directed by both President Donald Trump and Gov. Glenn Youngkin in separate executive orders. We can argue all we want over whether DEI is good or bad, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that in 2021, we elected a governor who is against DEI and has ordered DEI eliminated in state government. As a state school, UVa is part of state government, something schools often don’t like to be reminded of. It’s safe to assume that Youngkin’s appointees to run UVa share his views on DEI; otherwise, they likely wouldn’t have been appointed. Faculty members at UVa need not like the board’s directive any more than employees at, say, General Motors like the directives of that board. But they don’t get a say. That’s not a political opinion; that’s just the org. chart.
Sorry.
We’re about to enter a period — in fact, we’ve already entered it — in which college governance is going to be a political issue, although first it’s going to be a legal matter.
Youngkin has named former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to the UVa board; he is the very definition of a political lightning rod. The Senate Privileges and Elections Committee held a special meeting in early June to deny him confirmation (along with seven other board appointees — four at George Mason University, three at Virginia Military Institute). The legal question is whether that is sufficient to block the nomination or whether the entire General Assembly must vote to block the nomination. Democratic senators and Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares have different views on this: The senators say the nomination is dead, Miyares says Cuccinelli remains on the board. All that will get aired July 25 in a legal hearing in Fairfax County.
Regardless of the outcome before Circuit Judge Jonathan Frieden, this seems like the type of case that will ultimately get appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, just as a previous case involving gubernatorial authority was in 2016 when Republican legislators challenged the power of then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe to issue a blanket restoration of rights to convicted felons. (In that case, the court ruled that the governor lacked the power and had to issue them one at a time.)
Historically, university board appointments have been very routine. Now they’re becoming more like nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court, each one scrutinized for the political implications. Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax County, says the next General Assembly will look more closely at college governance, including the oddity where board appointees take their seats before they are formally confirmed. Changing that sequence, though, may also force other scheduling changes. Must a governor make all of his — or soon to be, her — appointments before the General Assembly adjourns for the year? That’s a pretty narrow window.
A philosophical question: Should state universities be more or less insulated from politics, and a change of governors? The argument to shield them: These are colleges, citadels of academic freedom. The argument against: They’re no different from other state agencies, carrying out specific policies. If we elect a governor on a platform of doing X, then the governor ought to be able to have state boards with appointees who will carry out X. If that means “no DEI,” then that applies to colleges just as it does to other state agencies.
No matter who is appointed, or when, the fact remains: The law doesn’t say a thing about “shared governance.” That’s a custom, not code. If some legislators think that’s a good idea, they can introduce a bill to spell out what it means. Until then, the UVa Faculty Senate will have to acclimate itself to what faculty members likely find an unhappy situation: They are working for a conservative board.
Want more politics? Sign up for West of the Capital, our weekly political newsletter that goes out on Friday afternoons.
