
Trump just forced out another college president over DEI
The purported crime warranting this unprecedented demand? Not moving quickly enough to roll back the decades of progress the school has made in becoming a more diverse and welcoming environment to students, faculty and staff of all backgrounds.
The ninth president in the university's history, Ryan has been an effective and highly regarded leader, shepherding the university through challenges and tragedies with a steady hand. Under his leadership, research funding and applications to the university have hit record highs, and it has maintained the highest graduation rates of any public university.
Today, UVA is ranked No.1 in the nation for free speech by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and No. 2 for best value among public universities, according to the Princeton Review. Ryan has made open dialogue about how to make the university better a hallmark of his presidency, welcoming good-faith input from across the ideological spectrum.
This legacy of thoughtful and effective leadership is now reportedly being muscled aside by a bad-faith act of stunning executive overreach. We must be clear-eyed about what it is to coerce an ouster under threat of financial ruin — it is an assault not only on UVA, but on the very principles of academic freedom, institutional autonomy and democratic governance.
There is no justifiable basis for this action. The move appears to be rooted in President Trump's January executive order seeking to purge diversity, equity and inclusion programs from public and private institutions across the country. The underlying demand, of course, is itself a staggering act of presidential overreach. Executive orders are not laws, and they are not royal decrees. They are strongly worded suggestions with force that stops at the borders of the executive branch. They are in no way intended to compel private or state entities to reorder themselves according to the preferences or whims of any one president.
Yet now the Justice Department seeks to usurp the independence and governance of both UVA and the Commonwealth that oversees it. In so doing, it is relying on a perverse reading of the laws of our country that treats any gesture toward a more inclusive society as ipso facto illegal, ignoring the plain meaning of American civil rights statutes and decades of case law. And in the process of pursuing its own rogue interpretation of those laws, the Justice Department is placing an overtly unconstitutional curb on both free expression and state sovereignty.
This is also a profoundly troubling sign the Trump administration is willing to sabotage American global leadership in pursuit of narrow political goals. Federal funds for higher education are not gifts or acts of charity. They are disbursed through grants and contracts that institutions often earn through fiercely competitive processes that have for decades played a central role in making American colleges and universities the envy of the world in research and academics. There could be few actions more short-sighted and self-defeating for the future of the country than taking a sledgehammer to higher education to flex power and impose a top-down ideology. Yet that is precisely what the Justice Department seeks to do here.
In the face of this threat, it is incumbent on leaders in Congress and in the Commonwealth of Virginia to stand up and speak. Regardless of political persuasion, Virginians and the American people should not and cannot tolerate any administration unconstitutionally seeking to bend the institutions that have made the country great to its will and ideology.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R), the university's Board of Visitors, and lawmakers across Virginia and the country must make it absolutely clear that it is unacceptable for American taxpayers' money to be used as a cudgel or bargaining chip to cow our institutions into obeisance. As has already been seen through the Trump administration's actions targeting other universities, failure to forcefully push back will only fuel more and more overreach.
In the earliest days of the republic, Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia that 'public money and public liberty,' intended to be spread across the branches of government 'but found inadvertently to be in the hands of one only, will soon be discovered to be sources of wealth and dominion to those who hold them.' Cautioning the Virginia General Assembly to 'look forward to a time' when corruption 'will have seized the heads of government,' Jefferson continued: 'The time to guard against corruption and tyranny is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.'
The wolf is now at the door of the university that Jefferson founded. Those with the power to keep it out of the fold must speak now.
Ann Brown, who was a member of the University of Virginia's first undergraduate co-ed class and a UVA law graduate, practiced commercial finance law for 45 years. Chris Ford, who graduated from Virginia's Engineering School in 1987, has practiced commercial transactional law for major firms for over 30 years. They are Advisory Council co-chairs of Wahoos4UVA, a group of Virginia alumni, students, parents, faculty, staff and friends that formed to defend UVA from political pressure.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Boston Globe
14 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's cuts threaten to rip research up by the roots
The chain saw approach to medical research funding is not just reckless — it's shortsighted. The families of the richest 2 percent also get cancer and other deadly diseases, and no amount of money can buy a cure that doesn't exist. Advertisement Dennis E. Noonan Wellesley Thank you for Kara Miller's article on the challenges of long-term research in the face of the Trump administration's cuts ( Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up While only a small fraction of original ideas achieve success as envisioned, scientists consistently persevere with passion for their ideas. The research environment overall, however, brings waves of advances. Unlike the business and dealmaking mind-set of the current administration's so-called leaders, scientists are not self-promoters by type. They struggle for funding over years, driven by their passion for making a difference for the world. Advertisement The most telling risk inherent in the Trump cuts is the potential impact on global competition. As Miller points out, for decades some of the world's best minds have come here, with the United States having benefited. But more recently, greater global tools and competition have prompted serious foreign competition for the best minds — and for the opportunities to control future technologies. The administration's cuts would put the United States more than a generation behind in our children's and grandchildren's future world. Larry Kennedy Jacksonville, Fla. I weep when I see what the Trump administration is doing to our country and our world. Kara Miller's article on the savaging of basic science — 'research aimed at understanding rather than commercializing' — is but one example. This type of research may have no application right away. However, over 20 or 30 years, many dozens of applications may emerge, often covering many different fields. The original development rarely occurs in business laboratories because there is no immediate payoff. It is therefore essential that government continue to fund basic science. As Miller points out, a stable flow of funding is essential for the production of a continuing stream of research results. Disruption of the Trumpian kind has several undesirable results: Besides stopping the flow of original ideas, over the long term it will reduce our capacity to learn from and absorb ideas produced in other countries. We have seen mid-career scientists being welcomed by other countries while the paths of early-career scientists have been demolished. American politicians, Republican and Democratic alike, must stand up to the president and say, 'Basic research is the seed corn for 'Making America Great Again.' It must not be destroyed.' They should then act and vote accordingly in Congress. Advertisement Martin G. Evans Cambridge The writer is a professor emeritus at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.

3 hours ago
Japan votes in a key election as Prime Minsiter Ishiba faces a loss and political uncertainty
TOKYO -- Japanese were voting Sunday for seats in the smaller of Japan's two parliamentary houses in a key election with Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and his ruling coalition facing a possible defeat that could worsen the country's political instability. Voters were deciding half of the 248 seats in the upper house, the less powerful of the two chambers in Japan's Diet. Early results were expected Sunday night. Ishiba has set the bar low, wanting a simple majority of 125 seats, which means his Liberal Democratic Party and its Buddhist-backed junior coalition partner Komeito need to win 50 to add to the 75 seats they already have. That is a big retreat from the 141 seats they had pre-election, but media surveys predict big setbacks for Ishiba. A poor performance on Sunday would not immediately trigger a change of government because the upper house lacks the power to file no-confidence against a leader, but it would certainly deepen uncertainty over his fate and Japan's political stability. Ishiba would face calls from within the LDP party to step down or find another coalition partner. Soaring prices, lagging incomes and burdensome social security payments are the top issues for frustrated, cash-strapped voters. Stricter measures targeting foreign residents and visitors have also emerged as a key issue, with a surging right-wing populist party leading the campaign. Sunday's vote comes after Ishiba's coalition lost a majority in the October lower house election, stung by past corruption scandals, and his unpopular government has since been forced into making concessions to the opposition to get legislation through parliament. It has been unable to quickly deliver effective measures to mitigate rising prices, including Japan's traditional staple of rice, and dwindling wages. U.S. President Donald Trump has added to the pressure, complaining about a lack of progress in trade negotiations, and the lack of sales of U.S. autos and American-grown rice to Japan despite a shortfall in domestic stocks of the grain. A 25% tariff due to take effect Aug. 1 has been another blow for Ishiba. Ishiba has resisted any compromise before the election, but the prospect for a breakthrough after the election is just as unclear because the minority government would have difficulty forming a consensus with the opposition. Frustrated voters are rapidly turning to emerging populist parties. The eight main opposition groups, however, are too fractured to forge a common platform as a united front and gain voter support as a viable alternative. The emerging populist party Sanseito stands out with the toughest anti-foreigner stance with its 'Japanese First' platform that proposes a new agency to centralize policies related to foreigners. The party's populist platform also includes anti-vaccine, anti-globalism and favors traditional gender roles. Conservative to centrist opposition groups, including the main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, or CDPJ, the DPP, and Sanseito have gained significant ground at the Liberal Democrats' expense. The spread of xenophobic rhetoric in the election campaign and on social media has triggered protests by human rights activists and alarmed foreign residents.

3 hours ago
Trump administration imposes limits on Mexican flights and threatens Delta alliance in trade dispute
The Trump administration imposed new restrictions Saturday on flights from Mexico and threatened to end a longstanding partnership between Delta Air Lines and Aeromexico in response to limits the Mexican government placed on passenger and cargo flights into Mexico City several years ago. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Mexico's actions to force airlines to move out of the main Benito Juarez International Airport to the newer Felipe Angeles International Airport more than 30 miles (48.28 kilometers) away violated a trade agreement between the two countries and gave domestic airlines an unfair advantage. Mexico is the top foreign destination for Americans with more than 40 million passengers flying there last year. "Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg deliberately allowed Mexico to break our bilateral aviation agreement,' Duffy said, referring to the previous president and his transportation secretary. 'That ends today. Let these actions serve as a warning to any country who thinks it can take advantage of the U.S., our carriers, and our market. America First means fighting for the fundamental principle of fairness.' All Mexican passenger, cargo and charter airlines will now be required to submit their schedules to the Transportation Department and seek government approval of their flights until Duffy is satisfied with the way Mexico is treating U.S. airlines. It's not immediately clear how Duffy's actions might affect the broader trade war with Mexico and negotiations over tariffs. A spokesperson for Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum didn't reply immediately to a request for comment. Sheinbaum didn't mention the new restrictions during either of her two speaking events on Saturday. Delta and Aeromexico have been fighting the Transportation Department's efforts to end their partnership that began in 2016 since early last year. The airlines have argued that it's not fair to punish them for the Mexican government's actions, and they said ending their agreement would jeopardize nearly two dozen routes and $800 million in benefits to both countries' economies that come from tourism spending and jobs. 'The U.S. Department of Transportation's tentative proposal to terminate its approval of the strategic and pro-competitive partnership between Delta and Aeromexico would cause significant harm to consumers traveling between the U.S. and Mexico, as well as U.S. jobs, communities, and transborder competition," Delta said in a statement. Aeromexico's press office said it was reviewing the order and intended to present a joint response with Delta in the coming days. But the order terminating approval of the agreement between the airlines wouldn't take effect until October, and the airlines are likely to continue fighting that decision. The airlines said in a previous filing fighting the order that it believes the loss of direct flights would prompt over 140,000 American tourists and nearly 90,000 Mexican tourists not to visit the other country and hurt the economies of both countries with the loss of their spending. ___