Jim Ryan resigns: Who is Gregory W Brown, UVA alum behind president's ouster?
University of Virginia President Jim Ryan has resigned amid pressure from the Trump administration, The New York Times reported on Friday. This comes days after the media outlet reported that the administration was pushing UVA to part ways with Ryan while the Justice Department investigates the school for its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Jim Ryan reportedly resigned under pressure from UVA alum Gregory W Brown(UVA and X)
Neither UVA nor Jim Ryan has issued a formal statement yet. Now, reports say that the demand for the executive's resignation came from a university alum - Gregory W Brown, who is a civil rights attorney and works in the Donald Trump administration under Harmeet K. Dhillon.
Gregory W Brown, a 1989 UVA undergraduate alumnus, is a civil rights attorney and partner at Brown & Gavalier, a Charlottesville-based law firm. He holds a law degree, though the institution is not known yet.
Brown joined the Trump administration's DOJ in 2025, serving under Harmeet K. Dhillon, another UVA Law alum (1993) and Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
Before his DOJ role, Brown represented two UVA students in high-profile lawsuits against the university, both settled out of court.
In 2024, he represented Matan Goldstein, an Israeli-American freshman, who alleged antisemitic harassment by UVA officials and pro-Palestinian groups, naming Ryan and others as defendants. He also represented Morgan Bettinger, a 2021 alumna accused of mocking a Black Women Matter protest, facing expulsion until UVA's investigation found insufficient evidence.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration, via a February 2025 executive order, mandated universities to dismantle DEI programs, threatening federal funding cuts. UVA's Board of Visitors voted in March 2025 to dissolve its DEI office, but the DOJ, led by Brown and Dhillon, accused Ryan of 'slow-walking' compliance by rebranding programs.
According to NYT, Brown personally demanded Ryan's resignation multiple times over the past month, telling UVA officials that the president's removal was a condition to resolve the DOJ's investigation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Delhi's lose-lose foreign policy approach with Israel and Palestine
There is perhaps no image more heartbreaking than that of Palestinian children longing for the beloved Parle G biscuits that have nourished generations of Indian children. In the rubble-strewn streets of Gaza, these most affordable Indian biscuits have become precious commodities, their exorbitant costs placing them beyond the reach of parents struggling to provide even basic sustenance for their children. This painful reality serves as a stark reminder of our shared humanity and our duty to protect children everywhere. If one has to decide between guns and children, one must always choose children. No matter whose guns, no matter whose children. Yet India's abstention on June 12 from a UN ceasefire resolution in the context of the Israel-Hamas conflict, titled Protection of Civilians and Upholding Legal and Humanitarian Obligations, marks a betrayal of our historical solidarity with the Palestinian cause. As I have written before, the relationship between India and Palestine was built on shared experiences of colonial subjugation and anti-imperial struggle. Mahatma Gandhi's words from 1938 remain as relevant today as they were then: 'Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs.' Jawaharlal Nehru was equally clear when he declared, 'Palestine is essentially an Arab country and must remain so.' For decades after Independence, India stood firmly with Palestine, recognising the Palestinian state early and consistently supporting their right to self-determination at international forums. This solidarity reflected India's broader leadership of the Global South in the post-Independence era, where we confidently and strongly championed the causes of decolonisation, self-determination, and justice for oppressed peoples worldwide. Our foreign policy was anchored in moral principles that transcended narrow strategic calculations, earning us respect and leadership among newly independent nations. India's stance on Palestine was emblematic of this principled approach as we consistently chose to stand with the dispossessed against powerful oppressors, regardless of their military or economic might. Contemporary India's foreign policy has become increasingly opportunistic rather than principled, marking a dramatic shift from our foundational ethos. This transactional approach, evident in our abstentions on the two recent Palestine-related resolutions, reflects what I have analysed in an earlier article ('Dear people of Palestine', IE, June 17, 2021) as the actions of a government which believes 'that an electoral majority is a licence to trample over anything, including history'. While pursuing perceived strategic advantages through closer ties with Israel, India has neither secured the opportunities it seeks nor maintained its moral leadership. The irony is quite stark. This unexplainable stance has left us diplomatically isolated on crucial global issues, contradicting the very 'vasudhaiva kutumbakam' philosophy we claim to uphold. Strong moral leadership itself constitutes a powerful diplomatic tool that India has historically wielded with great effect. Nations accumulate moral capital by standing on the right side of history. This capital is the crux of soft power and international influence. Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent resistance and India's anti-colonial struggle inspired liberation movements worldwide, giving India a moral authority that extended far beyond our economic or military capabilities. By abandoning this moral foundation, we have weakened our own diplomatic heft, trading long-term influence for immediate and cynical gains that may or may not materialise. It fundamentally does not serve India's interests to align with Israel, which in its current shape and form under the incumbent leadership can only be described as a morally corrupt and warmongering state. While Israel may appear powerful, it remains essentially an American client state, dependent on US military aid and diplomatic protection. India's growing alignment with Israel risks reducing us to an ally of a client state, a position that contradicts our aspirations for strategic autonomy. Moreover, global public opinion is overwhelmingly arrayed against the Zionist project and its ongoing occupation. Despite the media spin by political elites, the occupation of Palestine and what has been variously termed 'apartheid' and 'incremental genocide' deeply resonates with the moral conscience of citizens worldwide, making India's stance increasingly untenable. The international law implications of India's stance are equally troubling. By abstaining from resolutions condemning clear violations of international humanitarian law, India effectively becomes complicit in what reputed international human rights organisations have characterised as systematic oppression. This position undermines India's own claims to champion international law and multilateralism. India's alignment with Israel also jeopardises our relationship with Iran, a crucial ally in the region. Iran's steadfast support for Palestine represents a core element of its regional strategy. As India deepens its ties with Israel while abandoning Palestinian solidarity, we risk alienating Iran and other nations that view the Palestinian cause as a litmus test for moral consistency in international relations. This diplomatic calculus seems particularly shortsighted given Iran's strategic importance for India's energy security and regional connectivity. The recent Madleen flotilla effort and the global people's march to Gaza demonstrate the remarkable resolve and bravery of ordinary citizens challenging the status quo when their governments fail them. These grassroots initiatives remind us that moral leadership often emerges from below when those in power abdicate their responsibilities. As I have written to our Palestinian friends, 'Let me assure you that the civilisational ethos of India is far more powerful than any regime which believes that they can erase and rewrite memory and history.' When Palestinian children dream of simple Parle G biscuits, we are reminded that our choices have consequences that extend far beyond diplomatic halls. We owe help and support to every child who has ever reached for a biscuit and found only empty shelves, who has ever looked to India with hope and found only silence. The writer is Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), Rashtriya Janata Dal
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Disrespectful, condemnable': Iran hits back at Donald Trump, asks if he's 'genuine about a deal'
Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi has called out Donald Trump 's recent outburst against Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei . He said bluntly that if the US President truly wants to talk, he must first watch his words. 'If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers,' Araghchi posted on X. — araghchi (@araghchi) by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Elegant New Scooters For Seniors In 2024: The Prices May Surprise You Mobility Scooter | Search Ads Learn More Undo Tensions remain high after Israel struck Iranian nuclear and military sites on 13 June. The fighting lasted 12 days. Washington joined the offensive by bombing three of Iran's nuclear facilities on 22 June under what it called Operation 'Midnight Hammer'. Iran hit back by launching missiles at a US base in Qatar. Mocking Israel, Araghchi wrote, 'The Great and Powerful Iranian People, who showed the world that the Israeli regime had NO CHOICE but to RUN to 'Daddy' to avoid being flattened by our Missiles, do not take kindly to Threats and Insults.' Live Events Trump claims he saved Khamenei While the dust settled, Trump took to Truth Social and claimed he had stopped Israeli and US forces from killing Khamenei. 'I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life,' Trump wrote. 'I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH, and he does not have to say, 'THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP!'' he added. Trump also questioned Khamenei's claim of victory over Israel. He said the Iranian leader had 'blatantly and foolishly' lied about winning the war. 'As a man of great faith, he is not supposed to lie,' Trump posted. Talks or no talks The US President said he had been working on possible sanction relief for Iran. 'But no, instead I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief, and more,' Trump wrote. Despite that, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insists the door to talks is not closed. 'I spoke to our special envoy Witkoff at length this morning and I can assure all of you we continue to be in close communication with the Iranians and through our intermediaries as well, namely the Qataris, who have been an incredible ally and partner throughout this entire effort,' she said. She added the US wants Iran to agree to a non-enrichment civil nuclear programme. Iran holds its ground But Araghchi showed no sign of softening. He warned, 'If Illusions lead to worse mistakes, Iran will not hesitate to unveil its Real Capabilities, which will certainly END any Delusion about the Power of Iran.' He reminded the world that Iran's resilience runs deep. 'The complexity and tenacity of Iranians are famously known in our magnificent carpets, woven through countless hours of hard work and patience. But as a people, our basic premise is very simple and straightforward: we know our worth, value our independence, and never allow anyone else to decide our destiny.' He signed off with a line that leaves little doubt where Tehran stands. 'Good will begets good will, and respect begets respect.' The 12-day conflict may have ended but both sides keep their guards up. Trump's claim that Iran is 'a burned out, blown up Country, with no future, a decimated Military, a horrible Economy, and DEATH all around them,' has only hardened Tehran's posture. For now, Iran's message is clear. They will not bow to threats, or insults. They say any deal must begin with respect — or not at all.
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
US should negotiate a successor to JCPOA with Iran. Now is the time
The American strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan have brought to the fore three major issues: The success of the strikes, the future of Iran's highly enriched uranium (HEU), and the nature of US-Israel-Iran dealings going forward. It is too early to know the extent of the damage inflicted on the Iranian facilities. Of greatest interest is Fordow. Twelve GBU-57 bombs were used against the main ventilation shafts in an attempt to destroy the centrifuges and control centre, which are 80 metres underground. The GBU-57s are effective to a depth of 60 metres. It is unlikely, therefore, that the bombs penetrated through to the centrifuge hall and control room. The question, though, is: Did the hits severely damage the main underground facilities through the concussive effects of the bombs? If the main ventilation shafts collapsed, what happened to the personnel within the facility? If power supplies were interrupted, were the centrifuges damaged and is anything operating? Is the Iranian admission of severe damage a ruse? If Fordow has effectively been sealed and control over the centrifuges is lost, a direct hit on the centrifuge hall may not matter. The centrifuges will, over time, simply become inoperable. In this sense, the US President may be at least partly right: Fordow may have been obliterated functionally. The second question is: What has become of the HEU, which by all accounts is enriched to 60 per cent (and can be quickly enriched further to make a bomb)? Reports suggest there were about 160 kg of it at Fordow and perhaps 400 kg in total. The stockpiles were apparently moved before the strikes (though the Trump administration now contests this). If the stockpiles were removed, they would be dispersed to several sites to increase survivability. Nonetheless, given Israeli and US intelligence capabilities, the location of the HEU may soon be known. If Israel can find and kill top Iranian nuclear scientists and generals, it should eventually be able to find the HEU. Once the HEU is located, what can the US and Israel do? They could choose to do nothing, on the calculation that Iran will have difficulty in enriching the HEU for the bomb. Most analysts, however, conclude that Iran can sufficiently enrich the HEU, at a secret facility (assuming one exists), within months. So, doing nothing is probably not an option. Once the locations of the HEU are known, the US and Iran could resume their attack. The problem is that any direct strikes on the HEU would be tantamount to unleashing 'dirty bombs', in which radioactive materials are vented without a nuclear chain reaction. The global outcry would be significant were this to occur, and both the US and Israel may be wary of the blowback. Plus, Israel must worry that its own nuclear reactors could be targeted someday to produce a similar result. It may not, therefore, want to legitimate such an action. If a direct attack on the HEU is dangerous, Washington and Tel Aviv must instead gain control of the stockpile. Tehran would have to be persuaded to reveal the locations of the HEU, and full-scope safeguarding would follow. This, in turn, means that the IAEA inspectors must have access to Iranian nuclear facilities, as was envisaged by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement between the US and Iran during President Barack Obama's time. In addition, the various 24/7 surveillance mechanisms under the accord would have to be installed and operated. For a new deal to be struck on Iran's nuclear activities, the United States will need to negotiate a successor to the JCPOA. In his comments on the strikes on Iran, US President Donald Trump drew a parallel to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks during World War II, seeming to suggest that Iran is similarly prostrate. In fact, the parallel is far from accurate. Iran is not an occupied country. Both sides face limits. The US wants to avoid another 'forever war', not least due to domestic opposition. In addition, its supplies of defensive missiles and other war materials are under stress from provisioning Ukraine and Israel. Israel's famous air defences are strained, perhaps to breaking point, and it will be increasingly vulnerable to retaliatory missile attacks. Iran's options, too, are limited. Tehran must worry that both Israel and the US will resume attacks, and not just on nuclear facilities, and that internal dissent will boil over. The conditions are ripe, therefore, for a new nuclear deal. That said, the ceasefire must hold, and Iran must have an authority figure that can deliver a deal. Neither is certain. In addition, the US may have to sweeten the deal economically by lifting sanctions. This will depend on Trump overcoming domestic and Israeli opposition. In short, there is a road ahead, but it is a rocky one. The writer is Wilmar Professor of Asian Studies and vice dean, Research and Development, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore
