Team Ryan Defends Closed Board Session

University of Virginia officials have responded, albeit obliquely, to questions raised by The Jefferson Council about the legality of a closed session called during a Board of Visitors meeting March 1.

In a column posted in the So Hoos Asking feature of UVA Today, University spokesman Brian Coy walked readers through the basics of closed sessions under Virginia state law. In that piece, he cited the real-world example of the Board's vote last month to go into closed session to discuss the safety of Jewish students on Grounds in the wake of allegations of antisemitism.

Coy's description of the session reveals details not previously available to the public. I'm not entirely satisfied with his explanation, as I shall explain in due course, but even if I were, another issue arises: If the topic of the closed-session discussion was as narrowly focused as Coy says it was, it drives home the fact that Rector Robert Hardie and President Jim Ryan have shut down any discussion in open session of the larger questions of UVA's hostile climate to Jews.

In the cause of promoting open and reasoned dialogue, we are duty-bound to inform our readers fully and fairly of the views of the Ryan administration. Here follows the full passage from Coy's column.

On March 1, near the end of the board’s quarterly meeting, the members voted to go into closed session because Robert Hardie – who is the rector, or board leader – asked for a briefing from University Police and Student Affairs officials about recent reports of antisemitism and Islamophobia. The briefing covered ongoing law enforcement investigations and students’ private and protected records, an update from the University counsel on additional legal matters and a discussion of appointments, promotions, salaries, resignations and retirements of academic faculty and administrators that required confidentiality.

While much of the University’s response to the tensions that have arisen from the violence in the Middle East has been shared publicly, the March 1 closed session briefing was going to be very specific and include the details of open investigations and student accusations of harassment. When it comes to investigations and harassment complaints, the University keeps student details confidential.

Having those kinds of allegations or accusations discussed publicly would compromise the privacy rights of the students who made the charges and of those accused of wrongdoing when their cases are still being considered. A public airing could dissuade others from coming forward and could compromise ongoing investigations, making it more difficult for the University to resolve complaints.

That was one of several key items covered under closed session on March 1. And when the session was over, all the board members agreed they abided by the rules.

It is reasonable for the Board to restrict public access to discussions involving open investigations in order to protect the anonymity of students accused of wrong-doing and of the accusers themselves. But is that really all that was discussed?

Besides discussing specific cases identified through the "Just Report It" system, the resolution to go into closed session also mentioned the need to discuss (my bold) "efforts and programs for monitoring the well-being of, and improving safety for, members of the University community including students and employees."

A discussion of "efforts and programs" would reveal no personal information. There is no justification for discussing them in closed session. I don't know if such deliberations actually took place — Coy didn't mention them and I can't find out because board members are basically sworn to secrecy about what happens behind closed doors.

But there's a bigger issue. The closed session was preceded by efforts by multiple Board members to open up a broader discussion of antisemitism at UVA — not just specific instances reported to Just Report It. What was the administration doing to combat antisemitism? Efforts on the second day of the meeting were deflected. On the third day, Rector Hardie threatened Bert Ellis with a reprimand if he did not stop raising the issue.

The Ryan administration has launched a variety of pseudo-initiatives to defuse the tensions between anti-Israeli faculty and students on the one hand and Jewish defenders of Israel, and by extension Jewish students generally, on the other. By manipulating the Board agenda, Team Ryan has managed to avoid any meaningful accountability. Nothing that Coy wrote changes that.