The Disturbing Politicization of UVA’s Faculty Senate

Inside Higher Ed, an online publisher of news and opinion in the higher education sphere, recently published an article entitled, “The Angry 8: On Faculty Senates.” The thrust of the story is that the faculty senates at many colleges and universities have been hijacked by a relatively small number of activists who have turned the amorphous concept of “shared governance” into a license to criticize and intrude into decisions far beyond academics and their areas of expertise. One can now add the UVA Faculty Senate, under the leadership of Jeri Seidman, to the list of such faculty senates. The leadership of UVA’s Faculty Senate have in essence become avatars of politicized, partisan advocacy rather than a voice for academic excellence.

The UVA Faculty Senate has undeniably entered a new era. It is taking more positions on contentious topics, passing resolutions involving broader UVA issues, and engaging in discussions that extend well beyond academic policy. This marks a significant shift from its historical norms in which few, if any, formal resolutions were issued each year and activist behavior was relatively non-existent.

Issuing public statements and mobilizing community involvement

Under Seidman’s chairmanship, the Faculty Senate has repeatedly taken high-stakes political stances: For instance, after the resignation of President Jim Ryan in June 2025, the Senate passed a vote of no confidence in the Board of Visitors (BOV). In fact, the Faculty Senate has issued seven more resolutions since then, bringing the total to 8 in less than 6 months.  In contrast, there were three total resolutions in 2024 and zero in 2023.

Moreover, the Faculty Senate has not limited itself to external resolutions, internal memos, or meetings. Instead, they have helped to organize politicized public rallies and have collaborated with University political allies to protest what they perceived to be outside interference in UVA’s governance. Seidman herself stood by the steps of the Rotunda and openly thanked several groups, including the Faculty Senate, Staff Senate, American Association of University Professors, United Campus Workers, and Wahoos4UVA – essentially joining ideological allies and effectively silencing any faculty voices that may disagree.

Through these actions, the Faculty Senate has repositioned itself as an activist participant — not just representing faculty interests in academic affairs, but attempting to shape the broader political direction of the University regarding governance structures, external events, and institutional leadership.

Framing institutional issues as political and civic concerns

The Senate’s resolutions and public statements under Seidman frame recent events in political language. The DOJ civil rights investigations, President Ryan’s resignation, and the actions of the BOV area are all described as rising threats to academic freedom and institutional governance. Consequently, the Faculty Senate has called for different leadership at UVA.

Departure from the traditional Faculty Senate purpose

The Faculty Senate under Seidman has deviated sharply from its original mandate. By the Senate’s own constitution and by-laws, its role is meant to be about “academic functions such as establishment and termination of degree programs, degree-requirements changes, and actions affecting faculties,” and to provide advice to the President and BOV on “educational and related matters.” 

Passing no-confidence votes, demanding resignations, and orchestrating rallies are not academic functions but rather political interventions. The Faculty Senate is now acting more like an activist body than a faculty-governance institution. 

Double standards and selective outrage

The Faculty Senate has applied different standards depending on who holds power. For the past fifteen years, with the University under leaders who pushed a progressive agenda aligned with their own, the Faculty Senate leadership simply ignored unprecedented and controversial behavior, which represented blatant examples of lack of transparency and “shared governance” as well as grotesque unfairness to certain groups of students.  

For example, where was the Faculty Senate during the Rolling Stone outrage, when dozens of students were openly and viciously harassed and verbally assaulted by large groups, including faculty members, when there was no basis in fact for the spurious allegations? Where was the Faculty Senate outrage when Jim Ryan’s contract was clandestinely renewed so that a new Republican governor’s choices for the Board of Visitors would have no say in who would be president when Ryan’s term was up? Where was the Faculty Senate resolution when Ryan handpicked Ian Baucom as the new provost without even constituting a search committee? Where was the Faculty Senate when President Ryan and the Democrat-controlled Board refused to allow the report on the deaths of our three student athletes to be published for 1.5 years or to explain why the then-Senior VP for Student Affairs and Dean of Students was quietly shown the door? 

There are numerous further examples, but one should clearly get the picture. The Faculty Senate will only issue resolutions and condemnations when University leadership is attempting to depoliticize the Grounds and restore the University as an institution where diversity of thought is cherished. Rather than criticizing the Board and University leadership for negotiating a sterling settlement –without any monetary penalties or cuts in funding–the Faculty Senate should be focusing on why 70% of UVA students are afraid to publicly disagree with a professor, and why UVA was ranked 211 out of 257 colleges in “comfort in expressing ideas” and 183 of 257 in self-censorship in the most recent FIRE rankings. Is it any wonder that students are fearful of expressing opinions when their faculty leadership is so highly politicized and wed to double standards?

Risk to institutional neutrality and free exchange of ideas

By inserting itself into Board of Visitors processes and pushing for ideological alignment in University leadership, the Faculty Senate undermines the neutrality essential for intellectual diversity and free expression. When UVA administrators or Board members share the Faculty Senate’s ideology, concerns about transparency or governance are outright ignored; when they do not, the Faculty Senate condemns them. This selective standard erodes trust, fairness, and the ideal of transparent, balanced governance.

Over the past year, the UVA Faculty Senate has operated as a political power center. The  Faculty Senate is leveraging its authority to attempt to reshape leadership, governance, and institutional priorities–far beyond its traditional academic and advisory scope. Whenever a faculty governance body becomes politically active, it significantly undermines the institution's impartiality and traditional role as an educator, not a political advocate. Over time, this erodes trust, heightens conflict, and degrades the ability to make academic decisions grounded in merit rather than political expediency.