THE REAL STORY BEHIND THE COORDINATED EFFORT TO DELEGITIMIZE AND INTIMIDATE THE UVA BOARD OF VISITORS
Any discerning observer paying attention to the ongoing barrage of unprecedented attacks on the University of Virginia Board of Visitors (BOV) and its leadership cannot help but notice a striking similar pattern. The same allegations—largely manufactured, repetitious, and thinly sourced—are recycled again and again, apparently in the belief that if a proverbial “big lie” is repeated often enough and echoed by multiple voices, it will eventually be accepted as fact. This naturally raises two questions: Where is this campaign coming from, and why are its participants acting with such unusual aggression and hostility?
A closer look at developments in Charlottesville, coupled with information from knowledgeable inside sources, provides the answer. There is little doubt that these attacks are part of a highly coordinated and well-financed effort. This effort appears to be led by both friends and supporters of former president Jim Ryan and former UVA officials, further joined by Democrat members of the Virginia Senate, the Spanberger political team, certain members of the faculty and administration, and several student organizations (all collectively referred to hereafter as the “Cabal”). Much of this activity appears to be synchronized and amplified by a professional public relations firm.
Why are they doing this? The immediate objective is clearly to intimidate and delegitimize the BOV during the current search for a new university president. The broader objective, however, is plainly political: to prevent the selection of any president who might depart from the highly politicized progressive agenda that has dominated the University Grounds for roughly the past fifteen years.
With the “who” and the “why” established, it is important to examine the substance—or lack thereof—behind the Cabal’s allegations and to expose the strategy being employed to neutralize the BOV and transfer effective control of the presidential selection process to the incoming Spanberger administration. The offensive rests on three principal claims: 1) The current BOV is not properly constituted under Virginia law; 2) The BOV has lacked transparency; and 3) The BOV has failed to practice “shared governance.”
The Strategy
As regards whether the BOV is properly constituted, the argument here is that the BOV lacks a sufficient number of Virginia residents and UVA alumni. A fully constituted BOV consists of 17 voting members, and the alleged statutory requirements are based on that number. However, in an action unprecedented in the Commonwealth’s history, Democrat members of a standing committee of the Virginia Senate summarily rejected five of Governor Youngkin’s BOV appointees—without explanation, debate, or stated justification. They also filed an emergency injunction to ensure they would not be seated.
This overtly political maneuver mocked basic principles of democratic governance, particularly offensive and unsavory at a university founded by the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Having then deliberately created the alleged deficiency, those same senators and their Cabal allies now argue that the Board is unlawfully constituted. The logic is perverse. Even setting aside this self-created defect, the language of the relevant provisions and applicable case law make the Cabal’s claims unlikely to succeed on the merits.
The Cabal’s claims regarding transparency and shared governance fare no better. Anyone with a serious understanding of UVA’s history and precedence knows that these allegations amount to a carefully constructed—but fundamentally hollow—house of cards.
The Jefferson Council has previously documented that the Ryan administration was probably the least transparent in the University’s history.. Particularly troubling examples include: the refusal to disclose the facts surrounding the tragic shooting of our three UVA athletes and the administrative failures that preceded it; the similarly opaque handling of the most extensive scandal in the history of UVA’s health system; the closed-door secret renewal of Jim Ryan’s contract; and the refusal to address rising antisemitism at UVA in a public and forthright manner. Notably, many of today’s loudest critics of the current BOV were silent—or nearly so—during those same episodes.
Leaving aside this hypocrisy, the Cabal’s claims also collapse under substantive scrutiny. The essence of the attacks is that the BOV did not publicly disclose the negotiations with the Justice Department or the subsequent negotiations of the resulting settlement. However, this defies common sense and real world practices. No serious institution would conduct sensitive legal negotiations of this nature in the open. Claims that the absence of faculty or student representatives from these negotiations constitutes a failure of “shared governance” are equally unserious. Should members of the Faculty Senate and Student Council have been involved in those negotiations? The suggestion borders on parody. As the Jefferson Council has previously shown, demands for “shared governance” reliably surface only when a favored political agenda is perceived to be at risk.
The Political Objective
All of these attacks, in whatever form they take, are aimed at a single goal: preventing the current BOV from fulfilling its lawful responsibility to select UVA’s next president. But the politicking regarding presidential succession did not begin recently. It must be noted that in March 2021, the previous all-Democrat appointed BOV secretly extended Jim Ryan’s contract to 2028 in a closed meeting, three years before his then-current contract expired. This was done shortly after Governor Youngkin’s election and before he could even appoint a single Board member. The extension was clearly structured to ensure that BOV members appointed by the new Republican governor would never be able to select a new president.
Despite this, Governor Youngkin honored longstanding Commonwealth tradition. He removed no Democrat members from the BOV and allowed a Democrat-appointed Rector to remain in office for three years, even after his appointees held a 13–4 majority. Contrast that restraint with today’s circumstances: the rejection of five well-qualified nominees this summer and open threats to remove existing Board members as soon as Governor-elect Spanberger takes office. Furthermore, the recent personal attacks on Rector Sheridan and Vice-Rector Wilkinson are clearly aimed at manufacturing a spurious pretext for their removal on day one of Spanberger’s term. This is coarse, calculated political maneuvering—nothing more and nothing less.
The Stakes
We thus come full circle. The intensity, coordination, and expense of this campaign reflect the perceived stakes. An oft-quoted line attributed both to Wallace Stanley Sayre and Henry Kissinger holds that “academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low.” That sentiment is no longer true. In many institutions, higher education has shifted from education to ideological indoctrination. Universities have become not only incubators of social-justice ideology, but active political actors themselves. For those committed to that agenda, any threat must be suppressed—by any means necessary. That is what is happening at UVA today.
A Final Appeal
To those entrusted with shaping the future of our beloved University, will you do what you know is right and select a leader who prioritizes freedom of expression, intellectual diversity, and equal treatment for every member of the University community—one who will make decisions based on merit and character? Or will you allow yourselves to be intimidated by political operatives and entrench an agenda that has fostered fear and conformity on Grounds?
The decision is yours. The consequences will endure for years to come.