The White House intrusion into the governance of the University of Virginia–and the UVA Board of Visitors’ decision to leave President Jim Ryan alone and undefended against untested allegations–is a case study in political interference that contradicts U.S. Supreme Court precedent, undermines higher education, and raises questions about university boards.
The Department of Justice demanded President Ryan’s resignation over alleged noncompliance with the Donald Trump administration’s order to ban DEI initiatives, even though UVA’s DEI office had already been eliminated. It appears that the Board did not defend him, even though his record on diversity as dean of the Harvard School of Education was one of the reasons stated for hiring him as president.
The Trump administration escalated matters, threatening to limit international student enrollment and withhold federal grants unless Ryan resigned.
These heavy-handed tactics, justified as efforts to “control” the University of Virginia’s learning environment, have instead eroded the academic and civic mission its founder, Thomas Jefferson, set forth: “To give to every citizen the information he needs…to understand his duties to his neighbors and country…to know his rights…”
Jefferson believed that ignorance was the enemy of freedom and democracy. Yet, he had a mixed legacy, especially regarding slavery, which he both engaged in for profit and condemned as a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot.” He enslaved more than 600 people and used enslaved labor to build his university. President Ryan’s efforts to acknowledge UVA’s ties to slavery angered some trustees, alumni, and Governor Glenn Youngkin. Their objection reflects a broader reluctance to confront the university’s and our country’s past.
UVA’s experience is not isolated. Government interference has rattled Columbia University, Harvard, and other universities.
These actions expose the vulnerability of even elite universities, despite Supreme Court decisions, including Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) and Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957). Both decisions affirmed that universities must remain free from government interference in teaching, hiring, and governance. Institutional autonomy and board independence are fundamental to academic freedom, educational excellence, and the fulfillment of fiduciary duties. Yet here we are.
Boards of trustees are responsible for preserving institutional independence, academic freedom, and free speech, all of which are necessary for teaching and scholarship that challenge assumptions and assertions. Furthermore, college and university boards have legal duties like those of for-profit boards. Their duties are threefold: duty of care, loyalty, and obedience. The duty of care: Board members must prepare diligently, participate actively, and protect the institution through appropriate oversight, including guarding against external interference.
The duty of loyalty: Board members must act in good faith and the institution’s best interests, not out of self-interest or in the interest of a particular constituency, including alumni or a governor. This duty specifies that a trustee should not have mixed loyalties, only allegiance to one institution at a time.
The duty of obedience: Boards must uphold the institution’s charter and mission, maintaining public trust through honest stewardship. UVA’s Board of Visitors Statement of Visitor Responsibilities pledges to “actively safeguard principles of academic freedom for the University and its faculty and endeavor to protect the university from outside influences seeking improperly to shape it.” Recent events call into question whether the board is living up to this standard.
Each institution possesses a covenant with the public that gives it a charter, the major asset of each institution. The faculty may be the heart and students the soul, but the license to award degrees and certificates gives the institution stature, credibility, relevance, and viability in the modern age.
Surprisingly, fewer than 15 percent of American college and university trustees have any professional experience in higher education; this underscores the need for rigorous orientation in academic governance and mission.
Under Jefferson, the University of Virginia delegated governing responsibilities to students and faculty, championing academic freedom and shared governance by asserting that students and faculty should be able to pursue ideas without fear of censorship. Does the University of Virginia Board of Visitors understand its own “Statement of Responsibilities”?
University trustees are most effective when they know the history, the mission and purpose, the students, the local community, and the comparative advantages of the institutions they serve. This is vital not only for the institution’s health but also to maintain the independence that has been the hallmark of U.S. higher education. As a former university president, university trustee, and a member of PEN America’s Champions of Higher Education, I am speaking out because if we leaders do not stand up for higher education, we are abrogating our responsibility to our students and our country’s future. Trustees need to know the difference between governance and management.
While some states, including Virginia, have considered mandated training for those who govern universities, most efforts have been voluntary. I suggest that it is time to require board members to be certified in the duties of governance, as affirmed by audit firms or accrediting bodies, whether they are appointed by a governor, elected by the public, or selected by a board of trustees. Wouldn’t this be in the Jeffersonian spirit?
