What the University of Virginia Should Have Done

Opinion|What the University of Virginia Should Have Done

On Friday, Jim Ryan stood on the lawn of Carr’s Hill, the residence of the president of the University of Virginia, alone in the center of a crowd of supporters. He offered brief remarks about his inability to fight the forces arrayed against him, including the Trump administration. No one stood alongside him — it was just the university president, Mr. Ryan, explaining why he had made the difficult decision to quit.

The moment perfectly illustrated how Mr. Ryan was abandoned by the same people who were supposed to protect the university. Under investigation by the Justice Department, the university had a strong defense, if only it had the courage to assert it. Instead of fighting back against what I believe to be false accusations that the university was violating federal law, and the even more outrageous demand that Mr. Ryan resign as a remedy for those alleged violations, the university’s Board of Visitors pushed out a popular president. Instead of presenting facts and law, the board waved the white flag of surrender. Mr. Ryan’s resignation is a victory for intimidation and fear over the rule of law.

According to The Times, Mr. Ryan’s departure was prompted by “demands by the Trump administration that he step aside to help resolve a Justice Department inquiry into the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.” The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department has been investigating the university for its alleged failure to eliminate D.E.I. programs and continuing to consider race and ethnicity in various programs and scholarships.

I served as university counsel at the University of Virginia from 2018 through 2022. During that time, it was my job to defend the university from unfounded allegations and investigations. The Justice Department has alleged that the university’s actions violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Had I been university counsel last week, I would have advised my client to challenge what I believe to be a false allegation that the university’s policies are unlawful.

Title VI prohibits racial classifications, quotas or programs that are exclusive to any one race, gender or protected class. It does not prevent federal contractors, such as universities, from pursuing the goal of creating a diverse community, one that ensures all individuals can participate in the learning environment regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or political ideology. Eligibility for programs and opportunities based on those and other immutable characteristics is illegal. Programs that create a pipeline of diverse applicants are not.

Since President Trump’s executive order on D.E.I. and subsequent guidance issued by the Department of Education, the university has taken steps to ensure that it broadened eligibility for university programs, scholarships and services to all students, regardless of race, ethnicity or other classification. It redesigned (not simply relabeled) certain programs to ensure they fostered the valid policy goal of inclusive excellence, diversity of experience and perspective and ensuring that all students are welcome.