Anonymous wrote:What Spanberger did was savvy. She sent a signal to anyone considering the UVA job that their appointment would be quickly overturned once she takes office. What well-credentialed higher education official would take such a job under such circumstances? Not really anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From Ryan’s letter, it’s pretty clear that Youngkin engineered Ryan’s resignation through his BOV appointees and scapegoated the DOJ.

Ryan was stupid to issue this letter because it confirms that he never submitted ANYTHING to DOJ (the reason DOJ was irritated), and the Board was going to fire him the next day if he didn't resign. Dumb dumb dumb. Also proves that the Board wanted him to go. Did you notice that the Board didn't fight the resignation at all?

You need to re-read the letter if that was your takeaway. Ryan pressed the BOV to submit incremental progress to the DOJ, but Rachel Sheridan refused. This was nothing short of a Youngkin/Republican coup.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The situation at the University of Virginia is a clear example of how DEI policies have entered a new legal and political environment. UVA’s governing board shut down the university’s DEI office earlier this year after federal investigators questioned whether some of its past programs gave advantages based on race or other protected characteristics. The Department of Justice signaled that the university was at real risk of losing federal funding if it did not fully bring its policies in line with civil rights law. Under that pressure, President James Ryan chose to resign rather than drag the institution into a long fight with the federal government.

This was not simply a clash of politics. It was the result of a legal landscape that changed after the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on race conscious admissions. Since then, federal agencies have scrutinized any DEI program that might involve quota systems or zero sum benefits tied to race or sex. UVA’s leadership had already started dismantling its DEI structure, but critics argued the changes were cosmetic. That disagreement created a credibility problem with federal regulators, which is ultimately what forced the crisis.

Anyone coming into office now needs to understand that this environment has not shifted back. If the new governor tries to push the same style of DEI programs that brought scrutiny to UVA, she risks repeating the same cycle. The issue is not whether diversity or inclusion can be supported. Those goals are legal and widely accepted. The problem is that certain DEI models rely on decision making that treats protected characteristics as factors in hiring, admissions, or funding. That is exactly what federal investigators are now targeting.

Unless future state policies focus strictly on equal opportunity approaches that avoid these legal pitfalls, the governor could walk straight into the same trap UVA just fell into.

Someone didn’t read the letter.

I read Spanberger’s letter, and the problem isn’t what she says it is. The crisis at UVA didn’t start with the Board’s presidential search. It started when federal investigators questioned whether parts of UVA’s DEI framework violated civil rights law. That pressure put federal funding at risk and is what led Ryan to step down. Calling it simple “federal overreach” skips the reason the scrutiny happened in the first place.

The governor-elect frames the Board as illegitimate, but the faculty votes and unconfirmed appointees are fallout from the same dispute about UVA’s direction. The Board acted to bring DEI policies into compliance with current federal standards. People may not like those decisions, but compliance is not optional.

Spanberger’s demand to pause the search until she can install new members isn’t just about transparency. It’s an attempt to reclaim control and potentially revive the same DEI approach that triggered federal intervention. If she pushes UVA back into that territory, she’ll run into the same legal and federal problems all over again. UVA needs stability and a president chosen on the university’s timeline, not a political one.

MAGA fever dream.

June 29, 2023
Supreme Court issues SFFA v. Harvard/UNC under Biden’s DOJ, creating the new legal basis for nationwide DEI scrutiny.

Late 2023 – 2024
Civil-rights complaints against university DEI programs are filed nationwide, including at UVA, all processed under Biden DOJ leadership and DOJ career staff.

January 20, 2025
Presidential inauguration day; Biden-appointed DOJ leadership resigns this day per standard procedure; DOJ temporarily led by acting officials, not yet Trump’s appointees.

Late January 2025
Trump announces his Attorney General nominee; DOJ still run by acting leadership, not confirmed Trump officials.

February – March 2025
Trump’s Attorney General and senior DOJ political leaders are confirmed; this is when Trump’s DOJ leadership actually takes office.

Early 2025 (January–February)
Any DOJ activity related to UVA is handled by acting DOJ leadership and career officials, not Trump’s confirmed DOJ.

March 2025
UVA Board dismantles the standalone DEI office; this occurs before Trump’s DOJ leadership is fully installed.

May 29, 2025
Public confirmation that the federal DOJ has an active Title VI investigation into UVA; DOJ does not state when the investigation began, meaning it could have started under the prior DOJ leadership.

June 27, 2025
UVA President James Ryan resigns citing federal pressure.

October 22, 2025
DOJ announces a formal compliance agreement with UVA; the issues addressed trace back to 2023–2024 conditions under the Biden DOJ’s legal environment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From Ryan’s letter, it’s pretty clear that Youngkin engineered Ryan’s resignation through his BOV appointees and scapegoated the DOJ.

Ryan was stupid to issue this letter because it confirms that he never submitted ANYTHING to DOJ (the reason DOJ was irritated), and the Board was going to fire him the next day if he didn't resign. Dumb dumb dumb. Also proves that the Board wanted him to go. Did you notice that the Board didn't fight the resignation at all?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just love the fact that the liberal decry anything Trump does re Universities as overreaching and bullying but when a dem WHO IS NOT EVEN IN OFFICE YET pulls it, you can’t even see it! And here is Youngkin’s response, which any of you could have found if you had bothered. https://www.12onyourside.com/2025/11/14/gov-youngkin-responds-spanbergers-letter-uva-board/?outputType=amp

I replied earlier:

"Poor Youngkin; he should have just kept quiet and rode out the rest of his term.

But he wants to play on the national stage and felt compelled to lie in order to stay in the good graces of the MAGA cult. The result is that he has probably ruined his chances at national office since with this single letter he has probably lost the ability to win VA in any future election. After his letter the center will not forget or forgive him for what is going on at UVA."

I was a registered republican until 2016, not a chance of me ever registering as a dem and most assuredly not left. Center right and still able to think. What I said above holds. The far left is looney but traditionally just ignored. The republicans have shit all over their nest and are a lost cause until they clean house.

Anonymous wrote:From Ryan’s letter, it’s pretty clear that Youngkin engineered Ryan’s resignation through his BOV appointees and scapegoated the DOJ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The situation at the University of Virginia is a clear example of how DEI policies have entered a new legal and political environment. UVA’s governing board shut down the university’s DEI office earlier this year after federal investigators questioned whether some of its past programs gave advantages based on race or other protected characteristics. The Department of Justice signaled that the university was at real risk of losing federal funding if it did not fully bring its policies in line with civil rights law. Under that pressure, President James Ryan chose to resign rather than drag the institution into a long fight with the federal government.

This was not simply a clash of politics. It was the result of a legal landscape that changed after the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on race conscious admissions. Since then, federal agencies have scrutinized any DEI program that might involve quota systems or zero sum benefits tied to race or sex. UVA’s leadership had already started dismantling its DEI structure, but critics argued the changes were cosmetic. That disagreement created a credibility problem with federal regulators, which is ultimately what forced the crisis.

Anyone coming into office now needs to understand that this environment has not shifted back. If the new governor tries to push the same style of DEI programs that brought scrutiny to UVA, she risks repeating the same cycle. The issue is not whether diversity or inclusion can be supported. Those goals are legal and widely accepted. The problem is that certain DEI models rely on decision making that treats protected characteristics as factors in hiring, admissions, or funding. That is exactly what federal investigators are now targeting.

Unless future state policies focus strictly on equal opportunity approaches that avoid these legal pitfalls, the governor could walk straight into the same trap UVA just fell into.

Someone didn’t read the letter.

I read Spanberger’s letter, and the problem isn’t what she says it is. The crisis at UVA didn’t start with the Board’s presidential search. It started when federal investigators questioned whether parts of UVA’s DEI framework violated civil rights law. That pressure put federal funding at risk and is what led Ryan to step down. Calling it simple “federal overreach” skips the reason the scrutiny happened in the first place.

The governor-elect frames the Board as illegitimate, but the faculty votes and unconfirmed appointees are fallout from the same dispute about UVA’s direction. The Board acted to bring DEI policies into compliance with current federal standards. People may not like those decisions, but compliance is not optional.

Spanberger’s demand to pause the search until she can install new members isn’t just about transparency. It’s an attempt to reclaim control and potentially revive the same DEI approach that triggered federal intervention. If she pushes UVA back into that territory, she’ll run into the same legal and federal problems all over again. UVA needs stability and a president chosen on the university’s timeline, not a political one.

MAGA fever dream.

June 29, 2023
Supreme Court issues SFFA v. Harvard/UNC under Biden’s DOJ, creating the new legal basis for nationwide DEI scrutiny.

Late 2023 – 2024
Civil-rights complaints against university DEI programs are filed nationwide, including at UVA, all processed under Biden DOJ leadership and DOJ career staff.

January 20, 2025
Presidential inauguration day; Biden-appointed DOJ leadership resigns this day per standard procedure; DOJ temporarily led by acting officials, not yet Trump’s appointees.

Late January 2025
Trump announces his Attorney General nominee; DOJ still run by acting leadership, not confirmed Trump officials.

February – March 2025
Trump’s Attorney General and senior DOJ political leaders are confirmed; this is when Trump’s DOJ leadership actually takes office.

Early 2025 (January–February)
Any DOJ activity related to UVA is handled by acting DOJ leadership and career officials, not Trump’s confirmed DOJ.

March 2025
UVA Board dismantles the standalone DEI office; this occurs before Trump’s DOJ leadership is fully installed.

May 29, 2025
Public confirmation that the federal DOJ has an active Title VI investigation into UVA; DOJ does not state when the investigation began, meaning it could have started under the prior DOJ leadership.

June 27, 2025
UVA President James Ryan resigns citing federal pressure.

October 22, 2025
DOJ announces a formal compliance agreement with UVA; the issues addressed trace back to 2023–2024 conditions under the Biden DOJ’s legal environment.

I re-read the OP’s first post. She wrote in part:

“ Ryan issues a 12-page letter describing the months leading up to his firing, implying collusion between DOJ and BOV members, and refusal of current rector/vice rector to inform other visitors (including then rector/vice-rector) of DOJ threats:”


Let’s be clear and honest here:

- it wasn’t Trump’s DOJ who began investigating UVA’s office for violations of the Civil Rights Act and failure to follow guidelines. It was Biden’s DOJ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a WaPo article concerning the details of UVA’s settlement agreement with the trump administration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/10/22/university-of-virginia-trump-administration-settlement/


NOTE: the settlement agreement is a settlement agreement.

Again, not the compact. All this agreement (not a “settlement”) does is put the DOJ’s five discrimination investigations on hold while UVA cleans up its act. You do want that, right? UVA is actively discriminating in hiring and admissions in violation of Students for Fair Admissions and federal law.

Anonymous wrote:I just love the fact that the liberal decry anything Trump does re Universities as overreaching and bullying but when a dem WHO IS NOT EVEN IN OFFICE YET pulls it, you can’t even see it! And here is Youngkin’s response, which any of you could have found if you had bothered. https://www.12onyourside.com/2025/11/14/gov-youngkin-responds-spanbergers-letter-uva-board/?outputType=amp