I'm No Fan of UVA's President. That Doesn't Mean the Government Should Force Him Out.
Jim Ryan is the latest casualty in Trump's unconstitutional war against elite universities.

On Friday, University of Virginia President Jim Ryan announced that he was stepping down after the Justice Department demanded that he resign as a condition of resolving an investigation into the school's diversity programs.
"To make a long story short, I am inclined to fight for what I believe in, and I believe deeply in this University," Ryan said in a statement explaining his decision to resign. "But I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job. To do so would not only be quixotic but appear selfish and self-centered to the hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs, the researchers who would lose their funding, and the hundreds of students who could lose financial aid or have their visas withheld."
Ryan became UVA president during my first year at the university. While my friends filled their Instagram stories with praise for Ryan and outrage at Trump and a former university counsel lamented in The New York Times that "his departure will result in a less inclusive university community, which will harm all students who choose the University of Virginia," I'll admit that I've had trouble summoning the same pity for Ryan.
To be honest, I have no particular affection for Ryan. During his tenure as president, I found him to be far from a principled defender of the "great and good"—a phrase he frequently used to describe his goals for the university. When a UVA student put a strongly worded sign on her door accusing the university of racism, administrators threatened to kick her out of her dorm. That same academic year, he allowed a student to be illegally punished by the school's student-run judicial body after a popular student activist baselessly accused her of racism. (That case, which I investigated for Reason in 2023, resulted in a lawsuit that was settled last year.) When UVA students attempted a pro-Palestine encampment, he called in four different police forces to break it up, leading to disquieting, if technically legal, scenes of cops in riot gear manhandling protesters.
Admittedly, these sins are far from unique. A college president failing to be a perfect civil libertarian under public pressure is not uncommon. Ryan—like all university presidents—is first and foremost a bureaucrat, whose main job is to raise money for the university and ensure it gets the maximum amount of good press and the minimum amount of bad press.
Still, none of that means that the Justice Department was justified in pushing him out. Ryan got screwed over; he is the latest casualty of the Trump administration's war against elite universities.
On its face, there are some elements of the Trump administration's civil rights investigations into universities that I should support. Especially in light of Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard, which clarified that race-based affirmative action violates civil rights law, it's pretty obvious that most selective universities are engaging in illegal racial quotas in admissions and faculty hiring.
But the Trump administration has shown itself incapable of investigating illegal discrimination in good faith. So far, it's used flimsy accusations of antisemitism to yank Harvard's federal funding, briefly ban the school from taking international students, and demand that the school somehow both use exclusively merit-based measures when hiring faculty yet ensure ideological diversity. And that's just one school.
I happen to be quite fond of the Civil Rights Act, and I'd like the government to enforce it. But do I trust the Trump administration to only investigate UVA for conduct that violates civil rights law and not try to censor completely protected faculty and student speech? And do I trust the Trump administration to give UVA the legally required due process when carrying out its investigation? Of course not.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Supreme Court found that Harvard was discriminating. Hardly "flimsy evidence". The DOJ ordered ALL schools to remove DEI, not just "elite" ones. The UVA Board of Regents ordered the President to comply.
He did not. The DEI programs went underground, the titles and verbage were changed, but he did not enforce the legitimate order of the Board. He interfered with the DOJ investigation to the point where it could not resolve its civil rights complaint.
I am glad he did the honorable thing and resigned a year earlier than he intended to, but it was hardly without cause and he is no boy scout.
Pretty much. He's not all bad, as actually siccing the police on illegal encampments shows, but as you say he was dropping the ball in cracking down on illegal discrimination.
He apparently just didn't want to have to pick a side and stick with it; Not the right side or the wrong side. He was trying to split the difference in a fight one side or the other IS going to win.
That's exactly the right read of the situation. That far left DEI pushing guy entered the job specifically to jam it into everything. Trump pushed back and instead of doing the right thing he tried to hide it and lied about it. UVA is far better off without him anywhere near it.
The DoJ has no authority to order schools to remove DEI.
To the extent that DEI represents a systematic violation of federal civil rights laws, that's not really true. And all motte and bailey defenses aside, DEI largely IS about doing things that violate federal civil rights laws.
1. DEI is not a violation of civil rights laws.
2. Department of Education is charged with enforcing those laws on schools.
Treating people differently on the basis of race isnt a violation of law or constitution?
Wrong again
Your ideosyncratic view of what DEI should be has little connection to DEI as actually practiced and thus no connection to the DoJ's authority.
rather, :Molly, schools have no authority to introduce DEI ---there !!!
Oh. So equal protection amendment no longer exists. Have a cite for that?
He should be fired as it appears UVA grads do not understand the meaning of unconstitutional and due process.
Sure they do. Unconstitutional is anything they don't like. Due process is using lawfare to stop anything they don't agree with.
The author of the piece demonstrated what the education at UVA under that DEI clown has degenerated to. They are much better off without him destroying a fine University.
When the left was going after less captured universities (dear colleague, hillsdale, etc) reason said nothing. Reason even mocked universities like Hillsdale we decided to not take a single dime of federal money.
When the left captured universities theough ideological hiring practices reason didn't bat an eye. When conservatives tried fighting capture, reason defended the universities from any action.
https://reason.com/2017/02/22/as-universities-lean-left-lawmakers-look/
They even tried both sidesing the issue same both left and right were to blame for university capture (with ultra hilarious claim Vox was neutral).
https://reason.com/2017/05/03/conservatives-spaces-are-often-tribal-an/
They tacitly allowed the capture of universities by the left. Tax payer funded universities. At times reason has talked about removing this funding, but now that it is happening they are again defending the captured institutions. Weird.
Reason, while not totally captured by the left, has become culturally left-wing. They find conservatives too icky to stand up for.
Like the left, Reason finds conservatives inferior. They will 100% defend criminal aliens over conservative citizens, including POC conservatives.
The only subject at Reason with consistency is gun rights.
See also weed and ass sex.
Reason always takes the side of criminals. As sure as the sun rises in the east.
"and demand that the school somehow both use exclusively merit-based measures when hiring faculty yet ensure ideological diversity."
Somebody doesn't quite get it: If the school actually DID use exclusively merit based measures when hiring faculty, ideological diversity would be an automatic byproduct. They didn't end up an ideological monoculture by hiring on the basis of merit, they did it by deliberately going with ideology OVER merit.
I want to ask these people: "If the university was 98% white, would you just assume that every other race just is not good enough to make it?"
Conservatives are the only group who either are not good enough or "they do not want to do that job" it seems.
Dan , like so many, did lousy in math. IF the education population that wants what that university offers is 98% that is exactly what you would expect.
More Math: Who is pure whiter or pure black?
The average African-American genome, for example, is 73.2% African, 24% European, and 0.8% Native American,
So do we put 1/4 white under Black. and your assumption that no Blacks identify as Conservative really deserves a smackdown
According to Pew Research, , 17% of Black voters under 50 align with the Republican Party
"Ideology over merit" is the motto of the Trump administration.
Ideology over merit is a perfectly legitimate principle in hiring for policy making (Or potentially policy frustrating!) positions under elected officers. The last thing you want is somebody who is especially competent at defeating the policies you were elected to advance.
Most positions aren't like that. You're free, for instance, to hire the most competent sea captain, because the odds of getting a captain who, though competent, is determined to run your ship onto the rocks, or hijack it to some destination you're opposed to, are vanishingly small.
But ideology becomes critical in policy making positions, or positions that can be utilized to obstruct policy.
Trump is requiring hiring managers to take ideology into account for non-policy civil servant jobs.
Also ideology over merit is bad management when the person has no merit for the job.
No he isnt.
https://chcoc.gov/sites/default/files/Merit%20Hiring%20Plan%205-29-2025%20FINAL.pdf
Page 10.
Yeah. Fighting for other people's ?free? ponies is pretty selfish no matter how much you ?believe? in it.
In common-sense terms that would be called a faithful religion in criminal acts against your fellow man.
But thanks to decades of BS propaganda the criminal religion now has more supporters than those who believe in Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
Emma, he resigned. Stop you amateurish psychoanalysis. The mean President made the weak low-level job hack resign.
"and demand that the school somehow both use exclusively merit-based measures when hiring faculty yet ensure ideological diversity."
So the argument is that minorities are too stupid to compete on a level playing field and only DEI can get them a job? Sounds kinda racist to me.
>Jim Ryan is the latest casualty in Trump's unconstitutional war against elite universities
You make this assertion, Emma, but you don't clarify how Trump's actions are unconstitutional.
You may not like those actions, but the courts keep holding them as within his authority.
"Jim Ryan is the latest casualty in Trump's unconstitutional war against elite universities. "
Yep.
Nothing says "unconstitutional" like a DOJ full investigation and finding of guilt.
Again, this should be easy.
If universities don't receive federal funds, they should be allowed to do what they want.
The federal funds come with stipulations.
Those stipulations may be bad, but the easiest way to resolve the situation is to separate public from private universities.
What the stipulations are is a different matter. Title 9 and the DEO requirements were bad. Not allowing a university to enroll foreign students and monitoring curriculum is also bad.
But again, the essential problem seems to be one familiar to a libertarian perspective.
When there is "one solution" that the state enforces on everyone, there is endless fighting over the right way is.
The simple and ethical answer is that there should NOT be one state imposed solution. Allow different private universities to run their schools their way and make their own policies, and let people decide which schools they want to go to and let the market decide which degrees from which school are valuable.
^THIS +10000000000000000000.....
The #1 curse of the US population today is the "Gov-Guns will pay/fix/provide all life's solutions for me" religious-like worshiping. The Government isn't a GOD ... It is nothing but a monopoly of Death-threatening 'Guns' and death-threatening guns only humanitarian service is to defend Individual Liberty and ensure Justice for all. It can't do that when it's being used to Dictate the ?best? pants-size for all and STEAL from those 'icky' people (i.e. provide sh8t).
Oh, Dave, so silly and senseless. Absolving federal involvement if they don't take federal funds. How about th 50 000 it cost for one year of my daughter at her college. Does Dave give me any say. C'mon, Dave, you are in charge of the world. Please
I'm sorry the government forced your daughter to attend a 50k a year school.
>>How about th 50 000 it cost for one year of my daughter at her college.
sounds like you blew 50Gs
UVa has no constitutional avenue to my money and yet has my money.
>>But do I trust the Trump administration
doesn't matter.
If a university or company received federal funds, then the federal government can tell them what to do. The feds can tell them who to hire and who to fire, what policies to implement and what policies to rescind, what classes or products to offer, and the feds also reserve the right to change their minds at any time. Accepting federal funding means the federal government can behave like fascists, and if you don't like it you're a leftist.
Federal funds ALL come out of private pockets. Feds create no products. Read Henry Hazlitt and GROW UP.
Federal funds ALL come out of private pockets.
Yes, however those private pockets don't get a say in where the money goes. That's why federal funds are called federal funds. Private funds are when the private pockets decide where the money goes. See the difference?
Feds create no products.
No shit. Government is force. It doesn't make anything. It just takes money and shuffles it around after taking its cut.
Read Henry Hazlitt and GROW UP.
Those are some amazing psychic powers you've got there. Why don't you use them to divine winning lottery numbers instead of making absurd accusations. Oh, and fuck off.
Simple solution: let Ryan keep his job and stop ALL government funding of ALL educational institutions. No exceptions, no "negotiations" over diversity bullshit, and no regulations. Research grants, if any, should be privately funded.
I happen to be quite fond of the Civil Rights Act, and I'd like the government to enforce it
...unless the racial discrimination is against whites?
The lead author of the '64 Civil Rights Act famously quipped, "I will eat my hat if this leads to racial quotas." That's Hubert Humphrey for those who don't read books.
Trump's unconstitutional war against elite universities.
Wait wait wait - let's stop right there. First, they're not unconstitutional. Second, let's ask a very importation question:
SHOULD we be going to war against elite universities?
Because I'm not seeing a lot of good reasons not to.
I happen to be quite fond of the Civil Rights Act
Of course you do. You and everyone like you think that the Constitution is obsolete, and that it should be replaced entirely by the CRA - with all American history prior to 1964 scrubbed in its entirety.