When the Trump administration’s attacks on higher education targeted Harvard University, Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania and other top research universities, the University community worried if, or when, the spotlight would find us. We were shocked when, in late June, The New York Times revealed a “coordinated” campaign by the Department of Justice and the Jefferson Council, a reactionary group of University alumni, to force University President Jim Ryan’s resignation. How do stated legal advice and omissions facilitated by legal advice figure in the unfolding actions at U.Va.? Here, we discuss circulated legal advice that imperils the University’s core mission and values and illustrates the exigency of resisting legal counsel’s advice.
We still do not know what role members of the Board played in this campaign. Why? Rachel Sheridan, the Board’s new rector and herself a lawyer, explained that the Board was not at liberty to discuss these matters “on the advice of legal counsel.” The refusal to provide any information led to the Faculty Senate’s vote of no confidence in the Board. We are all familiar with lawyers advising their clients to say nothing that might hurt their interests, but who is the client?
Virginia is one of only five states where public universities’ legal counsel works for the state attorney general, not the Board or the University. This applies to both in-house counsel and any outside legal help hired to assist in civil matters. And indeed, to represent the Board, the attorney general appointed Farnaz Farkish Thompson, a contributor to Project 2025 , and an attorney from the law firm McGuireWoods. Plainly, our University does not have legal counsel independent from the state government nor, in this case, from the Trump administration.
The dangers posed by University legal counsel being aligned with political figures, rather than the institution, became clear in a document that began circulating at the University. On July 7, Christa Acampora, dean of the College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, sent all chairs and directors a document labeled “U.Va. Guidance for Ensuring Compliance with Civil Rights Law.” The document was circulated by the Office of University Counsel, and it has not been made official University policy. Without addressing these questions, ongoing court challenges, or the vague executive orders upon which the guidance is based, the dean wrote that this guidance document was the directive of University Counsel in order to appropriately comply with non-discrimination law.
Two paragraphs from the guidance document reveal what we can expect if negotiations between the Trump administration and the Board continue in secret and without consultation with faculty, staff, students or the general public.
Paragraph 1 (g) requires that outside groups invited to the University comply with University Counsel’s interpretation of civil rights law. Who will decide whether a group is in compliance? The University Counsel, of course, who will “clear” invitations for acceptable groups. We are told, in short, that University Counsel will decide who may, or may not, be invited to Grounds and which programs are suspect. Initiatives designed to help talented minority and low-income students enroll at the University, such as the Posse Program, are likely at risk here, though the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admission v. President and Fellows of Harvard College did not ban programs that support students from underrepresented backgrounds. This amounts to unprecedented political interference in university affairs.
Paragraph 1 (h) requires the entire University to seek grants only from sources that are in compliance with University Counsel’s, under the direction of the attorney general, and outside counsel’s, tied to Project 2025, interpretation of civil rights law. Actions already taken at the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Federal Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency, make clear the Trump administration’s goal of restricting federal funding to research it finds inconsistent with its political agenda such as studies of climate change, racism, gender identity, disparate impact of public policy on poor communities of color, gender affirming care, vaccine development and safety and so much more.
But the guidance document seems to go further. It warns us to preemptively avoid any funding sources judged — it is not specified who will do the judging — to be out of compliance with the University Counsel’s new interpretation of civil rights law. In short, the guidance demands that our University’s research agenda be set by the complementary priorities of Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares and the Trump administration. Issuing the guidance document over the summer, and while relevant civil rights matters are unresolved in the courts, reveals that those who seek to end academic freedom as we know it are in a hurry.
We must all insist that the practices essential to academic freedom and University autonomy — especially, here, the principle that subject matter experts, not legal counsel, determine curriculum and academic programs — cannot be discarded for political convenience. We must resist compliance with violations of academic freedom and the standard that faculty, students, and staff have meaningful oversight of university matters, like those clearly expressed in the guidance document. If nothing else, resistance will slow the velocity of the changes that have already inflicted long lasting damage to the University. Simply refusing to comply with the Guidance document is a step in this direction in that it slows the University Counsel’s oversight, protects those colleagues and programs that might be most at risk from becoming hyper-visible and builds towards more spectacularized actions like work stoppages and grade strikes.
Make no mistake — our University has been singled out as an object lesson for what is in store for American higher education. The University must not become the prototype for swift surrender and compliance with those attacking higher education. We must use this unprecedented moment to make the University a model of resistance that might inspire others.
Laura Goldblatt is an assistant professor in the Department of English, Melissa Levy is an associate professor in the School of Education and Human Development and Bruce Williams is a professor in the Department of Media Studies. They can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this guest column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Read More
GERBER: A letter of suggestions for U.Va.’s interim president
By Scott Douglas Gerber | YesterdayWhat follows are a few respectfully proffered suggestions that I think can help you try to restore the University to the greatness it enjoyed when I was a student decades ago.
FREED: High school wrestling programs must grapple with athlete safety
By Dan Freed | 2 days agoThe lessons from 1997, though brutal to learn, are clear — battling weight cutting requires systemic change. Yet, they are lessons that high schools have failed to grasp.
EDITORIAL: Shared governance is dying while our Board prospers
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoThe self-serving actions of the Board are not just harmful to students and faculty today, but they are harmful to our institution as a whole and the future president who will be invited to lead it.
