The Faculty Senate met Friday to discuss the University’s recent agreement with the Justice Department which suspended five investigations into the University’s policies and practices. Several senators expressed frustration over being excluded from the negotiations and voiced concern about the impact of the agreement on admissions, as well as the search for the next president and provost.
The University signed an agreement with the Justice Department Oct. 22 suspending the enforcement of five investigations into the University’s policies which began earlier this year, after two investigations were already closed in early September. The agreement requires the University to provide reports every three months to show that operations are in line with the guidelines outlined in a document sent to the University from Attorney General Pam Bondi July 29. These guidelines emphasized the importance of federal funding recipients not discriminating on the basis of protected characteristics.
Brie Gertler, interim executive vice president and provost, described the agreement as a “ceasefire,” clarifying that it differs substantively from the Justice Department’s agreements with Columbia University and Brown University in that it suspends the five ongoing Justice Department’s investigations as opposed to fully closing them. She also noted that the University had gone a step further in applying the Justice Department's interpretation of civil rights law by adopting the July 29 guidance document which was, according to her, “not itself a legal standard.”
“That [July 29] interpretation is open to question,” Gertler said. “Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I have no position on their interpretation or other interpretations, but it's important that their interpretation is an interpretation, and there are others out there that are different from the Department of Justice.”
At the meeting, Gertler noted that the University independently adopted a new guidance document in the spring to ensure that all policies were in line with federal and state law. Gertler said that these internal guidelines are “broadly the same” as the directives of the recent agreement. Thus, the University will continue operating under the same standards, Gertler said.
Gertler emphasized one significant difference between the Justice Department’s guidance and the University’s internal guidance documents. The Justice Department’s guidance requires institutions to define gender in terms of biological sex and assign intimate spaces and participation in athletic competitions accordingly.
However, Gertler claimed that this will not change the University’s procedures regarding gender. Gertler cited two of the Fourth Circuit Court’s “relevant judicial decisions,” which she said affirmed that Title IX requires that people are able to access intimate spaces and participate in athletic competition that correspond to their gender identity.
“None of that is in our internal guidance,” Gertler said. “The agreement that we signed says that we will follow the July 29 guidance subject to relevant judicial decisions … The bottom line is that what’s about gender in the DOJ guidance does not apply to us, and it's explicit in the agreement that it does not apply to us.”
The new agreement also includes provisions for the review process. If the Justice Department believes, “at its sole discretion,” that the University is out of compliance with the agreement, the University will have 15 days to return to the outlined requirements. Gertler said that if after those 15 days, the Justice Department determines they are still out of compliance, the agreement is over and the Department may resume its investigations and relevant enforcement.
Following Gertler’s statement, a few senators raised concerns about the potential impact of the agreement on admissions, the search for the next president and the heightened level of scrutiny it would create.
Assoc. Religious Studies Prof. Matthew Hedstrom questioned the potential impact of the agreement on the use of personal or “overcoming obstacle” narratives, including those that mention race. Section IV, Subsection B, Clause 2 of the guidance which the University must adhere to says that using essays which ask applicants to describe obstacles they have overcome or submit diversity statements could be considered an illegal proxy for demonstrating a protected characteristic like race or ethnicity.
“It seems to me that the July 29 guidance from the DOJ was more restrictive on that count, and seemed to try to very strongly discourage the use of those kinds of statements,” Hedstrom said. “Do you know if the president has given guidance to admissions or plans to give guidance to admissions for this admission cycle?”
Vice Provost for Enrollment Stephen Farmer, who attended with Gertler, responded, explaining that the University is not planning to change admissions procedures.
“We believe that we comply fully with current federal civil rights law. We're not planning changes based on this agreement,” Farmer said. “Undergraduate Admission readers are being trained today in how to evaluate candidates for admission. That training is consistent with the guidance that we received in the past.”
Supplemental essays asking about applicant’s background and perspective were removed for the 2025-26 application cycle, although the University has not confirmed whether this was related to Justice Department investigations.
Other senators expressed concern over additional elements of the agreement. Assoc. Psychology Prof. Hudson Golino voiced dissatisfaction over the cooperation clause of the agreement and the purview to request information that it gives to the Justice Department.
“The cooperation clause that U.Va. must cooperate fully with any DOJ information request … seems to give the DOJ total surveillance without the possibility of judicial oversight,” Golino said. “People are extremely concerned about that, so [the Justice Department] can just name whatever kind of information they want, and we may be forced to comply.”
Scott Ballenger, secretary to the Board of Visitors and special assistant to the president, responded, stating that he did not believe the agreement gave the Justice Department any broader authority to request information than it already had.
Anthropology Prof. Eve Danziger raised concerns that the heightened scrutiny the agreement puts the University under might affect the search for the next University president and provost. The agreement requires that, four times per year, the president must certify under penalty of perjury that the quarterly process reports submitted to the Justice Department are accurate.
“I think that a lot of people might draw the conclusion that signing this agreement would be likely to further restrict the pool of applicants who would consider becoming president or provost at U.Va.,” Danziger said. “Because of the extra monitoring and oversight and sense of, let’s just say, kowtowing … our search for senior administration is constrained … by this agreement.”
Gertler responded that this “could be a question for potential candidates” and that she understands the concern.
Several faculty members also raised concerns over the lack of inclusion of the Faculty Senate in the agreement.
Geeta Patel, Middle Eastern and South Asian Languages and Cultures professor, raised concerns over the heightened level of scrutiny the agreement creates and expressed frustration at the Faculty Senate not being involved in negotiations.
“The faculty was not included,” Patel said. “Why would we trust a DOJ and why would we trust any of the signatories of this agreement?”
Engineering Prof. Lisa Colosi Peterson similarly voiced dissatisfaction at the level of transparency in the negotiations with the Justice Department and specifically Interim President Paul Mahoney’s role in creating that transparency. The Faculty Senate’s Executive Council met Oct. 17, although it is not clear what Mahoney said that Peterson was referring to.
“I think it's disingenuous at best or duplicitous at worst, that we saw President Mahoney on Friday afternoon, he said some things to us, and then in less than a week, he unilaterally went and signed the agreement on behalf of the entire University,” Peterson said.
Peterson further expressed her desire for Mahoney to remove himself from consideration to be the next University president — the interim president has been nominated for the permanent position and told The Cavalier Daily in September that it was “to be determined” whether he would pursue the role.
“If it's really true that he thinks this was the best version of the deal that he can get at our University, I think he should go on the record to say that he's taking himself out of the pool to be president,” Peterson said.
The Faculty Senate later passed a resolution calling for Mahoney and Rector Rachel Sheridan to come speak to the Faculty Senate as soon as possible to discuss the negotiations around the agreement and answer remaining questions on former President Ryan’s departure. Fifty-nine senators voted in favor, one was opposed and one abstained.
The full Faculty Senate’s next meeting is scheduled for Nov. 14.
Read More
Just before its rejection, 40 Law faculty said the Compact was unconstitutional
By Grace Little | 11 hours agoThe letter posits that the Compact may be framed as an offer, but in practice, it is an “unconstitutional threat.”
EDITORIAL: On the ballot this November, keep U.Va. in mind
By Editorial Board | YesterdayThe external, federal challenges we face demand statewide leadership that understands and acts to protect academic autonomy and shared governance.
Karen Hao talks the “Empire of AI,” with two paths society can take
By Lidia Zur Muhlen | YesterdayAcampora stressed that AI had both the ability to save and also destroy humanity.
