Since the abrupt resignation of former University President Jim Ryan June 27, many members of the University have been left with questions about what exactly led to Ryan’s departure. Two letters sent by Board of Visitors Rector Rachel Sheridan and Ryan Nov. 13 and 14, respectively, to the Faculty Senate outlined their perspective of the events leading to the day he resigned.
Ryan’s letter was in response to Sheridan’s and differed greatly from what she had written the day prior — Ryan said Board members told him the Justice Department was demanding his resignation while Sheridan wrote in her letter that this was not the case.
The Cavalier Daily interviewed seven University students who reported feeling as though Ryan’s letter revealed a more reliable account of the events leading to his resignation than Sheridan’s, which these students said left many questions unanswered.
Fourth-year College student Matt Marsden said that despite the vast differences between their two letters, he was thankful that both Sheridan and Ryan each released their own perspectives.
“I appreciate that recently, we've heard from both the Board and from Jim Ryan, which has provided a lot of context for the events over the summer, but there are definitely some very significant disparities between what Rector Sheridan has said and what Jim Ryan said,” Marsden said.
Overwhelmingly, students said Ryan’s letter revealed an unacceptable level of federal overreach into the University during the months leading up to his resignation.
Ryan wrote in his letter that the Justice Department pressured him to resign — he heard from Board Member Paul Manning in the 10 days before he resigned that if he did not do so, the Justice Department would “bleed U.Va. white.”
Third-year College student Jaden Kline said Ryan’s letter reinforced what he already believed to be a poor removal of Ryan. Kline reported being concerned with what he viewed as an act of political overreach.
“As a student, I was disappointed and disturbed by how Ryan's resignation unfolded. Reading the letter just kind of proved it further,” Kline said. “It didn't feel like a thoughtful transition or a decision that was made with the best interest of students in mind. It felt like political pressure won out over University values.”
Schaefer shared the same sentiments as Kline, and said her worries lie with the disregard of state autonomy and powers.
“It is really partisan and really annoying that the federal government is stepping in that way, and also the fact that the federal government then basically uses their … influence, to force Jim Ryan to resign,” Schaefer said. “The Board of Visitors is [under] the Virginia government’s control. The federal government should not be putting their hands in that.”
In her letter, Sheridan wrote that Ryan’s resignation came at his own suggestion to see if it would improve the University’s standing with the Justice Department. Ryan contrasts that in his letter, asserting that those around him — including Sheridan — told him he had to resign.
Ryan concluded his letter with six questions he claimed remain unanswered about the events leading to his resignation. The questions ask for a clearer message about who specifically demanded his resignation and whether Ryan was lied to about a written agreement made with the Justice Department prior to him resigning.
Third-year Batten student Jess Drennan said she appreciated these open-ended questions Ryan left in his letter, as she said it proves he was able to admit he is not fully aware of his situation. She said that in contrast, Sheridan’s letter seemed to not fully report everything she knows and instead comes off that she is covering something up about the situation.
Additionally, Drennan said it struck her that Ryan pointed out in his letter his choice to wait until Nov. 14 to release his statement — Nov. 13 marked the three-year anniversary of the shooting on Grounds that killed three football players, and was the day Sheridan sent her letter to the Faculty Senate.
“When you compare [Ryan’s letter] with Sheridan releasing her letter on the anniversary of the shooting, I think it just [shows] the contrast there between who has the University's best interest at heart and who maybe has their own gain at heart,” Drennan said.
Marsden echoed a similar sentiment to Drennan in terms of what the letters reveal about Ryan’s character. Marsden said he feels Sheridan’s letter depicts Ryan in a way that does not match the way University members came to know him.
“I felt like Sheridan's letter portrayed Ryan as … acting somewhat irrationally and even recklessly,” Marsden said. “But given Ryan's account, his actions make a lot more sense, given that he didn’t know a lot of what was happening behind his back.”
When analyzing Ryan's letter as a whole, students said there are important outstanding questions that need to be answered — even beyond the six questions Ryan wrote himself.
Second-year College student Caleb Quiroga asked why the Justice Department was having to communicate through Sheridan, who was not rector at the time, rather than speaking directly with Ryan or then-Board Rector Robert Hardie.
“There was a June letter from the Department of Justice for Rachel Sheridan, in which they referred to her as Rector Sheridan, despite her not being rector yet. I want to know why they were doing this,” Quiroga said
Evan Davisson, third-year Batten and College student, said that after reading Ryan’s letter, he questioned why it seemed the Board made all of their decisions regarding Ryan’s resignation without consulting the University community.
“If [the Board] genuinely [believed] that Jim Ryan was not fit to serve as the president of this University, then why was this not a University wide discussion?” Davisson said. “Why was this a decision made by a few people in a locked room? I think that that's something that I have yet to come up with a reason [as to] why that would be the case.”
Drennan said that in response to the letter, the University’s next ideal step would be to stop the presidential search until Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger takes office Jan. 17. She said she feels the current Board is misaligned with what the University community wants for the next president.
“I think the search for the president should stop, and that might be a little bit controversial because I know that Spanberger is not in office yet,” Drennan said. “I think these letters make it really clear that [the Board is] not even conducting themselves in a way that's ethical and in a way that's — you could say — legal.”
Read More
‘Remix’ marks 25th Lighting of the Lawn
By Malaika Rehman | 9 hours agoThis year’s theme, Remix, looks back on the event’s origin while leaning into how both the event and University community have since become enriched with old and new traditions.
Student Council hosts VPSA Kenyon Bonner to discuss Student Affairs updates
By Jaylynn Perez | 10 hours agoBonner emphasized the importance of student leadership and self-governance in shaping institutional decision-making.
How Lighting of the Lawn’s design team gets the job done
By Matthew Wang | 17 hours agoWhen the night of LOTL finally arrives, the lighting team can put all of their hard work on full display, brightening the Rotunda and pavilions in a dazzling array of lights and colors
