The “One Year Series” — unpacking a year at the University since Ryan’s resignation

Read the series

The news desk will be publishing articles in this series throughout the week of June 28-July 5. Refer back to this page for updates.

Jim Ryan, former University president and School of Law professor, resigned as president June 27, 2025. He said staying in his role would put the University at risk of federal consequences, including cuts to research funding, student financial aid and student visas in an email to the University community June 27, 2025.

“I am inclined to fight for what I believe in, and I believe deeply in this University. But I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job,” Ryan wrote in the email.

Why did Ryan resign?

His decision followed a pressured campaign from the federal government — at the time of Ryan’s departure, the U.S. Department of Justice was conducting an ongoing investigation into his leadership and alleged refusal to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programming. In addition, Ryan said in his account of the events that some University Board of Visitors members held meetings with the Justice Department without Ryan. Ryan explained that those Board members advised him to resign to avoid damage to the University via federal sanctions. At one point, a lawyer hired by the Board told Ryan if he did not resign, the Board would fire him, Ryan said.

It is unclear which party, if any, demanded Ryan’s resignation. Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights, has stated on multiple occasions that the Justice Department never demanded his resignation. Former Board Rector Rachel Sheridan also released her own account of the events. She said that the Justice Department consistently expressed concerns with Ryan’s leadership but that the Board did not force him to resign.

Days following Ryan’s announcement, The Cavalier Daily obtained seven letters from the Justice Department sent to University officials between April 11, 2025 and June 17, 2025 — less than two weeks prior to Ryan’s resignation. The letters alleged Ryan, among other University leaders, were violating civil-rights law, and they expressed dissatisfaction with the University’s refusal to comply. According to the Justice Department, the University failed to provide equal opportunity by discriminating based on race, color or national origin.

The letters warned that should the University fail to institute “dramatic, wholesale changes,” the Justice Department would call upon other federal agencies to get involved or terminate federal funding.

What happened after his departure?

After Ryan stepped down from his role, Jennifer Wagner Davis, executive vice president and chief operating officer, served as acting University president until the Board announced Paul Mahoney, former dean of the Law School, to serve as the University’s interim president Aug. 4.

Throughout Mahoney’s tenure, the Board and presidential search committee searched for the next permanent University president — a process various University-affiliated groups publicly criticized due to its alleged lack of transparency and community input. Nonetheless, the Board appointed University President Scott Beardsley Dec. 19.

How does federal intervention come into play?

During Mahoney’s tenure, the University reached an agreement Oct. 22 with the Justice Department to have the remaining five federal investigations suspended in exchange for compliance with all civil rights law. With the deal, the University became the first public higher education institution to reach this type of agreement, and it did not make any monetary payment to the Justice Department as part of the deal. The University also affirmed the federal government does not retain the authority to dictate curricula or academic speech in the deal.

“In the agreement, U.Va. acknowledges its obligation to follow civil rights laws. The United States acknowledges the work we are doing to demonstrate full compliance and agrees to suspend the investigations while we continue that work,” Mahoney wrote in an Oct. 22 email to the University community.

The agreement also mandated that the University submit quarterly reports detailing the progress made towards compliance with civil rights law, and it will last until Dec. 31, 2028.

Also during Mahoney’s time as interim president, the University rejected the Trump Administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” Oct. 17.

The Compact and its accompanying letter — sent to the University and eight other institutions Oct. 1 — posited that the University could receive preferential access to research funding and federal partnership opportunities if it agreed to a series of conditions. The conditions aimed to protect conservative viewpoints, freeze tuition, screen international students for “American and Western values” and ensure hiring and admissions policies are non-discriminatory.

“We seek no special treatment in exchange for our pursuit of those foundational goals. The integrity of science and other academic work requires merit-based assessment of research and scholarship,” Mahoney wrote in an email to the University community Oct. 17.

How has Board governance changed?

Following heightened controversy surrounding the Board — especially in light of its appointment of Beardsley the last day of the fall 2025 final exam period — Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) asked five Board members, including the then-rector and vice rector, to resign in January, and she appointed 10 new Board members her first day in office, Jan. 17.

The newly-constituted Board has centered its beginning efforts around regaining community trust and working towards the University’s key mission areas to navigate through the uncertainties planted in the past year. In a similar vein, Beardsley launched his “Grounds for Conversation” initiative, hoping to gain faculty and administrator input to shape his leadership goals.

So — where does the University stand now, following this year of Board governance turnover, federal interaction and leadership changes, all while maintaining academic rigor, athletic performance and patient care, among other priorities? This series will feature faculty and student perceptions of leadership, University leaders’ takes on institutional stability and deep dives into the University’s place within a broader higher education landscape.