"UVA's "Deal" with the DOJ is Capitulation, Not Compromise"

Dear Wahoos,

On Friday, October 17, thousands of students, faculty, staff, and alumni filled the Lawn to defend the University of Virginia’s independence. The rally against the Trump Administration’s so-called Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education was a breathtaking act of unity—a living reminder that UVA belongs to no political party and no presidential administration.

That afternoon, Interim President Paul Mahoney issued a letter to the Department of Education stating that UVA “does not wish to receive preferential treatment for federal funding.” It sounded, at first, like a principled—albeit relatively weak—stand.

But as The Cavalier Daily wisely noted, Mahoney’s letter stopped short of a true rejection. He signaled that UVA still “looks forward to future collaboration with the federal government.” That careful phrasing—so lawyerly, so vague—gave us pause.

We feared that “collaboration” would become code for capitulation.

Mahoney’s letter signaled a willingness to buy into the Trump Administration’s efforts to turn universities into instruments of ideology, and thus acting as a collaborator in an authoritarian takeover of higher ed.

Sadly, those fears have now been confirmed.

A Rejection in Name Only

According to The New York Times, the Trump administration is “closing in on a deal with the University of Virginia,” just four months after government pressure forced President Jim Ryan to resign. This would make UVA the first public university to strike a settlement with the Trump administration as part of its campaign to bring higher education under political control.

That timing should make every Virginian’s stomach turn. What looked like defiance was, in reality, compliance. While Mahoney was publicly celebrating UVA’s supposed independence, the Board of Visitors was quietly finalizing a deal with the Department of Justice.

What the “Deal” Demands

The Times reports that UVA’s draft agreement would:

• Require the University to comply with the Administration’sinterpretation/view of the 2023 Supreme Court Students for Fair Admissions decision, which would ban ANY consideration of race in admissions, a step even this SCOTUS would not take.
• Mandate regular reports to the federal government on UVA’s “progress” toward meeting the Administration’s civil rights directives - objectives that are far more restrictive than the law requires.
• Allow the DOJ to resume its investigations if the government decides the University is not sufficiently “cooperative” or UVA’s progress is insufficient.

UVA may avoid a monetary penalty, but the price is far higher: the surrender of institutional independence.

The Times further notes that UVA’s “favorable” treatment stems directly from its willingness to cooperate—from forcing out a sitting president under political duress to demonstrating its eagerness to “come into compliance.” There is a reason why the Administration chose UVA to be one of the original 9 institutions to which it made its Compact offer.

That is not victory. It is submission.

Worse Than the Compact

The original Compact was bad enough—a performative loyalty pledge requiring universities to publicly embrace the administration’s “vision for higher education” grounded in “Western values” and “federal priorities.” It dangled money and prestige—“meaningful grants,” “enhanced partnerships,” “increased overhead payments”—to entice conformity. Coercive, yes, but technically optional.

The proposed DOJ settlement is far worse. It is not symbolic: it is a capitulation to a regressive ideology that significantly oversteps what is required by law. It places into existence a permanent compliance regime with ongoing federal oversight, and without judicial review, public accountability, or the protections of due process. Further, it is a deal in which the Administration can change the terms based upon its subjective determination of “cooperation.’

The Myth of a “Favorable” Deal

Some commentators describe UVA’s draft agreement as “favorable” because it imposes no fines and no outside monitor. That framing misses three crucial facts:

1. UVA is under no legal obligation to sign.
   Federal law—specifically the Administrative Procedure Act—prohibits agencies from imposing remedies beyond what is necessary to address proven violations. To date, no violation has been proven. UVA could simply refuse to sign and insist the DOJ follow lawful process.
   
2. The Attorney General of Virginia is obligated to defend the University
   Jason Miyares, as the Commonwealth’s top lawyer, has a duty to prevent the federal government from coercing a state university into extralegal commitments. Allowing this deal to proceed unchallenged would invite every future administration—left or right—to impose ideological conditions on Virginia’s colleges.
   
3. The Board of Visitors has already failed at negotiation once.
   As State Senator Creigh Deeds documented in a letter to Rector Rachel Sheridan and Vice Rector Porter Wilkinson, the Board previously agreed verbally with the DOJ that all seven federal investigations into UVA would be permanently suspended once President Ryan resigned. In addition:

• UVA would experience no loss of federal funding.
• The Justice Department would not ask for or demand money from UVA to resolve any of the claims.
• The Justice Department would have no input into the selection of an interim or permanent president.
• The Justice Department would not launch any new investigations into UVA.
• The Justice Department would preclude other agencies from launching investigations into UVA.

President Ryan’s resignation should have been the end of it. The latest “deal” with the DOJ has even fewer benefits than the “deal” that cost UVA its president. Why should anyone trust the Board of Visitors to negotiate anythingat this point?

This Is Not a Win—It’s a Warning

UVA now stands on the brink of becoming the Trump Administration’s first public trophy in its broader effort to intimidate and reshape higher education.

A university that trades its freedom for federal favor ceases to be a university at all. Our founders built UVA as a “free institution,” designed to resist political capture. Jefferson warned repeatedly that education must remain under state—not federal—authority. To betray that principle is to betray the University’s soul.

This is not about partisan loyalty; it is about institutional integrity. Whether you lean red or blue, we should all agree: no one has the right to sell UVA’s independence for political favor.

What Must Happen Now

The Board of Visitors has demonstrated catastrophic judgment. They accepted the forced resignation of a sitting president without securing a single written assurance from the Department of Justice. They have ignored multiple inquiries from the Virginia General Assembly and faced repeated votes of no confidence from UVA’s faculty and students. They cannot be trusted to negotiate the future of this institution.

The Board of Visitors failed to protect the University once. We can’t let them do it again.

With appreciation and resolve,
Ann Brown (College ‘74, Law ‘77) and Chris Ford (Engineering ‘87)

‍