On Friday, Jim Ryan stood on the lawn of Carr’s Hill, the residence of the president of the University of Virginia, alone in the center of a crowd of supporters. He offered brief remarks about his inability to fight the forces arrayed against him, including the Trump administration. No one stood alongside him — it was just the university president, Mr. Ryan, explaining why he had made the difficult decision to quit.
The moment perfectly illustrated how Mr. Ryan was abandoned by the same people who were supposed to protect the university. Under investigation by the Justice Department, the university had a strong defense, if only it had the courage to assert it. Instead of fighting back against what I believe to be false accusations that the university was violating federal law, and the even more outrageous demand that Mr. Ryan resign as a remedy for those alleged violations, the university’s Board of Visitors pushed out a popular president. Instead of presenting facts and law, the board waved the white flag of surrender. Mr. Ryan’s resignation is a victory for intimidation and fear over the rule of law.
According to The Times, Mr. Ryan’s departure was prompted by “demands by the Trump administration that he step aside to help resolve a Justice Department inquiry into the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.” The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department has been investigating the university for its alleged failure to eliminate D.E.I. programs and continuing to consider race and ethnicity in various programs and scholarships.
I served as university counsel at the University of Virginia from 2018 through 2022. During that time, it was my job to defend the university from unfounded allegations and investigations. The Justice Department has alleged that the university’s actions violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Had I been university counsel last week, I would have advised my client to challenge what I believe to be a false allegation that the university’s policies are unlawful.
Title VI prohibits racial classifications, quotas or programs that are exclusive to any one race, gender or protected class. It does not prevent federal contractors, such as universities, from pursuing the goal of creating a diverse community, one that ensures all individuals can participate in the learning environment regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, national origin or political ideology. Eligibility for programs and opportunities based on those and other immutable characteristics is illegal. Programs that create a pipeline of diverse applicants are not.
Since President Trump’s executive order on D.E.I. and subsequent guidance issued by the Department of Education, the university has taken steps to ensure that it broadened eligibility for university programs, scholarships and services to all students, regardless of race, ethnicity or other classification. It redesigned (not simply relabeled) certain programs to ensure they fostered the valid policy goal of inclusive excellence, diversity of experience and perspective and ensuring that all students are welcome.
Mr. Ryan supervised this transition that observed the line between illegal discrimination and legal pursuit of the policy goal of ensuring a broadly diverse community.
While the university’s compliance with Title VI is clear to me, it was challenged by the Justice Department. Informed by the advocacy of the America First Legal Foundation, an organization founded by the current White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, the department alleged that the university’s compliance efforts were insufficient, a mere relabeling of D.E.I. programs that broke the law. The department’s proposed remedy was the resignation of the university’s leader — a shocking move that reveals the personal animus behind the investigation. The administration would rather oust a leader than force compliance with a particular policy.
The hammer wielded by the Justice Department was the potential cessation of federal grant funding. The university had viable legal options to block this effort, too. Harvard University has persuasively argued that the university has a First Amendment right to pursue programs that promote a broadly diverse community and deserves due process before grants are removed. While the Harvard case remains pending, most higher education lawyers predict success for the university.
Instead of asserting these valid defenses, the University of Virginia opted to capitulate to the demand for Mr. Ryan’s resignation, tacitly agreeing with the notion that the university somehow engaged in illegal racial discrimination.
Why? By law, the university and all state agencies are represented by the attorney general of Virginia. The current attorney general has been an outspoken opponent of D.E.I. programs. He joined Virginia’s governor, Glenn Youngkin, in applauding the university’s dismantling of D.E.I. programs in March 2025. This means rather than having an advocate loyal to the university and its interests, Mr. Ryan and the university were saddled with counsel aligned with the other side.
The university’s governing board took a similar position. The majority of the current board was appointed by Mr. Youngkin, who has said, “D.E.I. is done at the University of Virginia.” In failing to assert these valid legal defenses, the board abdicated its responsibility to protect the university and defend it against unfounded allegations.
In announcing his decision to resign, Mr. Ryan said, “I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government to save my own job.” His candor demonstrates the alliances at work here: the university’s leader standing alone against his own lawyer, the governing board, and the Trump administration. The crowd that gathered on Friday had Mr. Ryan’s back, but they did not have the ability to overcome biased advocates and overseers with a political agenda.
Mr. Ryan was known to urge the university to be both “great and good” in all its endeavors. His departure will result in a less inclusive university community, which will harm all students who choose the University of Virginia. It is a sad day for the university, which will suffer the consequences of this bad decision.
Timothy J. Heaphy is an attorney in private practice. He was university counsel at the University of Virginia from 2018 to 2022 and is the author of “Harbingers: What January 6 and Charlottesville Reveal About Rising Threats to American Democracy.”
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post What the University of Virginia Should Have Done appeared first on New York Times.
