Higher Education Governance in Virginia and the Encroachment of Politics
In recent years, the governance of Virginia’s public universities has become caught in the snares of the broader, national culture wars; and political efforts at influencing the work of higher education have increasingly expanded into areas that were once historically independent and, some might say, sacrosanct. Central to the current situation are the colleges’ Boards of Visitors (BOVs), particularly at institutions such as the University of Virginia (UVA), George Mason University (GMU), and the Virginia Military Institute (VMI).
BOVs are the governing bodies responsible for overseeing the operations, policies, and leadership of institutions. In Virginia, the Boards have traditionally been appointed by the Governor, with the responsibility for the confirmation of these appointments resting in the hands of the General Assembly. Sadly, recent appointments have now generated legal battles, in addition to the fact that unprecedented federal investigations added to a crisis that threatens the autonomy of higher education in the Commonwealth.
The independence, academic freedom, and educational excellence of Virginia’s colleges and universities are under threat because of Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education. These agencies have launched investigations into universities such as UVA and GMU on the allegations that the programs designed to address issues of discriminatory practices are, in an Orwellian abuse of language and thought, discriminatory. These efforts have already led to the nonrenewal of the contract of the Superintendent of VMI, the forced resignation of the President of UVA, and a sustained, ongoing pressure campaign on the President of GMU. In unprecedented ways, federal intervention has aligned with a broader campaign to reshape university governance along conservative lines.
Many of the efforts to undermine the historic shared governance structures of our colleges and universities are the results of the appointments made to the institutions’ BOVs. Through the power of gubernatorial appointment, the Governor has installed a majority of board members who are supportive of his political agenda rather than focused on serving the best interests of students and institutions. These actions reflect a broader political strategy to mold university culture through board governance, bypassing traditional faculty, student, and administrative input.
In addition to the Governor, the Attorney General has worked to reinforce this political agenda. Recently and without merit, the AG asserted that the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee lacked confirmation authority over the Governor’s BOV nominees, an authority that is clearly defined in the Code of Virginia. He argued that only a vote by the full General Assembly could reject appointees, and he advised institutions to seat those nominees regardless of the Senate committee’s rejection. This position upended long-standing norms and has now led to conflicts over constitutional interpretation and the separation of powers in the Commonwealth.
In response to the AG’s stance, the leadership of the Virginia Senate filed a lawsuit in Fairfax County Circuit Court (Lucas v. Stimson et. al.) challenging the legality of seating appointees whose nominations were explicitly rejected. Last week, on July 29, 2025, a Fairfax Circuit Court judge sided with the Senate and issued an injunction that barred the eight disputed appointees from serving or participating in board decisions. The ruling marked a significant victory for legislative oversight.
Organizations such as the Virginia chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) have condemned what they view as the “politicization” of governance, warning that university boards are being weaponized to enforce ideological conformity. Faculty and numerous organizations have called on us, as members of the General Assembly, to reform the appointment process to ensure greater transparency, accountability, and adherence to academic norms.
Additionally, the implications of this conflict extend beyond Virginia. If executive control over public university governance, backed by the threats of federal politically-driven investigations, becomes normal, other states may follow a similar path and place the core values of shared governance, academic freedom, and institutional independence at risk. As federal investigations continue and as legal appeals move forward, the ultimate outcome will likely set precedents that influence not only Virginia’s higher education system, but also the governance of public universities nationwide.
