Trump secures another win against elite university as president steps down over DEI feud with administration
President Donald Trump successfully extracted the resignation of the University of Virginia 's president after the Department of Justice said he refused to shut down the college's DEI programs.
In his resignation letter sent out Friday, James E. Ryan told students and administrators that he 'is 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.'
This marks the first time the Trump administration has been able to force out a university president in its war against higher education institutions, particularly Harvard and Columbia.
Trump has already taken away upwards of $3 billion in federal funding from Harvard over its refusal to enact major reforms to its curriculum and policies around admitting foreign students, among other things.
Staring down similar threats from the federal government, it appears Ryan buckled under the pressure and retired early, as he was already planning on stepping down in the next academic year.
To not resign 'would not only be quixotic but appear selfish and self-centered to the hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs, the researchers who would lose their funding, and the hundreds of students who could lose financial aid or have their visas withheld,' Ryan said.
The reaction to his resignation was swift, with faculty leadership holding a meeting to oppose the decision.
Hundreds of students and faculty also gathered for an impromptu protest on the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville.
They marched to Carr's Hill, the college president's residence, and shouted slogans while holding signs, The New York Times reported.
Ryan emerged from his home a few minutes after the crowd began chanting 'We want Jim,' and 'Death to tyrants,' a rough translation of the state motto, sic semper tyrannis.
'I appreciate you being here. I appreciate your support,' Ryan said. 'And regardless of my role, I will continue to do whatever I can to support this place and continue to make it the best place it can be. And I would ask that you all do the same.'
The New York Times first reported on Thursday that the Trump administration had privately demanded Ryan's ouster as one condition to settle a Department of Justice investigation into the university's diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
On Thursday, Ryan sent a letter to the university board that he would be stepping down 'with deep sadness,' according to a source briefed on the letter.
His departure date is not set, but it's expected to be no later than August 15.
Harmeet K. Dhillon has overseen the DOJ investigation as part of her role as assistant attorney general for civil rights. She welcomed Ryan's departure.
'When university leaders lack commitment to ending illegal discrimination in hiring, admissions and student benefits — they expose the institutions they lead to legal and financial peril,' Dillon said in a statement.
The DOJ has been looking into the University of Virginia for at least a month.
However, investigators sent a letter to university administrators on June 17 saying they were aware of multiple complaints of race-based discrimination.
The government also concluded in that letter that the university's alleged use of race-based admissions was a widespread practice 'throughout every component and facet of the institution.'
'Time is running short, and the department's patience is wearing thin,' the letter said.
Some members of the university board were actually in favor of Ryan stepping aside, The Times reported, fearing that Trump would strip hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds.
The university received at least $355 million in federal research grants in 2023, according to data compiled by The Times.
Board members also expressed concerns that the school had not properly dismantled DEI initiatives under Ryan.
They feared that this inaction was in violation of a 2023 Supreme Court decision that banned affirmative action and Trump's executive order demanding DEI programs be gotten rid of.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Iran's judiciary says at least 71 were killed in Israel's attack on Tehran's notorious Evin prison
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Chief Justice Roberts: Don't blame judges for applying the law
In a public conversation with the chief judge of the Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Roberts did not discuss any of those decisions, which included a big win for President Donald Trump in his fights with judges who have blocked his policies. Instead, the chief justice was asked how he deals with criticism. More: Called out by Trump for how he leads the Supreme Court, John Roberts is fine keeping a low profile Roberts says he keeps in mind that each case has a winner and a loser - and the loser is not going to like the outcome. "You'd like it to be informed criticism, but it's usually not," he said. "They're naturally focusing on the bottom line: who won and who lost. You need to appreciate that that's just the nature of what you do." More: Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways Sometimes, however, the criticism comes not from the party that lost, but from other justices. In writing the conservative majority's opinion that judges went too far when they blocked Trump's changes to birthright citizenship from going into effect everywhere in the country, Justice Amy Coney Barrett had some strong words about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent. "We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself," Barret wrote. "We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary." More: Trump Republicans lash out at Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a DEI hire Jackson wrote that the majority's decision gives the president "the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate." "As a result, the Judiciary - the one institution that is solely responsible for ensuring our Republic endures as a Nation of laws - has put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy," she wrote. Justice Jackson Supreme Court appears to favor 'monied interests' over ordinary citizens Sharp divisions at the Supreme Court; sharp words as the year comes to an end Roberts acknowledged that there can be sharp divisions among his colleagues and sharp adjectives employed, particularly at the end of the term. But he said the justices all work hard to understand where they're colleagues are coming from "to see if there's some way to if not bring things together, make the resolution as helpful as possible." "It's important to know, and understand, what Justice So-And-So is thinking about, because that will help you understand a little bit more about yours," he said. "And that's an interesting dynamic that plays out over the course of several months." Roberts also acknowledged that the court waited until the last days of the term to decide some of the biggest cases, saying they will try to spread things out more. "Things were a little crunched," he said, "toward the end this year."
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
The Beatles and Kinks would be howling about tax in Labour's Britain
'If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat / If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet / Cause I'm the taxman / Yeah, I'm the taxman.' Those lyrics by George Harrison are from Taxman, the first song on the Beatles' Revolver album, released in 1966. That same year, the Kinks released Sunny Afternoon, with Ray Davies' blunt first line: 'The taxman's taken all my dough.' Artists and songwriters are often ahead of the curve – quite literally in this case. For it wasn't until 1974 that US economist Arthur Laffer drew a line on a napkin capturing what Harrison and Davies were saying: as tax rates rise beyond a certain point, entrepreneurs and wealth creators get cheesed off. They then do less – or move overseas – and the broader economy suffers. What become known as the Laffer curve, sketched at a smart Washington restaurant during a dinner with Republican Party bigwigs, had a profound impact on policymaking in America and elsewhere. Its core idea – that there's an optimal tax rate that maximises revenue, beyond which higher rates lower total revenues by stifling economic activity – was adopted by Ronald Reagan, a showbiz-star-turned-policymaker, as he entered the White House in 1981. Laffer's insight fed into 'supply-side economics' – the school of thought that finally countered post-war 'big state' ideology. It's no good just borrowing and spending more government money in a bid to boost growth if the tax burden crushes genuine commerce. Reagan's Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 sparked much howling from vested interests grown fat on state largesse. But it cut income tax significantly – and the US averaged 3.5pc annual growth for the rest of the decade, rescuing the world's biggest economy from 1970s stagnation. Approaching the first anniversary of this Labour Government, UK tax revenues are heading for 38pc of GDP, the highest tax burden since the early 1960s – above levels which riled the Beatles and the Kinks. Yet the public finances are extremely precarious. The Government borrowed £148bn during the fiscal year that ended in April, £61bn more than the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated when that same fiscal year started. It's important to remember the vast scale of that 12-month forecasting error during current rows over whether Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, has a single-digit-billion buffer in the national accounts in four years' time – the 'fiscal headroom' that dominates political discussion. Arguing obsessively about contingencies of less than 1pc of public spending which may or may not exist in 2029 is pure displacement activity. Our political and media class meanwhile all but ignores today's stark realities – an annual debt interest bill that's twice yearly defence spending and gilt yields consistently way above those seen during Liz Truss's mini-Budget crisis of October 2022. Yes, it's important to rein-in our runaway benefits bill. Even before the Government's latest cave-in, spending on sickness and disability benefits was set to rise sharply by the end of this decade, from under £50bn to well over £70bn a year, albeit by a few billion less after Labour announced its welfare reforms. Now that Sir Keir Starmer has folded, even that minor slowdown in the rate of increase of benefit spending won't happen. The only way to fix the public finances is to get growth going, so tax revenues rise and our vast 100pc-of-GDP-plus debt burden, and near-crisis-level debt service costs, fall as a share of national income. But Labour's tax rises since last July have crushed economic activity, curtailing tax revenues and weakening the public finances further – a sure sign we're beyond the peak of the Laffer curve, with yet higher tax rates set to prove even more counter-productive. The disastrous rise in employers' National Insurance contributions (NICs) has hammered hiring, undermining NIC revenues overall. Employment has fallen every month since the policy was unveiled in last October's budget, by an astonishing 109,000 in May alone, the month after this tax on jobs was introduced. During that same autumn Budget, Reeves raised capital gains tax from 10pc to 18pc for basic-rate taxpayers and 20pc to 24pc for those paying the higher rate. The Office for Budget Responsibility has since sharply downgraded capital gains tax (CGT) revenue forecasts, wiping £23bn off the projected tax take by 2030. Labour indulged its ideological fantasies by loading more taxes on non-dom international financiers based in the UK. Now multiple billionaires have fled and foreign direct investment projects have fallen to a two-decade low – imagine the jobs and tax revenues we've lost. Building on Tory mistakes, Labour increased taxes even more on North Sea drilling, killing off countless energy extraction projects, again destroying valuable revenue streams. Then there's the spiteful imposition of VAT on school fees which has seen four times more pupils withdrawn by cash-strapped households than ministers predicted and countless school closures – another case of more taxation destroying ambition and enterprise, hitting revenues overall. Back in the early 1980s, inspired by Laffer and Reagan, Margaret Thatcher's Tories lowered tax rates, setting Britain on a path to recovery. David Cameron and Theresa May's governments gradually cut corporation tax (CT) from 28pc in 2010 to 19pc by 2017, with CT revenues hitting 2.7pc of GDP by 2019, up from 2.1pc a decade earlier when the tax rate was much higher. Taxation is complicated – the historical and contemporary examples above are subject to other factors, too. But evidence of many decades shows that countries where the state is relatively small grow faster and are more prosperous, with those consistently spending beyond their means collapsing into crisis. The Beatles and the Kinks didn't leave the UK for tax purposes, unlike the Rolling Stones. But their songs captured the national mood, speaking for the silent majority, a mood that prevails today. Taxation is far too high – and raising tax rates even more will only compound Britain's fiscal and commercial weakness.
