CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA (CVILLE RIGHT NOW) – University of Virginia interim president Paul Mahoney defended the university’s decision to enter into an agreement with the Trump administration Friday. In a letter responding to an Oct. 26 inquiry from Senate Democratic leaders, Mahoney said the deal – which requires UVA to provide quarterly reports to the federal government on its compliance with federal policies – “is essentially a cease fire agreement, and a far better option than leaping straight into a legal battle that might be unnecessary.”
As part of the agreement, the DOJ will drop five pending investigations into the university.
The letter from Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D-Mt. Vernon) and President Pro Temp Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) questions if the agreement is in conflict with recent Supreme Court decisions, as well as Virginia law.
It claims the University entered the agreement as the DOJ demands are unlawfully ambiguous, non-germane, and coercive. Additionally, the letter argues state law, passed by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor, requires, “The heads of state agencies shall establish and maintain a comprehensive diversity, equity, and inclusion strategic plan in coordination with the Governor’s Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”
In his response, Pres. Mahoney wrote, “Your letter provides a detailed analysis of the potential grounds on which the University might have sued the United States to oppose any withdrawal of federal funding based on unreasonable conditions. It does not, however, consider whether initiating a legal confrontation with the federal government would have been necessary or appropriate, particularly before we had exhausted other less costly and risky options.”
“As fiduciaries of the University of Virginia and servants of the commonwealth, we were bound to consider the costs and benefits to UVA of different paths forward. The course we chose suspends 5 civil rights compliance investigations into UVA, preserves our institutional autonomy, and preserves academic freedom at our institution, without agreeing to any terms that are substantially different than our own internal guidance and policies. If DOJ ultimately disagrees with our understanding and implementation of the law, their remedy is to cancel the Agreement and pursue remedies in court—at which point we could make all of the arguments proposed in your letter.”
As for the assertion about state law, President Mahoney writes, “I also disagree with your statement that the University has agreed to do anything inconsistent with its obligation under Virginia Code § 2.2-602(B) to maintain a comprehensive diversity, equity, and inclusion strategic plan. The University will continue to comply with that obligation. We do not understand the statute to require racial preferences in hiring or promotion decisions that would be inconsistent with DOJ’s guidance, and with our own.”
Among the measures the Senators’ letter urges are for UVA to commission independent constitutional analysis, consult with the state Attorney General’s office “regarding the Commonwealth’s interests in challenging federal overreach”, consulting with other public universities… to mount coordinated constitutional challenges, and having Mohoney and Rector Rachel Sheridan attend a Senate Finance & Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Education for further questioning.
While Mahoney did not respond directly to the committee appearance request, he writes, “ I would be happy to meet with you to discuss any of the issues raised in your letter or this reply.”
