Presidents in the Hot Seat


National Association of Scholars

By Kali Jerrard

July 1, 2025


CounterCurrent: Week of 06/30/25


The past six months have made one thing clear: the role of college president is no longer safe from political or public accountability. Since the start of President Trump’s second term, a series of Executive Orders (EOs) and higher education reforms have put colleges and universities—and their leadership—under intense scrutiny. Institutions slow to comply, particularly with mandates to dismantle “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) programs, are finding themselves in the federal crosshairs. 


The result? A wave of resignations, stalled appointments, and mounting pressure on presidents and administrators to abandon progressive orthodoxies in favor of transparency, viewpoint diversity, and legal compliance. The recent shake-up at the University of Virginia (UVA) may be only the beginning.


Last week, I wrote about UVA and its administrators’ apparent failure to comply with the EO to dismantle DEI on campus. To summarize, the UVA Board’s March and April Resolutions—which sought to discard DEI and increase viewpoint diversity—were “stonewalled” by administrators. The school is under federal investigation as well for failure to comply with anti-DEI directives. Now, different news out of UVA has made the top of the news cycle.

On Thursday evening, news broke that UVA President Jim Ryan stepped down after nearly seven years as president, sparking a firestorm of debate over the circumstances.


The Department of Justice (DOJ) apparently demanded Ryan’s resignation after UVA failed to entirely eliminate DEI on campus. This coincided with the DOJ’s investigation into the school. While schools like Columbia and Harvard are being publicly investigated, UVA has been quietly scrutinized by the DOJ for months. According to a New York Times article


The Trump administration has privately demanded that the University of Virginia oust its president to help resolve a Justice Department investigation into the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, according to three people briefed on the matter. 


While some at UVA rejoiced, others protested last Friday, accusing the government of overreach. Lest we not forget that as a public institution of higher education, UVA is beholden to the law in order to receive federal funding. Such violation of anti-DEI directives by failure to comply or by hiding DEI under different names on campus put UVA in the Trump administration's direct line of fire. 


What happens next at UVA remains to be seen. While some thought Ryan’s resignation was necessary to “protect the university’s core values of depoliticization and intellectual diversity,” others in the community have said “they will not go quietly.”


In light of recent scrutiny directed at institutions like UVA, Columbia, and others now in the Trump administration’s crosshairs, a major question is circulating: Are more college and university presidents being positioned to resign? It seems increasingly likely. Since January, the administration’s heightened focus on higher education—particularly its push to confront anti-Semitism and dismantle DEI bureaucracies—has placed mounting pressure on campus leadership. With job instability growing and public demands intensifying, more resignations—or even forced removals—may well be on the horizon. The same trend could extend to other top administrators as well.


Candidates looking to fill administrative vacancies may also run into more snags than in previous years. For instance, take Santa Ono, whose appointment as president of the University of Florida (UF) was blocked by the Florida Board of Governors in a vote of 10-6 after his track record of promoting DEI policies came to light. Ono’s effort to walk back his prior embrace of DEI and progressive campus dogmas failed to convince Florida’s political leadership that he was the right choice for the job at UF. Currently, UF is still on the hunt for a president, with Dr. Kent Fuchs filling the role as interim president. The school is also looking for five new deans—however, this search is somewhat predicated on finding a new president first. 


The rapidly changing higher education landscape is paving the way for much needed reforms. Ridding classrooms of DEI, reestablishing gender distinctions under Title IX protections, and removing animus-fueled ideology from curricula—to name a few—have leveled the ground for higher education to rebuild its commitment to providing an excellent education and educating virtuous citizens. Higher ed’s growing pains, though unpleasant, are necessary—including the reshaping of leadership at major institutions. 


Until next week.


P.S. New positions have opened at Cleveland State University as part of its new Center for Civics, you can review the jobs by clicking here and here


P.P.S. Ahead of Friday, the National Association of Scholars (NAS) wishes you and your loved ones a Happy 4th of July! Be sure to follow Minding the Campus’s American Revolution Series, which—in preparation for America’s 250th anniversary next year—is tracing the key events that led to our independence. And keep an eye on the NAS website for upcoming events, articles, and updates.




April 30, 2026
By James Freeman The Wallstreet Journal April 16, 2026 Hugo Chiasson and Elise Spenner report for the Harvard Crimson: Harvard is quietly asking donors for $10 million gifts to establish new endowed professorships in a sweeping bid to reshape its faculty under the banner of “viewpoint diversity,” according to two people familiar with the initiative. The campaign, driven by Harvard’s top brass, aims to raise several hundred million dollars to support a new cohort of professors. If successful, the funding could bring dozens of faculty members to campus and drastically shift Harvard’s academic makeup. University officials have pitched the effort to major donors — conservative and liberal alike — as a way to broaden ideological representation across Harvard, two people said. But the fundraising target has repeatedly shifted after pushback from donors who viewed the scale as too ambitious, one person said. Maybe it’s not ambitious enough. Duke professor Timur Kuran responds on X: This is one way to increase viewpoint diversity, but the heterodox thinkers to be hired would lack meaningful power on campus. Activist, woke departments would treat the heterodox thinkers as freaks, perhaps also as archenemies. Through its new Hamilton School, the U of Florida offers a more promising way: establishing competing departments that are not woke. Under UF’s reform, students get to choose courses from either side: the old woke departments and their un-woke alternatives. Advantages: 1) Heterodox thinkers are not marginalized. 2) Competition for students induces woke departments to shape up. To survive, the preexisting activist departments start putting more emphasis on scholarship and on improving their courses. Harvard’s path offers neither advantage. There’s an argument for simply shutting down the activist departments that are dedicated to dogma, rather than hiring people to counter them. There is also another path that might be the most serious and effective of all to reform such a university. Harvard could decide not to make any structural changes at all, and also to avoid asking for an expansion of resources, lest alumni suspect they are just getting run over by a new fundraising vehicle. Harvard could simply reallocate resources by annually firing the most ideological 10% of its faculty members and 20% of its administrators. Theoretically it might seem difficult to make subjective judgments on which of the staff are egregious in pushing personal political agendas. But in practice many academics have grown so comfortable making strident anti-intellectual pronouncements that the only challenge would likely arise when trying to limit the administrative cull to 20%. Step two of this plan for Harvard is to hire new faculty who are so curious and whose scholarship is so serious and unpredictable that no one can ascertain their political beliefs. After a few years people might be amazed at the improvement in campus culture, and at the sheer number of scholars who seem to delight in pursuing knowledge wherever it leads. Veritas! *** In Other News  Another Opportunity for Harvard to Enhance Viewpoint Diversity? Frank Newport and Lydia Saad report for Gallup: Driven by a recent increase, young men in the U.S. have now surpassed young women in saying religion is “very important” in their lives. Gallup’s latest data, from 2024-2025, show 42% of young men saying religion is very important to them, up sharply from 28% in 2022-2023. By contrast, during this period, young women’s attachment to religion has held steady at about 30%. Although young men had previously tied young women on this key marker of religiosity, young men now lead by a statistically significant margin. The recent increase among young men also contrasts with minimal changes since 2022-2023 among older men and women… Young women were significantly more attached to religion than young men were at the start of the millennium, leading by nine percentage points (52% vs. 43%) in calling religion “very important” in their lives. That gap widened to as much as 16 points in the early to mid-2000s before steadily narrowing over the next decade. By the mid-2010s, the difference had shrunk to about five points, and the two groups remained about this closely aligned through 2022-2023. The most recent data mark a clear break, with young men now surpassing young women on this measure of religious importance. In a possibly related story, the American Founding website notes a letter from Harvard alum John Adams to his patriotic pal Mercy Warren 250 years ago: I know of no Researches in any of the sciences more ingenious than those which have been made after the best Forms of Government nor can there be a more agreeable Employment to a benevolent Heart. The Time is now approaching, when the Colonies will find themselves under a Necessity of engaging in Earnest in this great and indispensable Work. I have ever Thought it the most difficult and dangerous Part of the Business Americans have to do, in this mighty Contest, to continue some Method for the Colonies to glide insensibly, from under the old Government, into a peaceable and contented Submission to new ones. It is a long Time since this opinion was conceived, and it has never been out of my Mind, my constant Endeavour has been to convince Gentlemen of the Necessity of turning their Thoughts to these Subjects… The Form of Government, which you admire, when its Principles are pure is admirable indeed. It is productive of everything, which is great and excellent among Men. But its Principles are as easily destroyed, as human Nature is corrupted. Such a Government is only to be supported by pure Religion, or Austere Morals. Public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics. There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honor, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. And this public Passion must be superior to all private Passions…. Is there in the World a Nation, which deserves this Character. There have been several, but they are no more. Our dear Americans perhaps have as much of it as any Nation now existing, and New England perhaps has more than the rest of America. But I have seen all along my Life, Such Selfishness, and Littleness even in New England, that I sometimes tremble to think that, although We are engaged in the best Cause that ever employed the Human Heart, yet the Prospect of success is doubtful not for Want of Power or of Wisdom, but of Virtue. *** James Freeman is the co-author of “The Cost: Trump, China and American Revival” and also the co-author of “Borrowed Time: Two Centuries of Booms, Busts and Bailouts at Citi.”
March 30, 2026
At Davidson College, just 3% of faculty fall into a political minority, highlighting a clear imbalance. 
January 27, 2026
By Abigail S. Gerstein and Amann S. Mahajan, Crimson Staff Writers The Harvard Crimson January 27, 2026 Harvard faculty awarded significantly fewer A grades in the fall, cutting the share of top marks by nearly seven percentage points after the College urged instructors to combat grade inflation, according to a Monday afternoon email obtained by The Crimson. The email, which was addressed to Faculty of Arts and Sciences instructors and sent by Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh, reported that the share of flat As fell from 60.2 percent in the 2024-2025 academic year to 53.4 percent in the fall. The decline follows a 25-page report Claybaugh released in October 2025 arguing that grade inflation had rendered the College’s grading system unable to “perform the key functions of grading” and encouraging stricter academic measures, including standardized grading across sections and in-person final exams. Continue Reading
Show More