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.

Where Liberty and Learning Endure

June 29, 2026
As America commemorates 250 years of independence, we reflect on the enduring principles of liberty and learning that have defined Davidson College for nearly two centuries.

Bankruptcy and Higher Education

June 21, 2026
By Todd Zywicki The Wall Street Journal June 21, 2026 Auburn University is known for its agricultural and STEM programs, its flight school and athletic programs. But the land-grant university recently became notable for another reason: The board of trustees is taking control of the school back from its faculty. The board began seizing the university’s academic programs—including curriculum, course offerings, degree requirements and academic credentials—at its June 5 meeting. The board also dissolved the faculty senate and replaced it with an advisory council to the president, which includes two faculty members from each of the university’s colleges and additional members appointed by the president. The board’s assertion of authority mirrors incoming mandates by the Alabama Legislature restricting the role of faculty senates in the state’s public university system. Predictably, Auburn’s faculty has responded with howls of outrage, decrying these intrusions on the faculty’s authority over academic operations. How could outsiders appointed through a political process have the expertise to make such delicate decisions? I’ve been a professor at a state university for almost 30 years, and I am sympathetic up to a point. But before becoming a professor I was a bankruptcy lawyer. And bankruptcy law teaches an important lesson for how academia can respond to this moment. Bankruptcy gives businesses an opportunity to admit mistakes, reform and emerge stronger. Successful enterprises don’t need bankruptcy lawyers. But when an enterprise loses its way, it goes into receivership. Most universities aren’t financially bankrupt but have lost their mission and direction. Society has long recognized certain institutions’ authority to manage their own affairs. Two notable examples are licensed professionals—such as doctors and lawyers—and universities. Universities, even state universities, have run their enterprises with minimal external oversight. Faculties enjoyed substantial rights of self-governance because they committed to higher standards than those required by ordinary jobs. Professors would establish and maintain standards of scholarly integrity, freedom of speech and inquiry, and rigorous dedication to merit-based assessment of research in specialized areas. They policed their own house, enforcing norms of truth-seeking, maintaining scholarly integrity and rigor, and ensuring that students emerged with basic knowledge, employable skills and civic competency. But over the past several decades, commitment to those values collapsed. Surveys by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression consistently reveal fear among students and faculty around expressing unfashionable ideas. Universities have seen shout-downs, cancellations and even violence against speakers. Merit and quality yielded to “diversity” and “equity.” Truth-seeking has been displaced by faddish theories and ideologically charged teaching and research. Professors design esoteric departments and teach niche classes to cliques of activist students while the needs of other students and taxpayers for real education go unaddressed. Like companies I represented, universities have lost their way. And many have proved either unable or unwilling to self-correct. When that happens, it is appropriate to put institutions into receivership until they reform and rededicate themselves to their mission. At Auburn incoming students must now take certain required civics and history courses to master basic competency in U.S. history and government. To ensure the classes actually meet that objective, professors will have to make their syllabi publicly available. In the classroom, instructors will be expected to stick to the matter at hand and avoid free-ranging political punditry. Just as other companies can learn from the ones that go bankrupt, other institutions of higher education can learn something from Auburn: Fix what’s broken, or someone else might fix it for you. Mr. Zywicki is a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. He was a Dartmouth College trustee, 2005-09. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/bankruptcy-and-higher-education-4c2b178e

Race Preferences Are Falling Nationwide

June 19, 2026
By the Editorial Board The Wall Street Journal June 19, 2026 The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against racial preferences is turning out to be a landmark with profound consequences as its influence spreads. On Thursday the famously progressive Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a state program that issued scholarships based on race violates the U.S. Constitution. Justice Annette Ziegler wrote for the court that the Constitution requires “that every person ‘must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,’” and that the state cannot “use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” That must have been painful for the activist liberal majority on the court. In a concurrence, Wisconsin Chief Justice Jill Karofsky took some shots at Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (2023) before acknowledging that “I am bound by the precedent set forth in SFFA” and other Supreme Court rulings “when interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment.” The case was brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty against a 1985 Badger State law that reserved need-based scholarships through a grant program for “Black American,” “American Indian,” “Hispanic” and some Southeast Asian undergraduate students enrolled in Wisconsin’s private and technical colleges. Last week the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a scholarship program earmarked for black University of Iowa students studying physical sciences was “impracticable” under SFFA. State governments would be wise to repeal these discriminatory grant programs, or the courts will do it for them.
Show More