Fact Checking the Battle for Control of VMI's Future and Virginia's Campuses

Editor's note: This continuing coverage by The Cadet and Cadets who are concerned for their school and the fullness of the truth regarding the ongoing and increasing conflict between political parties in Richmond and the Boards of Visitors for Virginia's State Colleges and universities. The complete video recording of the presentations on December 1, 2025, by Virginia Military Institute (VMI) Superintendent Lieutenant General Furness and University of Virginia (UVa) Interim President Paul G. Mahoney is accessible within the electronic version of this publication at www.cadetnewspaper.com. Lt. Gen. Furness' full comments to the Senate Committee are reprinted in this edition of The Cadet. These resources enable members of the VMI community to independently form opinions based on Lieutenant General Furness's testimony, which The Cadet is reproducing in this issue. Additionally, the online version provides hyperlinks to the source documents and records. On February 28, 2025, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) Board of Visitors (BOV) elected not to renew the contract for Superintendent Major General Cedric T. Wins '85. The board issued a concise, formal statement expressing gratitude for his service and citing personnel privacy and other legal requirements as the reason for withholding further details. Days later, Wins issued an accusation that continues to resonate throughout Virginia's higher education system. In a March statement, the first Black superintendent of VMI stated that the board's decision to terminate his tenure was an act of "misfeasance that endangers VMI and the future of our nation" and arose from "politicization," rather than meritorious performance. The Board's By-Laws and Virginia statutes restrict the disclosure of closed session discussions concerning personnel matters and personal records, such as performance evaluations, without the individual's consent. To date, despite multiple requests from The Cadet, Major General Wins '85 has not provided the necessary release or supporting evidence for his allegations, which were absent upon The Cadet's fact-checking of his letter. With that single word—misfeasance— Major General Wins '85 explicitly referenced the Virginia Code, where "malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, or gross neglect of duty" form the legal foundation for the removal of members from public university governing boards. Over the subsequent nine months, Democratic legislators, Republican officials, alumni associations, and Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger would transform that phrase into a broader dispute concerning the genuine authority over Virginia's higher education institutions. Newly acquired documents, including a complete transcript of the Senate Finance and Appropriations Education Subcommittee hearing held on December 1, 2025, with VMI Superintendent Lieutenant General David Furness, and an article from the Richmond Times-Dispatch published the day prior to the hearing, fill essential informational gaps. They reveal the following: How Governor-elect Spanberger is preparing to move "Day 1" to reshape boards at VMI, the University of Virginia, George Mason University, and possibly other state colleges and universities. How Lt. Gen. Furness '87 describes his relationship with the VMI Board of Visitors as nonpartisan, "centerline," and within standard governance patterns—directly undercutting several public accusations that the board acted unlawfully or in bad faith. These and other available public records also clarify that some of the most serious allegations against the VMI Board—such as accusations of racism, partisan abuse, and misfeasance—remain, at best, unsubstantiated. What follows is an investigative reconstruction of this fight, based on court records, legislative letters, news coverage, and the new hearing transcript and pre-hearing article. The VMI flashpointOn February 28, 2025, VMI's Board of Visitors (BOV) voted 10–6 to not renew Major General Wins's '85 contract, ending his term as superintendent on June 30, 2025. The decision followed a closed-session evaluation, as permitted under Virginia's open-meetings laws and VMI's bylaws. The board's public statement was brief, praising Major General Wins's '85 service "during some very difficult times" and declining to comment further on personnel matters. Within a few days, Major General Wins '85 issued a lengthy, defiant written statement to the Corps of Cadets, VMI Administration/Staff, VMI faculty, other employees, and the VMI Alumni Agencies. He argued that: The board's decision was "a partisan choice that abandons the values of honor, integrity, and excellence upon which VMI was built." A "few" board members were resisting efforts to bring VMI into the 21st century. He condemned the board's decision to subject cadets "to a cycle of politicization" as "misfeasance that endangers VMI and the future of our nation." The term misfeasance was not casual. As The Cadet newspaper later noted in a March 20 explainer, Major General Wins's '85 accusation directly aligned with the legal language in Code of Virginia § 23.1-1300 and § 2.2-108, which authorize the governor to remove board members for misfeasance and related reasons. In other words, Major General Wins '85 was not only engaging in political criticism of the board but also establishing a foundation for an argument that subsequent governors and legislators might employ to justify the complete removal of VMI board members. A Surge of Accusations—against Legislators and the BoardEven before Wins used the word misfeasance, some Republicans had already started making their own accusations. Cline's Ethics ComplaintOn February 19, 2025, Representative Ben Cline, whose congressional district encompasses Lexington, issued a press release advocating for an ethics investigation into "Virginia lawmakers' threats against VMI's Board of Visitors." He asserted that specific Democratic legislators had threatened to withhold funding unless the board renewed Major General Wins's '85 contract, describing such purported conduct as "unbecoming, inappropriate, and ethically questionable." Cline's complaint targeted legislators, not the board. However, it implied that the board had been improperly pressured and might no longer be acting independently. Politicians, Alumni, the Media, and "Political Intimidation"Governor Youngkin criticized his political opponents who refused to support his appointments: "Virginia's progressive left elected officials are trying to paralyze the governing boards of Virginia's colleges and universities using despicable bullying and intimidation tactics. Their goal is clear: They want to stack the boards with their liberal friends who will openly defy federal anti-discrimination laws, promote protests, and put student safety at risk…" Conservative alumni have called for an investigation in response to allegations of political intimidation at VMI, asserting that lawmakers engaged in "coercion" of the board. Citing Major General Wins' '85 letter, one journalist wrote, "The part about 'political gain' is a puzzlement. What possible political advantages could accrue to anyone involved in this?" Another article in the conservative blog "Bacon's Rebellion" challenged the General Assembly member's intervention. "When you get elected to state office, either as an executive or legislator, no one is asking you to run the state's colleges and universities. That is not your job." Conservative commentator James Bacon stated that "DEI became a major flashpoint, but so did what dissident alumni regarded as heavy-handed action by Wins to retaliate against activist alumni and suppress The Cadet, an award-winning student newspaper backed by alumni, which had been critical of the administration." BOV Member Mr. Teddy Gottwald reported at the February 8, 2025, BOV meeting that "A certain state senator has been calling VMI Board members, saying if we don't take certain actions, they [the General Assembly] are going to withhold our funds." The Cadet published an investigative report regarding the VMI Communications Office's close associations with The Washington Post and its cooperation with The Post concerning unfavorable articles about the BOV and the decision not to renew the superintendent's contract. On the other hand, some Democratic figures and progressive commentators argued that a group of Youngkin-appointed board members had acted out of ideological hostility toward Major General Wins's '85 diversity and inclusion initiatives and that the board itself had become a partisan tool. Blue Virginia wrote, "Youngkin's appointees want to make VMI safe for racism again, it would appear," and linked the Board's actions to attacks against Republican President Trump and Governor Youngkin, stating, "The question remains, why would any American support their racism, idiocy, extremism, etc???" In his written public comments to the BOV one of Wins' alumnus supporters made accused BOV Member Mr. Inman of being fired for insubordination by the "previous administration [Wins] "...for insubordination involving the delivery of sensitive materials to then-BOV President Bill Boland '73.". It further stated Mr. Hartsock left his position as a Deputy Commandant at VMI "under a Cloud", and that BOV Member Reardon was not qualified for his position. The alumnus did not provide any evidence supporting these allegations, and former Superintendent Gen. Peay broke his silence on issues at VMI since his departure, stating to The Cadet, "Jamie Inman was never removed from his role as Chief of Staff under my administration. Col (Ret.) Inman served me and VMI for over a decade, and his performance was superlative. This is just another case of disinformation." Current and former Cadets openly defend and affirm Mr. Hartsock's integrity and performance while at VMI. The Democratic majority in the General Assembly subsequently refused to confirm Hartsock and Reardon without providing any substantiating evidence that they were unfit to serve. Carroll Foy's '03 Racial-Bias AllegationIn a widely disseminated response to Representative Cline, State Senator Jennifer Carroll Foy '03—one of the most notable critics of Major General Wins' '85 removal—defended her communications with board members. She alleged that "VMI Board of Visitors President, McGuire Woods partner, and Republican John Adams contacted her on multiple occasions, informing her that the VMI Board of Visitors no longer desires a Black Superintendent." Adams, through a spokesperson, denied this allegation. Taken together, these initial rounds of accusations portrayed the board in different lights as:A victim of Democratic "threats,"An agent of Republican partisan politics, andA body tainted by racism and racial bias. Yet at this stage, there was little firsthand evidence from inside the boardroom to support any of those claims. Carroll Foy's '03 Counter-Charge and the Major General Wins '85 NarrativeState Senator Carroll Foy's '03 written response to Representative Cline, published by The Cadet, depicted her discussions with board members as pertaining to legitimate legislative oversight. She argued that notifying a state-supported institution regarding potential funding consequences constitutes a routine exercise of the General Assembly's power of the purse. She then shifted focus from her own conduct to the board's motives: Asserting that Major General Wins's '85 removal was racially motivated, Claiming that Youngkin-aligned appointees had "taken over" the board, and Arguing that the vote was part of a broader partisan attempt to reverse reforms following a 2020 state-ordered investigation into racism and sexism at VMI. Major General Wins's '85 statement reinforced that framing. He described the vote as the work of "the winds of resistance by the few" who opposed efforts to modernize VMI and claimed that their decision would plunge the Institute back into "a cycle of polarization." State Senator Carroll Foy '03 also accused the Board of racism in its governance of VMI and dealings with Maj. Gen. Wins. "Fanning the flames of racism and racial tension is not who we are as Virginians and has no place on our boards," wrote Foy. State Senator Carroll Foy '03 criticized the decision as entirely political and not based on Major General Wins's '85 performance or merit. In a public statement, she described the board's handling of Wins's contract as "questionable" and called for an independent investigation by the General Assembly and the Governor's administration into the board's actions. She argued that "hyper-partisan MAGA Republican appointees have taken over the VMI Board with their political agendas and voted to end the Superintendent's contract by falsely labeling him as a 'DEI hire'… The core issue is that this action had nothing to do with performance or merit." By urging a formal inquiry into the board's "questionable handling" of the contract, Sen. Carroll Foy '03 clearly suggested the board members engaged in improper conduct – effectively accusing them of misfeasance or at least serious dereliction of duty. Critically, however, neither Major General Wins '85 nor State Senator Carroll Foy '85 provided documentary evidence that specific board members made racist statements, acted under explicit partisan orders, or violated any statutory duty beyond their disagreement with his leadership. That evidentiary gap becomes even more critical in light of the new December 1 hearing transcript. What "Misfeasance" Actually MeansBecause the misfeasance allegation is key to subsequent efforts to remove or sideline board members, it's helpful to briefly explain the law. § 23.1-1300(C) authorizes the governor to remove any member of a public university's governing board "for malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, or gross neglect of duty," with a requirement to issue a written statement of the reasons. § 2.2-108 similarly allows removal of certain board and commission members on the same grounds. The Cadet's March 20 Understanding Misfeasance article explained that, in law, misfeasance is the improper performance of a lawful act, resulting in harm to another person. It involves a situation where someone has a duty to act and does so but performs the action negligently, mistakenly, or wrongfully, leading to injury. A key distinction is that the act itself is not illegal; rather, the problem arises from how it was executed. The act must be carried out incorrectly, negligently, or without proper care, skill, or diligence. Additionally, the improper performance must be directly connected to the harm or injury experienced by another party. Misfeasance generally involves lawful authority exercised improperly, for example, making decisions in violation of governing statutes or fiduciary duties, or ignoring obvious conflicts of interest. It concluded that simply disagreeing with a superintendent's policy direction by the BOV in its statutory governance role or even making a harsh personnel decision (such as not renewing Wins' contract) does not automatically qualify as misfeasance. In short, Major General Wins' '85 charge was legally explosive, but whether it applied depended on facts that have yet to be made public and substantiated. June 9: Surovell's letter, Democratic Warnings, and Lucas v. Stimson The fight over board memberships heated up in June 2025, not just at VMI but also at the University of Virginia (UVA) and George Mason University (GMU). On June 9, the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections resolved to prevent the confirmation of several of Governor Glenn Youngkin's appointees to the boards of UVA, VMI, and George Mason University (GMU).On that same day, Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell issued correspondence to the respective boards, asserting that the committee's decision not to advance the resolution constituted a legitimate "refusal" of confirmation under Virginia law. He cautioned that unconfirmed appointees "must discontinue their service," and emphasized that board members who continued to acknowledge these appointees could be subject to "further corrective action"—language that explicitly references the statutes pertaining to the removal for misfeasance. Gov. Youngkin and Attorney General Jason Miyares disagreed, advising boards that appointees could keep serving until the full General Assembly took action. Two weeks later, on June 24, Senate President Pro Tempore L. Louise Lucas, along with Deeds, Locke, Carroll Foy, and other Democratic senators, initiated legal proceedings in the Fairfax County Circuit Court: Lucas v. Stimson. The complaint contended that the ongoing designation of those appointees as board members contravened the Virginia Constitution and statutes, which stipulate that VMI "shall at all times be under the control of the General Assembly." On July 29, Judge Jonathan Frieden issued a preliminary injunction preventing eight contested Youngkin appointees at UVA, VMI, and GMU from serving while the case is ongoing. In a detailed opinion, he stated that the Senate committee's vote not to report the confirmation resolution was a rejection of confirmation, and that unconfirmed appointees could not legally remain in their positions. This ruling, later upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court, effectively vacated seven VMI board seats and five at UVA, setting the stage for Governor-elect Spanberger's "Day 1" promise. In a September 2025 letter co-signed by Senate President Pro Tem L. Louise Lucas and Caucus Chair Mamie Locke, Senator Scott Surovell, the Senate Majority Leader, addressed all public university boards, including those of VMI, regarding their fiduciary responsibilities. The letter explicitly cited the legal basis for the removal of board members "pursuant to § 23.1-1300 for 'malfeasance, misfeasance, incompetence, or gross neglect of duty'." Surovell warned that if any board "fail[s] to exercise appropriate independent judgment or allow external influences to compromise their duties," the General Assembly would consider appropriate actions to assure proper governance. This statement served as a definitive warning that actions such as the removal of Wins could constitute misfeasance and potentially justify removal. Spanberger's Strategy: "Day 1" Board Appointments and a "Statutorily Compliant" UVAOn Nov. 30, 2025, the Richmond Times-Dispatch previewed a Dec. 1 Senate Finance Education Subcommittee hearing at which UVA interim president Paul Mahoney and VMI superintendent Lt. Gen. David Furness '87 were scheduled to testify about "leadership and finances" at their institutions. The article explained how UVA and VMI had "been embroiled in public controversy" over the forced departures of UVA President Jim Ryan and VMI Superintendent Major General Wins '85, and outlined how courts had sidelined multiple Youngkin appointees as a result of Lucas v. Stimson. In that piece, Spanberger sharpened her earlier calls to pause UVA's presidential search: She told the Times-Dispatch that her "commitment is announcing those appointees Day 1" of her governorship, on Jan. 17, 2026, and that she expected the General Assembly "to confirm them quickly, so that all of our boards can have a full complement of membership immediately." She also stressed that it was "of the utmost importance" that UVA's next president be chosen by a "fully constituted and statutorily compliant board," a reference to statutory requirements whereby the UVA board must include a minimum number of Virginia residents and UVA graduates. State Sen. Creigh Deeds, whose district includes UVA, was more direct. He told the newspaper that the Youngkin-aligned board was "not pausing" the search and that doing so risked having Spanberger reverse any decision once she fills the vacant seats. "They're not willing to deal with political reality, and that's too bad," he said. Deeds additionally reminded readers that there exists "recent precedent" for the replacement of sitting board members, a subtle allusion to both former Republican governor Bob McDonnell's 2012 threat to utilize his statutory removal powers if UVA's Board of Visitors did not swiftly address the leadership crisis involving Helen Dragas and Teresa Sullivan, as well as to the current Governor Glenn Youngkin's decision in March 2025 to remove his own appointee, UVA Board member U. Bertram "Bert" Ellis Jr., pursuant to § 23.1-1300. In the case of Ellis, Youngkin's publicly issued removal letter cited "sufficient cause" and asserted that Ellis's conduct "on many occasions has violated the Commonwealth's Code of Conduct for our Boards and Commissions and the Board of Visitors' Statement of Visitor Responsibilities," explicitly grounding the action in documented violations of the code of conduct and governance standards rather than in ideological dissent alone. In contrast, McDonnell ultimately did not remove Dragas or her allies for misfeasance in 2012; instead, he utilized the threat of removal powers and leverage from appointments and reappointments to facilitate a negotiated resolution to the crisis. Subsequently, he reconstituted the board through standard terms and appointments. This distinction is significant for the current VMI debate: Youngkin's removal of Ellis involved a formal, written gubernatorial determination of specific breaches of the code of conduct and governance, whereas at VMI, there is so far no equivalent record—no governor's removal letter, no official citation of Code-of-Conduct violations, and no publicly documented pattern of board behavior that definitively meets the statutory "misfeasance" threshold. Democratic leaders are citing the same misfeasance standard in their correspondence and in Lucas v. Stimson as a warning, but without a detailed factual record comparable to the Ellis case, they are nonetheless unable to cite a concrete precedent that directly equates Major General Wins's '85 accusations against the VMI Board with the proven, codified misconduct that justified Ellis's removal. Notably, neither Spanberger nor Deeds ever accused the VMI Board of Visitors of misfeasance to date. Instead, they questioned the legality and composition of boards with unconfirmed Youngkin appointees—a more technical yet still significant line of attack that could lead the new Spanberger-appointed majority to scrutinize the legitimacy of the vote not to renew Wins's contract and to hire Furness. In the 10–6 vote not to renew Major General Wins's '85 contract, eight of the 10 who voted against renewing were approved through the General Assembly process Democrats consider legitimate. New Testimony: Lt. Gen. Furness '87 Defends the Board and a "Centerline" VMIOn Dec. 1, 2025, Lt. Gen. Furness '87 appeared before the Senate Finance and Appropriations Education Subcommittee. The full transcript of that hearing is published in this issue of The Cadet and provides important nuance and, in several cases, undermines unsubstantiated accusations against the VMI Board. A Nonpartisan PostureIn his opening statement, Lt. Gen. Furness '87 shared his personal journey from being a struggling high school student to becoming a VMI cadet and later a Marine Corps three-star general. He highlighted VMI's successes, noting that 97% of graduates are employed within six months and that the Institute commissions officers into all service branches, including the Space Force and Coast Guard. He emphasized that: VMI is "an outcome-driven institution committed to excellence," Alumni support supplies roughly 30–40% of the operating budget, and The Institute must balance the expectations of the governor, the General Assembly, the board, alumni, parents, and cadets. Then he introduced a phrase that echoed throughout the hearing: VMI, he said, "strives to operate from the center, nonpartisan, steady, balanced, and leading along the center line," and that under his leadership, that is "where VMI belongs and where it will remain." Later, pressed by Senate President Pro Tempore Louise Lucas to clarify what he meant by "centerline," Furness elaborated. He said he must navigate between: Federal Department of Defense regulations that could adversely impact VMI if it crosses certain lines, and Alumni pressures that, if inflamed, could threaten the 40% of the budget that comes from philanthropy. He explained that he tries to stay out of polarizing cultural battles: He told Lucas that he tries to stay "right in the middle of all those issues that tend to polarize the American body politic" and that his goal is to keep VMI "off the front page of the Washington Post" so he can focus on what is "good for the cadets and what's good for the institution." Lucas, a prominent plaintiff in Lucas v. Stimson and a regular critic of Youngkin's board appointments, responded positively: She said she "really appreciate[d] his centerline approach and the fact that he acknowledged that the General Assembly confirms the board appointments," calling it "really refreshing to hear." She did not raise any further issues. How Furness Describes the Board of VisitorsCrucially, the transcript shows that when senators asked Furness directly about his relationship with the VMI Board, he did not describe it as partisan or abusive.When Subcommittee Chair Sen. Mamie Locke asked how he views "the role of your Board of Visitors," Furness responded: He considers the board his "higher headquarters," Board members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature. He is responsible to them for fiscal matters and for "good order, discipline and accountability," and He has "daily interaction" with them, speaks weekly with the board president, and tries to keep members informed about what is happening on post. There is no indication in his testimony that the board is acting beyond its legal authority, issuing biased partisan directives, or otherwise committing misfeasance. When Senator Mark Obenshain, a member of the Republican Party, inquired whether the board had "asserted operational control" or "micromanaged" VMI, Furness acknowledged that the board gave him "fairly specific marching orders" when he was hired, particularly to examine "good order and discipline" within the Corps of Cadets. However, he characterized their interaction as "a discussion back and forth," wherein he endeavors to persuade them of his perspectives, and they collaborate to reach a consensus. He also noted that: Most board members are VMI graduates who understand the Institute but are influenced by their own class experiences. Tradition can sometimes make change difficult, but he handles that by building buy-in before making "rudder steers," and He is focused on defining "a working relationship" with both current and incoming board members and on "getting on with the business of making VMI the exceptional place for education that it has always been. Again, nothing in that exchange indicates that the VMI Board is acting in a way that meets the legal standard for misfeasance or that it did so during Major General Wins's '85 tenure. Alumni Complaints vs. "Facts on the Ground"Locke also inquired about the influence of alumni, noting that their 30–40% share of the operating budget is "significant" and questioning how much they impact discussions on VMI operations. Furness offered one of the hearing's most revealing answers: He described it as "a good thing" that alumni are "passionate and committed," adding, "the bad thing about VMI is we have passionate and committed alumni." He said he receives emails and calls "every day" from alumni concerned about various issues. Crucially, he added that most of what alumni hear "is not backed up by the facts on the ground" that he sees as superintendent. That comment directly challenges some of the most aggressive claims from outside groups, on both the left and right, whose narratives about board behavior have shaped public debate despite little verification from those within the institution. Accusations against the Board: who made them, and what evidence exists?With the new transcript, it becomes easier to distinguish between what has been alleged about the VMI BOV and what the record actually shows. 1. Major General Wins's '85 Accusation of "Misfeasance" Who accused?Major General Cedric T. Wins '85. What was alleged?The board's vote not to renew his contract constituted "misfeasance that endangers VMI and the future of our nation" and was driven by partisan motives. What evidence?Major General Wins's '85 public statement and subsequent sympathetic commentary, but no disclosed board emails, directives, or affidavits from other insiders. The accusations shared as public comments and during BOV sessions by Wins' supporters either lack evidence or have been proven false. What the new testimony shows:Lt. Gen. Furness '87 tells senators he received specific guidance on good order and discipline, but describes a typical governance relationship, and he does not indicate that the BOV acted unlawfully or beyond its authority. Assessment:Unsubstantiated. Major General Wins's '85 charge is serious but currently based on his own interpretation, not supported by evidence of statutory misfeasance. 2. Allegations of racial bias on the board Who accused?Primarily Sen. Jennifer Carroll Foy '03,' who said she was told some board members "no longer wanted a Black superintendent." What was alleged?That Major General Wins's '85 race influenced the board's decision.. What evidence?Sen. Carroll Foy '03 has not publicly provided names, emails, or testimony to support this claim. Other witnesses from within the board have not confirmed it.. What the new testimony shows:Lt. Gen. Furness '87 never implies racial bias by the board; he emphasizes their focus on discipline, accountability, and outcomes, and describes a board made up of alumni with diverse views but a common dedication to VMI. Assessment:Unsubstantiated on the current public record. The allegation remains a serious concern, but it is not currently supported by any documentary or testimonial evidence beyond hearsay. 3. Claims that the board is a partisan Youngkin instrument Who accused?Major General Wins '85, some Democratic lawmakers, and commentators emphasize that Youngkin appointees formed the majority that voted against renewing Major General Wins's contract. What was alleged?The BOV took action to promote the governor's ideological agenda, particularly by reversing diversity initiatives. What evidence?The vote tally aligns with Youngkin appointees, and some members have publicly criticized DEI initiatives—yet there is no disclosed record of direct orders from the governor regarding the contract vote, and notably, some Youngkin appointees voted in favor of extending the contract. What the new testimony and official documentation show:Furness testifies that VMI "will always comply fully with state and federal laws" and that he sees the board as his higher headquarters, but he does not state that they act at the governor's direct command. He emphasizes his own role in navigating between political poles. In response to the allegation by Senator Surovell on June 10, 2025, acting BOV President Mr. Teddy Gottwald requested evidence supporting the allegations: "If you have heard of any undue interference from Governor Youngkin with any of our Board members, I ask you to share the specifics of that information with me." To date, there is no record that the Board has received such evidence, and therefore, the allegations remain unsubstantiated and do not support a claim of misfeasance. Assessment:Partially supported (some political alignment), but not proven as misfeasance. The board's ideological lean is clear; misuse of legal authority is not. Unsubstantiated and partially proven false that the BOV is "MAGA" and dismantled DEI at VMI while acting racially against Maj. Gen. Wins. The board's appointments by Republican Governor Youngkin is clear, but: The original three "VMI BOV Principles for DE&I" formally adopted by the BOV remain unchanged, although rebranding to "Inclusive Excellence." VMI continues its Inclusive Excellence program, which is defined in Higher Education as "a strategic approach that integrates diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) into the core functions of colleges and universities." In his June 30, 2025 response to the Washington Post, Mr. Gottwald, on behalf of the BOV, confirmed the board did not change course in response to Presidential Executive Orders, Supreme Court Ruling Guidance from the Department of Justice, or Department of Defense Memorandums on DEI: "…our BOV has been careful this year not to react in haste to what we hear from Washington, and we have not made any changes as a result of new Federal input. Before we take any action, our Executive Committee will examine the law and all VMI activities to make sure we're in full compliance, and only then will we determine if any changes are needed." Lt. Gen. Furness' response to the Senate Committee echoed this position, and no members participating from either party objected.The Cadet's Continuing Search for EvidenceIn its ongoing effort to provide facts to the VMI Community and the public, The Cadet staff continues to investigate and gather evidence to support claims made by either side on these issues. As part of that investigation, calls were made to the offices of Senators Deeds, Locke, and Lucas, and questions were emailed three times before publication. The Cadet confirmed that Senator Lucas's staff forwarded the questions to her. So far, no one has responded to The Cadet, but any responses received will be reported in the future. The StakesFor now, three different forces will determine how far the misfeasance narrative goes:1. Courts – Lucas v. Stimson will not have any impact. Both sides agreed in a December 8 hearing that the upcoming General Assembly session will make the matter moot. The case will formally be dismissed in June, so Governor–elect Spanberger is free to make her 22 Board appointments her first day in office.2. Governor-elect Spanberger – On Jan. 17, she gains the authority to appoint replacement board members and, in theory, to remove sitting members for misfeasance or related reasons—though doing so would require a written public statement and a factual record. However, § 2.2-108 B states, "The Governor is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause for removal as set forth in this section," so the strength of the factual justification is entirely at her discretion.3. Boards and presidents – VMI and UVA must manage leadership transitions under intense scrutiny, with every major decision open to challenge as either politically motivated or legally flawed. What's Next and Why It Matters to the VMI Family and VirginiaVirginia's statutory framework for governing boards at public colleges and universities is intentionally designed to prevent sudden ideological shifts and to maintain these institutions on a stable, centrist path. Instead of allowing any single administration to overhaul an entire Board overnight, the system restricts governors to appointing only four members each year. Over a four-year term, a governor will eventually replace the entire Board—but only gradually. Under this model, each Board member serves a four-year term and may be reappointed once for an additional four-year term before rotating off. This staggered turnover ensures a steady flow of new perspectives while maintaining stability across administrations. It also serves as a safeguard against sudden policy reversals caused by shifting political winds in Richmond. At VMI, Governor Youngkin, like his predecessors, stuck to this long-standing approach, even amid heavy pressure and sharp criticism from some alumni and outside observers. His appointees did not constitute a supermajority until June of this year. And even with that numerical advantage, divisions remained clear: votes on tuition hikes, the budget, the former superintendent's contract, and other major issues showed that a range of viewpoints persisted on the Board.Historically, this incremental system and the General Assembly's commitment to preserving it have required Board members to build consensus rather than pursue ideological dominance. The result has been stability: institutions could maintain direction and mission continuity even as Virginia's political leadership changed. Despite the lack of concrete evidence supporting recent allegations of misfeasance, the incoming administration in Richmond could quickly change power if it implements its promised "Day 1" plan. VMI's Board of Visitors (BOV) has 16 voting seats, seven of which are currently vacant. A new governor could fill those vacancies immediately. If Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger follows the usual appointment rules, two of the new appointees will start terms ending in 2028, four will have terms ending in 2029, and one will fill a term expiring in 2026. This alone would shift the current balance of political influence on the Board to nine members appointed by Youngkin and seven by Spanberger. More changes are coming. The terms of Board of Visitors (BOV) members Gottwald '83, Edgar '87, and Mobbs are up for re-appointment in January 2026. Both Mobbs and Gottwald voted against renewing former Superintendent Major General Wins' '85 contract. Gottwald, along with board member Inman '86, was also the target of misfeasance and other accusations, as well as claims that The Cadet later found to be unfounded or false. Given these circumstances, Gottwald, Mobbs, and Inman are widely expected to be replaced. With Edgar '87 these changes would shift the Board's balance again, this time to six Youngkin and ten Spanberger voting appointees. Political tensions surrounding the Board have already escalated. Janis '84 is a former Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates. Kate Todd, a former Trump administration official, and Meaghan Mobbs, a former adviser to Governor Youngkin, were also named in unsubstantiated allegations after voting not to renew Wins' contract. Critics, including Delegate Carroll-Foy '03 (D) and her allies, have called these members aligned with "MAGA" politics. If Governor-elect Spanberger were to invoke the misfeasance removal option, she could replace the entire Board. Although appointees to Virginia College and University BOVs named in January normally do not assume their positions until July 1st, Spanberger expressed confidence that the Democratic-controlled General Assembly will accelerate the confirmation process of her selections. The General Assembly is scheduled to convene on January 14, 2026, and Spanberger is slated to be inaugurated on January 17. The next scheduled meeting of the Board is from January 29 to 31, 2026, while the legislative session extends through March 14. This raises the question of whether the balance of power on the BOV will shift substantially before the next Board meeting, potentially influencing key decisions and the future direction of VMI at a pivotal moment for the institution. An offer of AI-enabled analysis to the Board was not accepted on several occasions. The model previously and accurately predicted enrollment shortfalls over the past four years, the decline in white males, and the failure to meet enrollment targets for the Rat Mass of 2026+3. Without changes to VMI's business model and given the current trajectory of a gradual return to a meritocracy-based approach implemented by Furness and the current Board, VMI faces a 5-7-year crisis timeline. The model also indicates that reverting to the path taken by the previous administration and its BOV could accelerate VMI to that crisis point in 3-4 years, leading to an institutional survivability crisis that may reach a terminal stage by 2028-2029. How will the VMI Community Respond?Lt. Gen. Furness' '87 new direction for VMI as a traditional, outcome-driven institution committed to excellence, and executing the BOV's guidance to emphasize good order, discipline, and accountability, is already showing tangible progress. Corps morale and self-accountability are gradually returning. Physical and appearance standards are improving, but as Lt. Gen. Furness '87informed the committee, such change requires time. The current political climate and potential major ideological shifts in the BOV pose notable challenges for Lt. Gen. Furness '87 to operate as a centrist, nonpartisan, steady, balanced leader guiding along the center. Virginia's Democratic leaders, including Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger and top Senate officials, have vowed to oppose efforts by President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs at public institutions of higher education (IHE) and at senior military colleges like VMI. Spanberger pledged to depoliticize higher education governance, stating, "My expectation is that the boards are going to go back to doing right by the university," and condemned the alleged political interference under Gov. Youngkin as "an aberration." She criticized Youngkin for failing to defend UVA amid DOJ pressure: "That is not what leadership looks like," she said. Top Senate Democrats have expressed similar views. During a July 2025 press conference, Sen. Mamie Locke warned about the Trump administration's agenda: "They do not want an informed citizenry… This is about civil rights, civil liberties, and the future of higher education." Sen. Louise Lucas stated: "Virginia's universities are not political playthings," and criticized federal DEI crackdowns as "veiled attempts to disrupt the state's top-rated education system." Lawmakers have committed to legal and legislative measures to defend state DEI mandates, with Senate President Pro Tem Lucas and Majority Leader Scott Surovell warning UVA in a formal letter that its agreement with the DOJ to end DEI initiatives is "in direct violation of state law" and could "set a dangerous precedent."Virginia Democrats are not only speaking out but also taking concrete steps to protect DEI initiatives at public colleges. Following UVA President Jim Ryan's resignation in June, state lawmakers signaled they might turn to legal action. "Democratic lawmakers [haven't] ruled out…taking legal action against the federal government" amid the controversy over UVA, reported Virginia Mercury, especially if federal funding is used as a weapon against schools. In fact, Virginia's newly elected Attorney General, Democrat Jay Jones, is expected to join multistate coalitions of AGs challenging Trump's education mandates in court. "As attorney general, Jones could join…Democratic state attorneys general suing the Trump administration over its education policies," one report noted, highlighting this legal strategy. These political dynamics render it increasingly challenging to uphold Lt. Gen. Furness's '87 centrist approach, thereby amplifying his demand for support. The unresolved inquiry concerns the nature of the support he can rely on. The VMI Alumni Agencies alienated many alumni who voiced different opinions and resisted the VMI faculty and staff. Many simply 'walked away" and took their financial support with them. Lt. Gen. Furness '87 made little change to the key leadership from the previous administration's staff. Will they support Lt. Gen. Furness's '87 center line approach, stick with the current course, or change direction with the new Richmond administration? Will Governor-elect Spanberger's changes involve bringing back former BOV Members or even Maj. Gen. Wins in some role? Will most of the Corps and alumni act if they disagree, or stay passive like they have for the past four years? For example, in a Nov. 14, 2021, Washington Post interview, VMI spokesperson COL William Wyatt stated that "'I think that it would be silly for the past 18 months, going through a leadership change and a new plan, I think it would be silly to roll all that back just because of the results of an election," when asked whether VMI would alter its DEI and related programs, gender/race admissions quotas, etc., following Governor Youngkin's election. The Cadet asked VMI's spokesperson, Lt. Col. Sherry Wallace, if VMI stands by the principle articulated by Col. Wyatt—that the Institute does not change direction or reverse policy "just because of the results of an election"—and, if so, whether VMI will maintain Lt. Gen. Furness and the BOV's current course under Governor-elect Spanberger, or if not, to explain why the Institute's position regarding the impact of gubernatorial elections on Institute policy has shifted. Lt. Col. Wallace responded: "Lt. Gen. Furness is focused on executing VMI's mission as directed by the Board of Visitors. As he told the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Education on Dec. 1, VMI navigates multiple constituencies and stakeholders, including the governor, the general assembly, the VMI board of visitors, parents, alumni, and cadets. VMI complies fully with state and federal laws while continuing to deliver a strong, leadership-focused program that is aligned with VMI's core mission of producing honorable, effective leaders of character." In a follow-up, The Cadet was specific: "Has VMI eliminated DEI programs? Has VMI returned to a meritocracy-based system?" The Cadet followed up twice with Lt. Col. Wallace but has not received a response as of its print deadline for publication at midnight on 9 December 2025. The December 1 hearing transcript complicates simple stories. It shows a superintendent who publicly rejects politicization, praises his board as a legitimate "higher headquarters," and says many outside complaints don't align with what he actually sees on campus. That does not settle the core disputes over Major General Wins's '85 ouster, diversity policy, or gubernatorial influence. However, it clearly shows that many of the strongest accusations against VMI's Board of Visitors—whether from Wins, Carroll Foy, alumni activists, or critics in Richmond—still lack the evidence needed for "misfeasance" under the law. The next chapter in Virginia's governance battle and the Institute's future may turn not on who shouts the word loudest, but on who can actually prove it, and if the upcoming decisions on the BOV are based on factual evidence or political turf battles.