Spanberger's HB 1377 substitute would shift VMI review from an outside task force to the BOV

Gov. Abigail Spanberger's substitute for HB 1377 (task force to examine higher education at Virginia Military Institute) would make a basic but consequential change to how Virginia reviews the Virginia Military Institute (VMI): It would replace the independent task force created by the enrolled bill with a review led by VMI's own Board of Visitors (BOV). It comes after thousands of cadets, alumni, parents, and others voiced their support through The Cadet Foundation's Action Dashboard; Members of Congress and national organizations challenged HB 1377; and over 17 Virginia County Boards of Supervisors, representing over 12% of the voting population, opposed the bill in a grassroots effort. That shift is at the center of the current debate because the enrolled bill and the governor's amendment do more than assign the work to different bodies. They frame the problem differently, ask different questions, and reflect different ideas of accountability. What changedThe enrolled version of HB 1377 and the governor's substitute both call for further review of VMI, but they do so in materially different ways. The enrolled bill, as sent to Gov. Spanberger, would create an outside task force composed of legislators, a representative from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), and civilian members with expertise in higher education and student welfare. It would direct that body to review VMI's response to the 2021 SCHEV report that followed former Gov. Ralph Northam's ordered equity review of the institute, and to consider additional changes needed to move VMI away from the Lost Cause and toward what the bill describes as a more inclusive environment. It would also require a broader review of graduation rates, graduate outcomes, academic rigor, whether VMI's offerings meet Virginia's defense and non-defense needs, and whether legislative or budget changes are warranted. The enrolled bill also made those concerns explicit in its findings. It cited persistent racial and gender disparities identified in the 2021 SCHEV review and stated that the BOV ended the tenure of Maj. Gen. Cedric Wins, VMI's first Black Superintendent, after his efforts to address what the review alleged, without supporting evidence, were racism, discrimination, sexual assault, and harassment at the institute. The governor's substitute keeps a review of VMI's response to the 2021 report, but it narrows and reframes the inquiry. Instead of an outside task force, it assigns the work to VMI's own BOV. Under the substitute, the Board would examine VMI's responsiveness to the 2021 report, audit actions taken by VMI leadership, analyze admissions data, and make recommendations to the governor and General Assembly, while retaining authority to explore other questions it identifies.What the substitute removes is also central to the debate. It does not preserve the enrolled bill's findings about persistent racial and gender disparities, does not mention Wins, and does not foreground racism, sexism, misogyny, Confederate symbolism, or the Lost Cause in the same direct way. The BOV could still review those issues indirectly through VMI's response to the 2021 report, but the study no longer assigns them to an independent outside body or states them plainly. That difference helps explain why the dispute over HB 1377 is now as much about accountability as about scope. Supporters of the enrolled bill say the point was to create independent scrutiny of VMI's culture, governance, and reform record. Supporters of the governor's substitute can argue that it preserves review while placing responsibility with the institution's existing governing structure. The choice before lawmakers is not whether VMI will be reviewed, but who will do the reviewing and how directly the law will frame the issues under examination. Why the shift mattersFor supporters of the original bill, that is the point. They argue that the design of HB 1377 was as an independent accountability measure and that moving the review to the Board changes the character of the bill from outside oversight to internal review. In that reading, the state would no longer be asking an external body to scrutinize VMI's governance and reform record; it would be asking VMI's governing Board to do so itself. Supporters of the amendment can make the opposite case. They can argue that the substitute narrows the scope of the bill, removes some of the most expansive, accusatory, and predetermined conclusions from the enrolled version, and places responsibility on the body already charged with governing VMI. From that view, the change is less about weakening accountability than about using an existing structure to conduct a targeted review and report back to state officials.The dispute is also shaped by what the amended bill does not address. What outside critics say is still missing.The Alumni Free Speech Alliance (AFSA) resolution, the Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services (STARRS) open letter to the President of the United States (POTUS) and Secretary of War (SecWar), and a March letter from members of Congress to POTUS and SecWar previously reported on in The Cadet frame HB 1377 and related legislation less as a state oversight issue than as a federal military-readiness issue. Those documents argue that changes affecting VMI, a federally recognized Senior Military College (SMC), could implicate Title 10, officer commissioning pipelines, federal supremacy, and national defense readiness. They call for reviews by the Department of Defense (DOD), the Secretary of Education, and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and, in some cases, for federal participation in any task force examining VMI to ensure transparency, objectivity, and proper inclusion of federal equities. Neither the enrolled HB 1377 nor the governor's substitute addresses those requests or the argument raised by outside critics that complaints involving racial discrimination and similar allegations fall primarily within the jurisdiction of federal agencies and that SCHEV has historically deferred such complaints to those authorities. The amendment includes no federal review requirement, no mandated Title 10 or readiness analysis, no DOD participation, no federal monitoring mechanism, and no role for outside nonpartisan groups of the kind some critics say would be necessary to ensure fairness and transparency. The AFSA resolution also argues that the legislative framing around Wins excludes inquiry into whether retaliation, suppression of protected expression, and governance failures, especially regarding cadets, contributed to the leadership dispute cited by lawmakers. The amended bill does not expressly direct any inquiry into those questions either. That omission matters because it highlights the competing concerns now surrounding HB 1377. Critics from one direction say the substitute weakens independent state oversight of VMI and blunts scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding Wins' tenure. Critics on the other side say neither version adequately addresses what they view as federal military and constitutional concerns tied to VMI's status as a Senior Military College, nor does it ensure that all voices are heard and considered in an open and transparent process. The case for the governor's amendmentBackers of the governor's substitute can make a different argument. The amendment removes some of the most expansive features of the enrolled bill. It narrows the inquiry to VMI's response to the 2021 SCHEV report, diversity and admissions data, and recommendations for improvement. From that perspective, the substitute avoids creating another politically charged external task force. Instead, it uses the BOV, the body already charged with VMI governance, to carry out the work. Supporters could argue that this is a more practical route: faster, less duplicative, and more likely to produce recommendations without reopening every battle over VMI's role, funding, and future structure. They could also argue that the substitute still preserves legislative visibility because the Board's report would go to both the governor and the General Assembly. But opponents counter that legislative visibility is not the same as legislative independence. VMI's earlier postureVMI's own earlier posture has become part of that debate. The AFSA and STARRS materials cite public remarks by Superintendent Lt. Gen. David Furness, who stated that "VMI has nothing to hide" and that the institute did "not fear a fair and balanced investigation." Critics of the substitute say those statements were widely understood as support for independent review in the enrolled bill and are harder to reconcile with a Board-led process. That tension matters politically. If VMI leadership had signaled openness to an independent examination when the original bill was advancing, the move to a Board-led review invites fresh scrutiny of whether the institute is still supporting the same level of outside inquiry it appeared willing to accept earlier in the session, and questions the reason for the change in position. The Corps' voiceUnlike others quoted in some media outlets who choose to remain anonymous in their allegations or decline to release their records so an objective review of their allegations can be conducted, the first-hand accounts of the Corps' leadership support the position by The Cadet Foundation and other groups that no study, regardless of who conducts it, is necessary. Just a sample of those in the public record includes: "VMI is the most inclusive environment I have ever been a part of." [Fox News] – Cadet Devin Auzenne '26, Regimental Commander '26 (African-American, male) "The merit-based dynamic is not incidental. It is the foundation to the institute's culture and to the development of future leaders." – Cadet Michael Ferrara '26, Regimental S3 Captain (White American, male) "What has mattered most to me at VMI is the sense of belonging and the shared commitment among cadets." – Cadet Anastasia Herrell '26, Third Battalion Commander (Greek-American, female) "The shared unity, perseverance, and willingness to stand and struggle alongside the person next to us, our brother rats, are what we gain from this institution." – Cadet Carla Feaster '27, Color Sergeant(Mixed Black and Hispanic- American, female) "I had a phrase engraved on my [VMI] ring: 'You must justify the space you occupy.'… It signifies to me that this place is as equal as it comes." – Cadet Maximus Ankrah '26, Color Sergeant (Son of Ghana emigrants – Black-American, male) "To diminish or dismantle such a system [VMI] is not merely an institutional decision; it is a statement about what kinds of leaders the Commonwealth believes are worth cultivating." – Cadet Matthew Assouad '27, Second Class President (Afghanistan and Iraq Combat Veteran, male) "The preservation of VMI as an institution of higher learning is imperative to ensuring that students from all races, religions, and backgrounds continue to receive the highest degree of academic rigor, leadership training, and physical development offered within the borders of Virginia." – Cadet Caleb Chandler '27, Class Historian (Afghanistan and Iraq Combat Veteran, male) "…VMI is a community. A family that transcends race, culture, orientation, creed, and beliefs." – Cadet Devin Auzenne, Regimental Commander '26 (African American) The struggle for who controls the study on both sides lacks consideration of these perspectives and fails to provide an objectively supported justification of the need for any study. What comes nextWhat happens next is procedurally complicated but politically important. During the reconvened session, the General Assembly may only vote on the Governor's amendments and vetoes. They are not able to offer any amendments or changes at that time. The General Assembly will vote on the Governor's Amendment. If the Governor's proposal is voted down, there are a few options: First, the General Assembly, with a two-thirds vote of both houses, can vote for the bill to become law without the Governor's signature. This avoids the bill being returned to her desk for further consideration.Second, if the motion is not made to have the Bill become Law without the governor's signature. If it does not meet the two-thirds requirement, the bill goes back to the Governor, where she can either sign the bill in its original form or veto it outright. She does have the opportunity to propose additional amendments that could extend the process further. The vote history shows both why backers of the enrolled bill can argue they have a real base of support and why the two-thirds supermajority path remains difficult. According to public sources from the Virginia General Assembly websites, on initial House passage, HB 1377 passed 71-24: 62 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted yes; 24 Republicans voted no; and 5 members were absent, including 2 Democrats and 3 Republicans. In the Senate, the bill passed 21-19 on initial floor vote, with all 21 Democrats voting yes and all 19 Republicans voting no. On the final conference report, the House approved the bill 66-29: 61 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted yes; 29 Republicans voted no; and 4 members were absent, including 3 Democrats and 1 Republican. The Senate approved the conference report 21-18, again with all 21 Democrats voting yes, 18 Republicans voting no, and one Republican absent. Those tallies show clear bipartisan support in the House and consistent Democratic support in the Senate. However, the votes also show that supporters would still need to add substantial Republican backing to reach a two-thirds vote in both chambers. That earlier bipartisan House support did not emerge in a vacuum. After the House amended HB 1377 to remove language threatening VMI's state funding, Superintendent Lt. Gen. David Furness said VMI was "pleased to offer its support" for the bill and praised the House's "bipartisan efforts" in revising it. At the same time, VMI Alumni Agencies launched a "Mobilize for VMI" campaign, urging alumni, parents, cadets, and supporters to contact legislators and visit Richmond, while its bill-tracking page described HB 1377 as a compromise measure that would create a task force to study VMI's practices, governance, and response to the 2021 SCHEV report. Regardless of the outcome, if the Board conducts the study and makes significant changes to VMI in terms of policy, memorials, further elimination, or "contextualizing" VMI's history during the Civil War and before, the responsibility for those would remain with the BOV. Why should you care?The dispute over HB 1377 is now about more than bill language. It is about who gets to define accountability at VMI. For supporters of the original enrolled bill, the answer was supposed to be an outside task force with legislative and civilian participation, especially after the turbulence surrounding the 2021 SCHEV report and the tenure of Cedric Wins. For supporters of the governor's substitute, the answer appears to be a narrower review conducted through VMI's own governing structure, and eliminating inquiry into the Board's actions surrounding the decision on the former Superintendent's contract. That difference is not merely procedural. It goes to the heart of whether the Commonwealth wants an external investigation of VMI's culture and governance or an internal review by the Board, which will soon be controlled by Governor Spanberger's appointees. The new Board majority includes the former governor, who directed and supported the previous controversial 2021 equity audit. And because the substitute removes the enrolled bill's direct framing around Wins while also omitting the federal readiness and outside monitoring concerns raised in the AFSA and congressional documents, both sides are likely to argue that the stakes extend beyond this one legislative session. As of the publication of this edition of The Cadet, as of 23 April, is approved by Governor‑Chapter 1097 (effective 7/1/2026), and The Cadet will continue to monitor and report. Copies of the enrolled Bill and the governor's amendment, as well as other relevant source documents, are available with the online version of this article at www.cadetnewspaper.com. Send your comment on this directly to the BOV using this link: www.thecadetfoundation.org/action VMI or its alumni agencies do not provide support to The Cadet. Please help us remain one of the oldest independent student newspapers in Virginia through a donation at www.thecadetfoundation.org