Fact-checking MG Wins: True, False, or Unsubstantiated Claims on His VMI Tenure

Editor's note: The links in this article provide access to the underlying records. They are also posted at the end of the article. For all links to the VMI Office of Assessment and Institutional Research, the figures used were valid with associated working links on March 6, 2025. If the VMI Links are no longer valid or the information is missing, it is because VMI made changes to the site that now make the data unavailable. The Virginia Military Institute's (VMI) Board of Visitors (BOV) decided on February 28, 2025, not to renew Superintendent MG Cedric Wins' contract, a move that sparked heated debate. In response, on March 6, MG Wins published an official statement to the Corps, Faculty, Staff, and Alumni Agencies that was also released to the Washington Post and other media, asserting that the decision was biased and politically motivated rather than a reflection of his performance. He highlighted his administration's achievements, including increased state funding, enrollment growth, and efforts to modernize VMI while preserving its traditions. His claims are significant because they suggest partisan interference in the governance of the nation's oldest state-supported military college. Given VMI's recent history of scrutiny over its culture and policies, The Cadet undertook an investigative fact-check of his claims, analyzing public records, institutional data, and official statements. This investigation reflects our commitment to transparency and accountability in VMI's governance. Under VMI's cherished Honor Code, an official statement is either True or False; there is no allowance for "partial truth," misleading, or misrepresentation. Where claims may be unsubstantiated or misleading, we provide context and pose questions to the Superintendent to clarify or substantiate. Claim: "This decision [not to renew MG Wins' contract] was not based on my performance or the tangible progress we achieved." Conclusion: Unsubstantiated. Supporting Analysis: The statement represents the Superintendent's subjective opinion and lacks substantiating evidence. The Board of Visitors (BOV) decided following a two-hour closed-session discussion in accordance with BOV Bylaws and Virginia law. As detailed in the article " Why the VMI Board of Visitors Remains Silent on Superintendent Controversy, " also published in this issue, the BOV is legally restricted from publicly disclosing the results of the Superintendent's evaluation unless he waives his right to privacy. The Cadet requested that he do so. His assertion raises several unanswered questions that warrant further clarification. Key Questions for MG Wins:1. Did the BOV President provide you with annual performance reviews during your tenure as Superintendent?2. If you were absent during their discussions, how can you assert that the BOV did not base its decision on performance or tangible progress?3. What specifically do you mean by the "partisan choice" you claim the BOV made?4. Did the BOV inform you of its decision, as is standard practice in personnel matters?5. If so, will you agree to release your evaluation results to the public fully? Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: The claim lacks verifiable evidence, making it difficult to assess its accuracy. Without access to the BOV's internal discussions or the Superintendent's evaluation results, no one can determine the basis for the decision. The absence of disclosed performance evaluations leaves room for speculation, and the phrasing of MG Wins' claim could mislead readers into assuming that performance and progress were definitively not factors despite a lack of supporting evidence. The whole context remains unknown without the Superintendent's agreement to release his evaluations. Claim: "It [the BOV decision] is the result of a partisan choice that abandons the values of honor, integrity, and excellence upon which VMI was built." Conclusion: Unsubstantiated. Supporting Analysis: Neither MG Wins nor any other source has published any empirical or otherwise verifiable evidence substantiating this allegation as of the publishing of this issue of The Cadet. As the article in this week's edition of The Cadet on disclosure restrictions covers, the BOV considered the matter as required by Virginia Law and voted according to Virginia Law and the bylaws. Virginia law prohibits them from disclosing any information related to the decision not to extend the Superintendent's contract unless MG Wins agrees to release his evaluations as The Cadet requested MG Wins to do. Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: The claim asserts partisan intent without proof. It argues that political bias, rather than legitimate institutional considerations, drove the decision, which could mislead the public into believing political interference was the decisive factor. It causes a conflation of transparency with wrongdoing, where the BOV's legal inability to disclose details may lead people to interpret it as evidence of a cover-up or unethical behavior, even though it is a standard procedure. Stating that the decision "abandons the values of honor, integrity, and excellence" implies a fundamental ethical failure by the BOV. This claim could be misleading if no one demonstrates dishonorable or unethical actions. If MG Wins possesses evaluations that could clarify the situation but chooses not to release them, he leaves the public with an incomplete picture. This selective withholding could distort perceptions of the BOV's actions and the Superintendent's performance. Key Questions for MG Wins:1. What are the specific instances of honor and integrity violations by the BOV, and what is your supporting evidence that they occurred and were intentional?2. What specific evidence supports the claim that the decision was partisan?3. Did the BOV deviate from standard procedures or demonstrate clear bias in its deliberations?4. Will you release your evaluations to provide additional context? Claim: "I assumed this role amid a worldwide pandemic and intense public scrutiny." Conclusion: True. Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: The claim that MG Wins assumed his role amid a worldwide pandemic and intense public scrutiny is determined to be accurate based on the timing of his appointment, public scrutiny of VMI, and the preexisting Virginia Government stance, but context is essential. MG Wins was appointed interim Superintendent in November 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the BOV confirmed him as Superintendent in April 2021. The global crisis disrupted normal operations at nearly all institutions, including higher education and military academies such as VMI. MG Wins took the lead during a period of heightened external scrutiny of VMI. The scrutiny primarily arose from an investigation launched by then-Governor Ralph Northam's administration concerning allegations of systemic racism at the school, reported publicly in the Washington Post. The Northam administration and its General Assembly allies had already expressed a position on the issue, stating that racism was present at VMI before the investigation even began. This framing ensured that scrutiny of the institution was already widespread when MG Wins took office. MG Wins stated at the time that his internal 45-day assessment supported the findings, even though the investigation was ongoing and before they published the final report. To this day, MG Wins has yet to make his formal, written 45-day assessment report public with the underlying data he used. The fact check confirms intense scrutiny but does not evaluate whether it was justified. Readers might assume that the scrutiny was politically motivated or unfair, while others may believe it was necessary for institutional accountability.While the statement acknowledges the pandemic's presence during MG Wins' appointment, it does not assess its direct impact on his role at VMI. Key Questions for MG Wins:1. How significantly did the pandemic affect VMI's enrollment, finances, and operations during your leadership?2. Did other factors (e.g., alumni, faculty, or your actions) contribute to the scrutiny independent of the Northam administration's investigation?3. Were any internal changes or policy shifts under your leadership that alleviated or intensified public scrutiny? Claim: "I assumed this role amid an enrollment crisis." Conclusion: False. Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: The data trends before and after his tenure show that the claim that MG Wins assumed his role amid an enrollment crisis is false. Enrollment was relatively stable before his arrival and significantly declined after his leadership began. His statement on attrition, external factors, and admissions changes lacks data, which could lead the reader to misrepresent the complexity of the issue. Expanding on these areas would provide a more balanced and comprehensive evaluation. MG Wins' first full year as Superintendent was FY22, with fall 2021 enrollment under his leadership. The significant enrollment decline did not begin until Maj. Gen. Wins assumed his position as the Superintendent. VMI had stable enrollment before MG Wins' Tenure. Data from VMI's Office of Assessment and Institutional Research shows that total enrollment fluctuated slightly from 1,717 in 2015 to 1,698 in 2020, representing only a 1% decline over five years. Between 2018 and 2020, enrollment remained stable, varying by only three cadets. The year MG Wins arrived (FY21), enrollment stood at 1,611, a 3.6% decline from the 2018 peak, which is not indicative of a crisis. Enrollment dropped after MG Wins assumed leadership and continued to decline under his tenure, with 2023 falling below 1,600, 2024 falling below 1,500, and 2025 enrollment at approximately 1,433, indicating a 16%+ drop during his leadership. There are no preexisting crisis indicators. Consistent enrollment before 2021 suggests no "crisis" when MG Wins took over. A 3.6% drop from a peak year (2018) does not constitute a crisis, especially given fluctuations in any academic institution. The notable decline after 2021 suggests the factors during his tenure, rather than existing conditions, caused the enrollment crisis. Lack of attrition and cadet retention data. VMI does not publicize class attrition data, meaning the reasons for student departures remain unclear. Without exit surveys or retention data, it is difficult to determine if students are leaving due to leadership changes, academic challenges, cultural shifts, or external factors. Admission standards changed under MG Wins, so a corresponding decline in enrollment might suggest a different issue: fewer matriculants or lower retention due to changing institutional expectations and policies. Unless VMI allows access to this data, objective conclusions are not possible, and it does not prove Maj. Gen. Wins' claims. VMI's data show that not only did no enrollment crisis exist before MG Wins assumed his role as Superintendent, but arguably, VMI has been experiencing one recently, despite significant increases in the acceptance rate and a reduction in other standards, as we cover below. VMI Corps average enrollment rate over the last decade - The Cadet Staff Claim: "We increased state funding by 50% ...." Conclusion: True. Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: The claim that state funding increased by 50% is accurate, but the actual percentage depends on the calculation source. The claim that state funding increased by 50% is technically valid, but the increase varies depending on the data source and budget adjustments. We must consider the role of the BOV in budget approvals, potential external funding factors, and discrepancies in reported figures to prevent misunderstanding that the increase was solely due to MG Wins' leadership. State Funding Increased Between FY21 and FY24. Depending on the data source, state funding increased by 50.6% (VMI Operating Budget numbers) or 39.0% (Virginia Department of Planning and Budget - DPB data). The discrepancy of $2,322,469 between VMI's published budget and the DPB's actual distributions remains unexplained, though the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) analyst, The Cadet, consulted, suggests VMI's budget should align closely with DPB data, "…the assumption is VMI's budget would be close to the actual SCHEV Data." The amount of state funding received must also be adjusted for the FY21 Budget under MG Wins' Predecessor. The FY21 budget went into effect on July 1, 2020, before MG Wins became interim Superintendent in November 2020 and official Superintendent in April 2021. Since the FY21 budget was created under his predecessor, recalculating the increase from FY22–FY24 results in a 49.2% increase (VMI Operating Budget method, down from 50.6%) or a 37.5% (DPB method, down from 39.0%). A comparison to funding increases under MG Wins' predecessor is also relevant. For the last four years under the previous Superintendent (FY17–FY20), state funding increased between 21.2% and 26.7%, depending on the data source. Under MG Wins (FY21–FY24), the state funding increase was between 19.4% and 12.3%. This means state funding increased significantly, but not at a notably higher rate than under his predecessor. MG Wins' claim does not correctly share credit. The Board of Visitors (BOV) reviews, approves, and advocates for budgets before submission. Since the BOV actively secured funding, it is essential to clarify that the "we" in MG Wins' statement includes the BOV and not solely himself or his administration, separate from them. The claim is also missing the needed information. It does not include the source of increased funding or explain why state funding increased. Common examples beyond the control or influence of MG Wins' administration include statewide increases in higher education funding, targeted legislative efforts unrelated to MG Wins' leadership, and economic conditions affecting state budgets. Without this context, the statement might give the false impression that the increase was solely due to MG Wins' efforts and advocacy. The claim does not explain how VMI used the additional funding to positively impact cadets. It does not show whether the increased funding benefited VMI's programs, infrastructure, or student outcomes, or by what metric the administration measured success. The number might be misleading if state funding rose, but officials did not allocate it effectively. The discrepancy between budget figures and actual appropriations raises concern. The $2.32 million difference between VMI's published budget and DPB's appropriations is unexplained. This could indicate accounting differences, fund transfers, or misreporting, which may need further clarification. The Cadet will continue to explore this. MG Wins' statement also creates several potential misinterpretations. "We increased state funding by 50%" may mislead people into thinking MG Wins' administration achieved it alone. In reality, previous budget cycles contributed to the funding increase, the BOV approved budgets and advocated for funding, and other statewide factors influenced the increase. While 50% is accurate using one calculation method, the actual increase could be closer to 37.5% when considering the appropriations data. Overstating the scale of the increase without acknowledging the possibility of a lower percentage could make the claim appear inflated. Without comparing budget increases under his predecessor, one might assume MG Wins' leadership caused an unprecedented funding boost, which is not entirely accurate. Claim: "We… secured over $321 million to upgrade our facilities." Conclusion: False Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: A Breakdown of the $321 million shows MG Wins did not secure the funds claimed. The VMI Master Plan (Page 55) lists nine projects totaling $325,065,673. Only the first five projects ($190,291,869) were fully funded, while full funding has not been secured for items six through nine ($134,733,084). The Superintendent claims credit for securing key project funding removed from VMI's budget, which inflated his achievement. The General Assembly removed funding for the Center for Leadership and Ethics Phase 2 before MG Wins' statement, yet he still claimed to have secured it. While MG Wins secured the $190.3 million, his claim inflates his impact by falsely including unfunded projects. The credit for securing funding also belongs to the BOV, the state legislature, and others. Missing information misrepresents the Superintendent's alleged achievements. Failing to clarify which funds his leadership secured and which he inherited creates a VMI Capital projects MG Wins claims he secured funding for. - VMI Master Plan false impression. Without explaining how to secure future funding for the remaining projects, claiming funding credit becomes premature. By failing to be truthful, the statement includes significant misrepresentations. MG Win directly claims he has "secured" all $321 million, but over $134 million remains unfunded. It disregards the roles of other stakeholders (BOV, past leadership, and the General Assembly). Claim: "We reversed a 10-year decline in admissions." Conclusion: False Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: The Superintendent's statement is misleading because of the misuse of the term "Admitted." It implies that applicants who applied matriculated when "Admissions" refers to acceptance letters, not matriculation. Simply sending more acceptance letters does not equate to more cadets enrolling. Actual enrollment data contradicts the claim. 2014–2020 actual Rat enrollment (Office of Assessment & Institutional Research) averaged 508. Actual Rat enrollment during MG Wins' 2021–2024 tenure was only 465 (-4 %). In 2022, VMI budgeted for a 500 Rat enrollment, but only 374 matriculated (the most considerable loss). The average three-year Rat enrollment prior to his arrival was 517. The decline worsened under MG Wins. As previously reported in The Cadet, based on a blended in-state and out-of-state tuition calculation, the Rat Class shortfall in 2022 alone cost VMI ~$5 million. MG Wins' statement lacks significant information. The Superintendent fails to prove that a decline existed before he took office, even though data suggests enrollment was stable before 2020. MG Wins' statement could result in several significant misinterpretations. The claim states VMI was in a 10-year decline in admissions when the data says there was no decline. He claims he reversed a decline in admissions, but the data show that total enrollment and Rat enrollment declined under his tenure. VMI Average Rat enrollment over the last decade - The Cadet Staff Claim: "We boosted Pell Grant enrollment with a $3.8 million grant." Conclusion: True Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: MG Wins' administration did secure the $3.8 million grant. The available data shows no contradictions but fails to explain how the funds were distributed or their long-term impact. Without more context, the claim does not indicate whether this was an exceptional achievement or a routine grant acquisition, which could lead to misinterpretation. Claim: "We… maintained budget surpluses when most people expected deficits." Conclusion: True. Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: The statement does not explain why VMI expected deficits. Due to the 126 cadet shortfall in the 2022 Rat class under MG Wins, VMI lost ~$5 million in revenue. The Finance Committee reported during that Jan. 2023 BOV meeting, "…this year's class with 120 short $5 million a year, four years, $20 million -- we'll be very short. Two million a year, $8 million. So, a $28 million issue." While enrollment trends began to recover in 2023, levels remain below historical averages. As a result of this failure, the BOV budgeted for a deficit, expecting financial strain. The administration avoided deficits through cost-saving measures, but these cuts likely impacted cadets and operations. Missing information can lead to incorrect conclusions and misinterpretations. The exact budget surplus figures are not publicly available, and the impact of cost savings on cadet life and institutional quality is not disclosed. The claim suggests fiscal success but does not acknowledge that cost-cutting may have negatively impacted cadets. For example, current cadets are well aware of uniform changes, such as soft shoulder boards with class dykes, which the Corps learned were introduced to save them money. Also, the Grey Blouse, once worn every evening to supper, as supper is formal, is now to be worn only on days of parade, as the constant cleaning and maintenance of the Grey Blouse due to continual wear is now deemed too expensive. Cadets concerned about their health have reported finding large amounts of black mold in their restroom showers, despite constant complaints and a lack of apparent effort or confirmation of its removal. The Corps has yet to see any fruition of these "budget surpluses," which have cost them tradition and, to an extent, their health. Claim: "We fought for the resources to implement salary adjustments that addressed compression and competitive factors for the VMI workforce." Conclusion: Likely True but Unsubstantiated Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: It is true that salary increases occurred, but not that they were "fought for." VMI employees received salary increases from FY21 to FY25 under MG Wins, totaling 20%. MG Wins' predecessor (FY15–FY20) secured 12.5%. However, many salary increases were state-mandated by governors and not unique to VMI. State funding covers only ~40% of the most recent salary increase. So when MG Wins extended the increase to all VMI employees, the Institute had to secure additional funding for specific staff, particularly athletics and non-state-funded employees. The documentation specifying which positions received raises and how they were funded is missing, along with confirmation of whether the funding source guarantees full funding and long-term sustainability. The lack of this vital information and context could lead to misinterpretation. The statement suggests that VMI independently secured the increases, but many were state-mandated. This implies that the increases are fully funded in the out-years, but future salary issues could arise without knowing if the funding is sustainable. Claim: "We launched the Call to Duty scholarship program—awarding $2.4 million to 172 cadets." Conclusion: True but Misleading Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: The program was a response to losing ROTC Cadets to The Citadel. VMI lost potential cadets to The Citadel's Armed Forces Scholarship Program, which offers room and board support. In response, the BOV and Alumni Agencies created the Call to Duty Program, modeled on the Citadel Program, to compete. The alumni agencies, not the state or VMI, fund the program, so its long-term sustainability is unclear and dependent upon donations. No evidence suggests permanent funding has been secured. No publicly available data confirms or refutes that 172 cadets received funding. The Superintendent's statement lacks a confirmation that the program is fully funded for future years and precise documentation of the exact number of beneficiaries. This creates the opportunity for misinterpretation. The claim implies that VMI's administration independently created, launched, and funded the program when, in reality, it was copied from The Citadel's successful one and an Alumni Agencies-funded effort. The program's long-term sustainability is not guaranteed. Key Questions for MG Wins:1. Is this program fully funded for the upcoming academic year?2. Has funding been secured to allow this program to continue? Claim: "We…reinforced our class and regimental systems…" Conclusion: Unsubstantiated. Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: MG Wins fails to provide any evidence to substantiate this claim. Alumni who graduated during MG Wins' tenure, several current cadets contacted by The Cadet, and previous reporting in The Cadet and other sources dispute that his administration reinforced the class and regimental systems. Although no statistically valid survey of the Corps is available, many opine that his administration weakened these systems. This metric is best measured and reported on by the Corps writ large. MG Wins' administration actively worked to prevent The Cadet from conducting surveys in this area. MG Wins' claim lacks specific actions or policies enacted by MG Wins to reinforce these systems. It does not provide objective metrics demonstrating improvement or a justification for restricting cadet-led surveys, which could validate or refute the claim. When asked during The Cadet's award-winning Initial Voice of the Corps survey in Feb 2022, whether the administration's decisions represent the cadets' voice, an overwhelming majority, 88%, reported that the decisions either mostly do not or do not. Additionally, 85% reported that the VMI Office of Communications and Marketing publications do not adequately convey cadet grievances most of the time or always. 67% disagreed with the changes made to the Honor System, 88% responded that they could not voice their displeasure with changes to the Corps system, and 73.5% did not agree with how VMI was being run. Not a single respondent expressed trust in the administration to preserve the VMI ethos or to look out for the best interests of the Corps. Initial results of The Cadet Survey of the Corps on the Board of Visitors' decision not to extend MG Wins' contract. - By Cadet Staff Since 2021, the administration has refused to allow The Cadet to distribute these Voice of the Corps surveys. Recently, after the Corps S-7 unilaterally distributed one to gather the Corps' opinions on missing the recent Presidential Inaugural parade, the administration directed him not to distribute any additional surveys. In a Feb. 2025 survey on this year's Ratline, The Cadet distributed by word of mouth and social media, 83.78% of cadet respondents believed that someone other than the Corps controlled the system. To date, in the ongoing survey by The Cadet asking the Corps, "Do you AGREE with the Board of Visitors' decision NOT to renew or extend the Superintendent's contract and for him to leave June 30, 2025?" 53.75% of current cadets responded "Most Definitely Agree" and 17.50% "Mostly Agree" for 71.25%. The administration still will not allow it to be sent using the Corps email list to reach all cadets. The issues continue to be the subject of articles and opinions in The Cadet. Key Questions for MG Wins:1. How do you define "reinforced" the Regimental and Class Systems?2. What examples can you provide that your administration reinforced the class and regimental systems with supporting objective or empirical evidence?3. Will you remove the prohibition your staff gave the Regimental S-7 and allow him to distribute surveys to the Corps from The Cadet so we can obtain their position and views on your claims? Claim: "Under my leadership, VMI earned a five-star ranking from Money Magazine- the only senior military college to receive this honor…" Conclusion: True but Misleading. Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: VMI achieved a five-star ranking from Money magazine during MG Wins' tenure, but context is essential. High rankings are nothing new to VMI. A 2019 VMI release boasted that U.S. News and the Wall Street Journal had again ranked VMI highly, noting that VMI climbed from the 82nd position in the previous year to the 81st position in U.S. News and World Report. A 2020 VMI publication, VMI Highly Ranked by Major Publications, notes VMI's high rankings for the sixth year in a row in U.S. News and World Report, Money, and Washington Monthly, which released their college rankings in August and September. At the time, Money magazine did not use a "star rating" but a ranking system. According to VMI at the time, "Money magazine ranked VMI 26th among colleges and universities nationwide, a jump of more than 20 placings from 2019's rankings." VMI noted high rankings in 2021, VMI Again Ranked Highly by Major Publications as it did in 2022, VMI Again Ranked Highly by U.S. News and World Report, 2023, VMI Again Ranked Highly by U.S. News and World Report, and in 2024, U.S. News Rankings: VMI Climbs in National Liberal Arts Colleges, Placed in Top Third. It is also essential to understand how these publications develop their rankings. They tend to use data from the past rather than a snapshot of current data. The Money magazine star rating, MG Wins, cites some current data to rate colleges, including data from the most recent academic year. Quality metrics include graduation rates, peer quality, and instructor access. Affordability is considered in terms of net price, debt, and repayment ability. Outcomes focus on earnings, employment, and economic mobility. The small class sizes at VMI are an advantage, but "affordability" is misleading and may skew the scoring. Money magazine used the median annual salaries of $77,000 ten years after graduation in its scoring, so these were graduates produced under the previous administration and not MG Wins'. The credit in this area goes to his predecessor. Money magazine used the 2024-25 in-state tuition of $35,100 for the "affordability" evaluation, not the $65,198 out-of-state tuition or an average of the two. This could skew the affordability rating as, according to VMI's 2024 fact sheet, out-of-state cadets comprise 40% of the Corps. Unquestionably, VMI continued to receive high rankings, but that is not a significant performance indicator. VMI's rankings did not impact former Governor Northam's decision to force MG Wins' predecessor to resign. As presented, MG Wins' claims could lead to misrepresentations by attributing a long-standing trend of high rankings to a single administration and overstating the impact of his leadership on these rankings. Key Question for MG Wins:How does VMI's Money magazine ranking substantiate your claim that the BOV did not approve a new contract due to bias against you? Claim: "Under my leadership, our athletic teams achieved milestones, including our first conference championship since 1977." Conclusion: True but misleading. Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: While it is true that VMI won the 2020 Southern Conference Championship during MG Wins' tenure, the team's success was due to leadership decisions made before his arrival. The prior administration appointed the coaching staff and athletic director responsible for the victory. Additionally, the team's performance declined in subsequent seasons following leadership changes. MG Wins arrived as the interim Superintendent in November of 2020. The BOV approved him as the Superintendent in April 2021. In April 2021, VMI won the 2020 Southern Conference Championship in football. Due to COVID-19, the 2020 football season ran from February to April 2021 as a spring season. VMI had a 6 - 2 record. It ended in April of the same month he became a full-time Superintendent. MG Wins was merely present at VMI when the team won its first Conference Championship since 1977, but his personnel hire and policy decisions had no impact on that win. The combination of Athletic Director Dave Diles and Coach Scott Wachenheim remained from the previous administration and took the team to victory before being replaced. VMI had two seasons after both Diles and Wachenheim departed, with a combined record of 6 – 17. MG Wins' statement creates the opportunity for misinterpretation by implying that his leadership directly contributed to the championship and omitting the role of prior leadership in building the winning team. Claim: "What I can attest to since my arrival is I placed the right emphasis on repairing the culture and climate and charting a way forward for VMI. I prioritized cadets by providing the best for their safety, education, and well-being…Unfortunately, the winds of resistance by the few have drowned out those who desire to bring the Institute into the 21st Century while maintaining the right traditions." Conclusion: Unsubstantiated. Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: This statement is subjective and lacks concrete evidence. While MG Wins claims to have repaired VMI's culture and climate, cadet surveys indicate dissatisfaction with his administration. This claim remains unverified without objective measures of cultural improvement, such as cadet retention, leadership feedback, or alumni support. It implies, without proof, that he brought VMI into the 21st Century. Gen. Peay's Vision 2039 was widely regarded as modernizing VMI and bringing it into the 21st Century because that is the plan they followed, but that is beyond the scope of The Cadet's fact check. His statement is missing important information, including the specific initiatives undertaken to repair culture and climate, and lacks any empirical data showing improvement in these areas. Key Questions for MG Wins:1. What needs to be repaired in the culture and climate, and how can a way forward for VMI be charted?2. What did you do to accomplish it?3. What were the measurable results?4. How specifically did you prioritize cadets by providing the best for their safety, education, and well-being? What are the "winds of resistance," and who are "the few" who you claim "have drowned out those who desire to bring the Institute into the 21st century while maintaining the right traditions."? Claim: "My tenure will end because bias, emotion, and ideology rather than sound judgment swayed the Board. Their actions undermine the rich legacy of VMI for political gain. Instead of advancing this school from a crucible for principled leaders rooted in our values and a training ground that finds worth in cadets from diverse backgrounds, we risk returning to an obsessive focus on our distant past, believing it will produce tomorrow's leaders of character. I think their choice to subject cadets to a cycle of politicization is a misfeasance that endangers VMI and the future of our nation." Conclusion: Unsubstantiated. Reasoning and Potential Misinterpretations: This claim suggests political motivation without evidence. The BOV follows a standardized evaluation process, and no public evidence supports allegations of bias. The BOV, consisting of sixteen highly qualified individuals, conducted its annual performance rating in a closed session as required by its Bylaws and state law. MG Wins was not in the room for those discussions and has no first-hand knowledge. This is the same process used for every Superintendent. The only first-hand account of what occurred in the closed session comes from a Washington Post interview with former BOV President and member Mr. Tom Watjen, a strong advocate for Wins, who was a part of that closed session. Watjen voted to extend Wins' contract and resigned after the vote. Still, according to the Washington Post, "Watjen said that while he can 'understand' Wins's allegation that the board's decision was biased 'that's not necessarily the way I feel.'" This does not substantiate MG Wins' claim. The burden of proof lies with MG Wins; no concrete examples of political motivations have been provided. As presented, his statement can lead to misinterpretations, such as suggesting a conspiracy without evidence and disregarding the standard evaluation process followed by all superintendents. Key Questions for MG Wins:1. Can you provide concrete examples of how you reinforced the class and regimental systems?2. Why did your administration prohibit cadet-led surveys that could validate or refute your claims?3. How do you justify attributing VMI's long-standing high rankings to your tenure when the data used predates your administration?4. Can you specify your actions that contributed to the 2020 football championship?5. What empirical data support your claim of repairing VMI's culture and climate?6. What specific evidence do you have to support claims of bias in the BOV's decision? In conclusion, throughout MG Wins' tenure as Superintendent, numerous concerns have been raised, including legal disputes, a Court sanction for providing false and misleading information, alleged violations of free speech, tuition, and fee increases, transparency regarding cadet fees, disciplinary issues within the Corps, and a growing divide between cadets and athletes that may be factors in the BOV's decision. However, this fact-checking report is focused solely on verifying the accuracy of MG Wins' public statements. Maj. Gen. Wins' statements range from true but lacking context to false or unsubstantiated. While his administration achieved some successes, his claims often omit key details, exaggerate his role, or misrepresent data. While some statements are technically accurate, they usually lack crucial context. Several key claims, particularly those related to funding and enrollment, are either inflated or contradicted by available data. Although specific achievements occurred during his tenure, MG Wins has not provided sufficient documentation to substantiate disputed points, and in multiple cases, the evidence does not support his assertions. This analysis highlights discrepancies between MG Wins' statements and available data, emphasizing the need for transparency and verifiable evidence. To ensure transparency, The Cadet method reviewed publicly available records and authoritative data sources to give the VMI community a fact-based analysis and encourage informed discussion. The online version of this article includes direct links to these documents, allowing readers to verify the findings and draw their conclusions independently. As part of this investigation, The Cadet submitted formal inquiries to the Superintendent through his Director of Communications and Marketing and to the VMI Alumni Agencies. As of the publication deadline, no responses had been received. While records may exist to substantiate the Superintendent's claims, neither he, his staff, nor the Alumni Agencies have provided such documentation. This analysis is based on data from multiple credible sources, including VMI's online operating budgets, the VMI data dashboard maintained by the Office of Assessment and Institutional Research, the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), public college tracking databases utilizing U.S. Department of Education data, and other publicly accessible records from VMI and the Board of Visitors (BOV). The Cadet remains committed to transparency and factual reporting. We invite MG Wins to publicly release his performance evaluations and any verifiable evidence that could substantiate his claims and address the discrepancies identified in this investigation. Did the Board of Visitors make the right decision not to renew MG Wins' contract? Take the survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WINSALUM The Cadet remains true to its founding by cadets with alumni support in 1871 by remaining independent of VMI and the Alumni Agencies. Please help us remain so by donating to The Cadet Foundation at: https://thecadetfoundation.org/participate-and-support/