The political landscape surrounding George Mason University has become increasingly contentious as Virginia Democrats call for the university’s board rector, Charles Stimson, to step aside from federal investigations and discussions regarding the future of the university’s president. The crux of their argument lies in Stimson’s affiliation with a conservative think tank, which has recently published a report critical of GMU, raising serious concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
This demand comes in the wake of a state Senate committee’s decision to block numerous gubernatorial appointments to university boards, including several at GMU, which has left the Board of Visitors without the necessary quorum to function effectively. The controversy has been further fueled by a report from the think tank that accused GMU of concealing its diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Stimson’s long-standing association with this organization, where he currently serves as deputy director of the legal and judicial studies center, has led to questions about his impartiality.
In recent months, the Trump administration has also targeted GMU, alleging discriminatory hiring practices and the implementation of unlawful diversity policies, prompting multiple investigations into the university’s operations.
Despite the mounting pressure, GMU President Gregory Washington has remained steadfast, arguing that the federal investigation is rushed and disputing its conclusions. He has also resisted calls for a personal apology. As the Board of Visitors grapples with a lack of quorum amid ongoing legal challenges regarding board appointments, state Democrats are intensifying their efforts to limit Stimson’s influence as rector.
Request for Stimson’s Recusal
Key Democratic leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, have expressed their concerns regarding the implications of the think tank’s report, which suggests withholding federal funds from universities that violate civil rights laws. They argue that Stimson’s role at the think tank poses a direct threat to GMU’s interests.
In their correspondence to Stimson, the lawmakers highlighted the ethical dilemma presented by his dual roles, stating, “This creates an untenable ethical conflict where your employer’s published position is diametrically opposed to your duties as Rector.” Stimson’s appointment to the board, facilitated by Governor Youngkin, has also raised eyebrows, with Democrats questioning whether his affiliation with the think tank influenced his selection.
Given the perceived conflict of interest, the Democratic leaders have urged Stimson to recuse himself from all discussions and decisions related to the university president’s employment, responses to federal investigations, funding strategies, and diversity policies. They have also suggested that if he cannot commit to this recusal, his resignation would be the most appropriate course of action.
Neither Stimson nor GMU officials have publicly responded to these allegations or requests for comment.
Governor Youngkin has countered the Democrats’ claims, accusing them of attempting to undermine the governance of Virginia’s universities through intimidation tactics.
Support from Faculty
As President Washington faces scrutiny from the Trump administration, the support from the Board of Visitors has been a topic of concern. Speculation about Washington’s potential dismissal circulated earlier this year, but the board ultimately decided to retain him.
Faculty members at GMU have rallied behind their president, with protests occurring outside board meetings. The local chapter of the American Association of University Professors has voiced its support for the senators’ letter, emphasizing that Stimson has failed to uphold his fiduciary responsibilities and has overstepped his authority as rector.
The faculty organization has accused Stimson of undermining President Washington’s authority in managing the university’s responses to federal inquiries, which they argue contradicts the established bylaws of the Board of Visitors. They have echoed the call for Stimson to step back from certain board responsibilities, stating that his continued involvement poses a threat to the university’s governance and future.
In a previous vote, the faculty association expressed no confidence in the Board of Visitors, highlighting the growing discontent within the university community regarding leadership and governance issues.