June 1, 2021

Commonwealth of Virginia
State Council of Higher Education for Virginia
Peter A. Blake, Director
Procurement Office – 10th floor
James Monroe Building
101 North 14th Street
Richmond, VA 23219

“MARCHING TOWARD INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE: AN EQUITY AUDIT

AND INVESTIGATION OF THE VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE”

FINAL REPORT OF THE BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Executive summary......................................................................................... 2

II. Objectives of the investigation and audit ................................................ 16

III. Investigative procedures and methodologies ......................................... 17

A. Survey.................................................................................................... 17

B. Interviews ............................................................................................. 19

1. Interview metrics ..................................................................... 19

2. Limitations on interviews ...................................................... 22

C. Focus groups ........................................................................................ 24

1. Cadet focus groups .................................................................. 24

2. Faculty and administration focus groups .......................... 25

D. Telephone number and email for contacting the Special

Investigation Team ............................................................................. 26

E. Documents produced by VMI ........................................................... 27

1. Document metrics .................................................................... 27

2. Limitations on documents ..................................................... 27

F. A final note about maintaining an independent

investigation ........................................................................................ 30

IV. Results of the audit and investigation...................................................... 31

A. Immediate threats of violence or evidence of civil rights

violations .............................................................................................. 31

B. Climate of racial intolerance ........................................................... 32

1. Use of racial slurs..................................................................... 32

2. Perceptions about whether there is a climate of

racial intolerance at VMI ....................................................... 38

i
C. Demographic information about VMI as compared to
other higher-education institutions ............................................... 44

1. Student-body demographics .................................................. 44

2. Faculty demographics............................................................. 50

D. The divide between athlete and non-athlete cadets ................... 53

E. Disciplinary systems at VMI............................................................. 63

1. Overview of VMI’s disciplinary systems ............................. 63

a. The regimental system ................................................. 63

b. Cadet government, including the class system

and the Rat Line ............................................................ 64

c. The Honor Court............................................................ 66

d. Oversight by VMI administration .............................. 67

2. Perceptions within the VMI community of the

disciplinary systems ................................................................ 67

a. Perceptions of the regimental system ...................... 67

b. Perceptions of the cadet government,

including the class system and the Rat Line .......... 71

c. Honor Court data analysis .......................................... 76

i. Honor Court process .......................................... 76

ii. Composition of the Court.................................. 80

iii. The “education” exception ............................... 80

iv. Guilty verdicts since 2011 ................................. 81

d. Current cadet perceptions about the honor

system .............................................................................. 83

i. General comments .............................................. 83

ii. Honor Court policies and procedures............ 86

iii. Honor Code actionable conduct ...................... 87

ii
 iv. Honor Court juries ............................................. 89

e. Alumni perception about the honor system ............ 90

f. Recommendations relating to the Honor

Court ................................................................................ 97

F. Responsiveness to complaints versus a culture of silence ........ 99

G. Leadership, official policies, and training .................................. 104

1. Command climate with respect to diversity, equity,

and inclusion ........................................................................... 104

2. Treatment of Civil War history ........................................... 106

a. Iconography and traditions ...................................... 106

b. Lee-Jackson parade and Martin Luther King

Day .................................................................................. 113

c. Instruction about the Civil War ............................... 113

d. Confederate memorabilia in cadet rooms ............. 115

3. Policies and training ............................................................. 115

H. Gender issues ..................................................................................... 116

1. Sexual Assault ......................................................................... 116

2. Sexual harassment, stalking, and other threats ............. 119

3. Other harassment and social status .................................. 120

I. VMI’s Title IX process ...................................................................... 124

1. Overview of Title IX............................................................... 124

2. Relevant VMI policies ........................................................... 124

3. VMI’s implementation of General Order 16 ..................... 126

a. Training ......................................................................... 127

b. The Title IX process .................................................... 127

i. Pre-August 2020 ................................................ 127

iii
 ii. Post-August 2020 ............................................... 128

iii. Assessment of the IG’s performance in

addressing Title IX concerns ......................... 128

iv. Structural concerns ......................................... 129

v. Practical concerns ............................................ 131

4. Title IX compliance ................................................................ 131

J. LGBTQ issues..................................................................................... 132

K. Issues related to religion................................................................. 133

L. Financial information relating to diversity, equity, and

inclusion ............................................................................................. 134

1. VMI’s available budgetary funds ........................................ 134

2. VMI’s budgetary process ...................................................... 136

3. VMI’s distribution of state funds ........................................ 136

4. Comparison with the DEI initiatives of other senior

military colleges and Virginia institutions ...................... 139

M. Alumni Agencies and access to success after graduation ....... 139

N. Faculty matters ................................................................................. 142

V. Conclusion..................................................................................................... 143

REPORT APPENDIX AND EXHIBIT INDEX

# Exhibits

Exhibit 1 Request for Proposals 245-110420

Exhibit 2 VMI Organizational Chart (May 2019)
Exhibit 3 VMI Global Document Request Tracker
Exhibit 4 May 5, 2021 letter from VMI to SCHEV
Exhibit 5 General Peay’s July 2020 Letter to the VMI Community
Exhibit 6 May 14, 2021 letter from VMI, entitled “Overview of VMI DEI
initiatives”

iv
 # Appendix

Appendix A ThemeVision report with survey statistics (including preface on

methodology)
Appendix B ThemeVision report on focus-group methodology
Appendix C Virginia Military Institute Data Comparisons (March 2021)
Appendix D Virginia Military Institute Data Comparison (April 2021)

INDEX OF TABLES

Table 1: Overview of survey respondents .................................................................. 19

Table 2: Total members of VMI community interviewed .......................................... 20

Table 3: Current cadets interviewed, by race ............................................................ 20

Table 4: Current cadets interviewed, by ethnicity .................................................... 21

Table 5: Current cadets interviewed, by gender ....................................................... 21

Table 6: Current cadets interviewed, by class ........................................................... 21

Table 7: Current cadets interviewed, by athlete status ............................................ 21

Table 8: Demographics of the three cadet focus groups ............................................ 25

Table 9: Demographics of the three faculty focus groups ......................................... 26

Table 10: Composition of the Honor Court since 2015 .............................................. 80

Table 11: Data on Honor Court guilty findings and race .......................................... 83

Table 12: Survey responses of current cadets relating to aspects of the Honor Court
................................................................................................................ 87

Table 13: Analysis of sample institutions’ DEI plans ............................................. 139

INDEX OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Overall student body composition by race and ethnicity .......................... 45

Figure 2: Student body composition at senior military colleges ............................... 45

Figure 3: Comparison with demographics of the U.S. military ................................ 46

Figure 4: Comparison of demographics with surrounding populations ................... 47

v
Figure 5: Student diversity over time ........................................................................ 48

Figure 6: Admission metric by gender ....................................................................... 48

Figure 7: Retention rates across demographic categories ........................................ 49

Figure 8: VMI and military institutions graduation rates ....................................... 49

Figure 9: Virginia institutions graduation rates ....................................................... 50

Figure 10: Instructional staff diversity...................................................................... 50

Figure 11: VMI instructional staff compared with surrounding population............ 51

Figure 12: VMI instructional staff diversity.............................................................. 52

Figure 13: Comparison of faculty diversity, tenure and tenure track ...................... 52

Figure 14: New hires by race, ethnicity, and staff category ..................................... 53

Figure 15: Cadets categorized by non-athlete compared with athlete ..................... 54

Figure 16: Caucasian and non-Hispanic non-athletes compared with non-athletes of

color ........................................................................................................ 54

Figure 17: Caucasian and non-Hispanic athletes compared with athletes of color . 54

Figure 18: Caucasian and non-Hispanic non-athletes compared with African

American non-athletes .......................................................................... 54

Figure 19: Caucasian and non-Hispanic athletes compared with African American
athletes .................................................................................................. 55

Figure 20: Flowchart for Honor Court procedures .................................................... 78

vi
 Throughout the investigation, the Special Investigation Team met regularly
with representatives of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia and
reported on the progress of the investigation. The Team discussed the investigation’s
process, but did not disclose findings or recommendations. No person or entity other
than the Team and its members reviewed the findings and recommendations in this
report prior to its release.

1
I. Executive summary
The Virginia Military Institute, founded in 1839, is a historically important
institution that has produced generations of respected citizen soldiers and leaders.
VMI has also traditionally been run by white men, for white men. VMI’s overall
unwillingness to change—or even question its practices and traditions in a
meaningful way—has sustained systems that disadvantage minority and female
cadets and faculty, and has left VMI trailing behind its peer institutions. If VMI
refuses to think critically about its past and present, and to confront how racial
and ethnic minorities and women experience VMI, it will remain a school for white
men.

Following the developments of 2020 and the arrival of MG Cedric Wins, VMI
has taken incremental steps towards a more diverse, inclusive VMI, and it has
outlined plans to address the existing culture. However, many in the VMI
community, including senior leaders, perceive no issues or reasons to change. To
accomplish its goals, VMI must recognize three things: (1) that racial and gender
disparities in how cadets are treated persist at VMI; (2) that VMI’s culture creates
and reinforces barriers to addressing those problems; and (3) that as a state-funded
institution, VMI must be held accountable to the taxpayers and the General
Assembly and prove that it is implementing its diversity, equity, and inclusion
(“DEI”) proposals.

Racial and gender disparities persist at VMI

First, VMI must acknowledge that racial and gender disparities exist and
that improvement is needed. This report provides detailed findings from the
investigation, some of which support the presence of equity gaps in VMI’s culture,
policies, practices, and traditions. A high-level summary of key findings follows:

• Perceptions about the racial climate at VMI are often dependent on the
respondent’s race or ethnicity. According to survey results of current cadets,
half of African American cadets strongly or somewhat agree that there is a
culture of racial intolerance at VMI, while only 10% of Caucasian cadets agree
with that sentiment. Similarly, 42% of African American cadets responded that
African Americans are discriminated against “a lot” at VMI, compared to only
4% of Caucasian cadets who feel that way. Half of African American cadets
strongly or somewhat agree that it is harder for people of color to succeed at
VMI, compared to 5% of Caucasian cadets who feel that way. The interviews
reflected a similar dynamic. More than one Caucasian survey respondent
insisted that the real racial issue at VMI is racism against whites. These
responses and perceptions paint a picture of a VMI where African Americans
experience racism but Caucasian cadets do not or choose not to see it. Other
minority respondents did not report experiencing racism at the same level as
African American respondents.

2
• Racial slurs and jokes are not uncommon on post. 1 VMI’s approach to the use of
racial slurs or racist jokes is insufficient. These comments contribute to an
atmosphere of hostility toward minorities regardless of where they are directed.
Those who use slurs and who are reported to the administration are at times
excused by administrators based on a lack of diversity in the cadets’ upbringing.
VMI provides education and training to those individuals, but not proactively to
all cadets. VMI should commit to educating all cadets including at
matriculation and deterring the use of racial slurs and jokes on post.

• VMI lags behind other Virginia institutions of higher education and other
military academies in race and gender metrics and diversity efforts. A
comparison of VMI’s demographics with publicly available data from other
comparable colleges and communities demonstrates that VMI is consistently
less diverse. Additionally, VMI trails its peer institutions when it comes to
implementing, supporting, and publicizing DEI initiatives.

• One of the most common opinions among investigation participants, especially

Caucasian ones, is that there is not a race problem, but a problem with a divide
between athletes and non-athletes. The investigation found that a significant
rift does indeed exist between athlete and non-athlete cadets. Both athletes and
non-athletes feel the rift. They stated that non-athletes tend to resent athletes
because they are given what is perceived as preferential treatment. Athletes, in
turn, take offense to this resentment and feel that non-athletes minimize their
sacrifices, hard work, and contributions as NCAA athletes. The investigation
found that this divide breeds racial resentment due to the incorrect perception
that “athlete” means “African American” when in reality only 18% of athletes
are African American. Even on the football and basketball teams, which some
respondents described as “black” teams, African American cadets are in the
minority. Reliance on the misperception that VMI “does not have a race
problem, it has an athlete problem” allows the Institute to avoid addressing the
underlying association between athletics and race and the issue of race in
general.

• The review of the Honor Court and Honor Code found that most Honor Court
cases, when examined in isolation, involve fair proceedings, follow documented
procedures, and produce defensible results. However, analysis of the 91 cases
that resulted in a conviction in the last 10 years shows that while cadets of color
represent 23% of the corps of cadets, they make up 41% of dismissed cadets
since 2011. The racial disparity exists regardless of whether the cadet is an
athlete. Elimination of the fundamental elements of the Honor Code or Honor
Court is not recommended. However, it is recommended that the
Superintendent’s plans to examine the Honor Court system should include a
root-cause analysis of these statistics, revisions to training and procedures to

1 VMI refers to its grounds as “post,” instead of “campus.”

3
 implement more equitable processes, and improvement in the documentation
and monitoring of statistics to better identify disparities.

• VMI must also recognize that the Honor Code system is not, in reality, a true
“single sanction” system with straightforward application, as it is often
described and portrayed. Instead, the Honor Court allows certain students who
are reported for or charged with Honor Code violations an opportunity to go
through an education process rather than face a trial and expulsion. This
“education exception” grants wide, undefined discretion to the Honor Court
prosecutors and carries the potential for disparate application due to implicit
bias. The Honor Court’s discretion to impose this alternative path needs to be
studied to analyze whether this practice is implemented equitably and is
consistent with the Honor Code. VMI either did not produce or does not have
materials to permit this analysis as part of the investigation and it needs to
improve its documentation on this front.

• The athlete and non-athlete divide also plays a role in Honor Court proceedings.
Honor Court prosecutions and convictions disproportionately affect athletes as a
whole. Some non-athlete participants opined that athletes miss Honor Court
training on the Rat Line and thus do not understand the implications of the
Honor Code. Others even proposed that athletes just cheat more, and thus they
are more likely to be caught and prosecuted. In contrast, numerous
participants, including athletes, non-athletes, and professors, felt or witnessed
that VMI staff used Honor Court referrals to target athletes for prosecution and
expulsion.

• Many interviewees expressed frustration that VMI leadership, in its focus on

the Honor Court, fails to make clear that other severe conduct is unacceptable.
This includes instances of racial and sexual misconduct. While these offenses
are often punished, sometimes with expulsion, frustration remains that VMI
leadership and traditions often treat these offenses as less severe and that their
adjudication results in less public shame and stigma than some Honor Code
offenses—like receiving undisclosed help on a paper or lying to a roommate
about whom you visited over the weekend.

• Cadets, alumni, and faculty repeatedly described the culture at VMI as one of
silence, fear, and intimidation, especially as it relates to the reporting of
problems or issues that reflect negatively on the Institute or its leadership.
Interviewees reported that, in some sexual assault cases, members of the VMI
administration have actively dissuaded victims from making reports. Interview
respondents also explained that they perceived or experienced that VMI
leadership puts a high priority on suppressing information and avoiding
difficult situations, and less of a priority on addressing underlying problems.
The Team had the same experience. VMI has taken affirmative steps to prevent
negative information from making it into this report. Just one example of this

4
 was when VMI attempted to, and in some cases did, put VMI attorneys in
rooms with interviewees under the guise of legal representation, knowing that
the attorneys’ presence would chill or limit the candor of the interviewee. VMI
also withheld requested information, dissuaded members of the VMI
community from participating in or providing information for this report, and
has actively sought to undermine the findings in this report before its release.

• VMI maintains an outdated, idealized reverence for the Civil War and the
Confederacy. While VMI has recently taken steps to address this, many VMI
traditions relating to the Civil War era are still given disproportionate
attention. Some members of the VMI community still advocate for celebrating
Confederate traditions (noting that it is a part of history that should not be
“erased”) without appreciating or accepting that it offends many African
Americans, whether or not they are members of the VMI community. In
contrast, minority members of the VMI community are at times not afforded the
same opportunities to celebrate holidays and dates significant to their
community, and there is almost no representation of other military or civil
rights iconography on post.

• Unlike the alumni associations at other Virginia and military schools, the VMI
Alumni Agencies have not established affinity groups (such as an African
American or women’s alumni group), do not fund scholarships for minority
students, and do not organize activities specifically for minority alumni.
Additionally, the Alumni Agencies took almost no action on DEI initiatives until
the summer of 2020. In the last year, the Agencies have set up a chartered D&I
Subcommittee, sponsored diversity discussions with alumni, sent out a survey,
and established a partnership with the Citadel. The Agencies declined to
provide any documentation on these or any prior DEI efforts.

• On gender, many respondents—including men—stated that VMI’s gender-

equity issues are worse than its racial-equity issues. Respondents reported
incidents of gender inequity; a culture of not taking women seriously; double-
standards for women on matters of dress, social behavior, and sexual behavior;
and disturbing sexist and misogynistic comments on social media apps such as
Jodel. Some men reported resentment toward women for perceived preferential
treatment in physical training standards, Rat Line experience, discipline, and
leadership opportunities. Female respondents had varying views about whether
women are discriminated against at VMI. Many women expressed pride in VMI
and the treatment of women by male cadets and a desire not to be given any
preferential treatment simply because they are women.

• Sexual assault is prevalent at VMI yet it is inadequately addressed by the

Institute. In the survey, 14% of female cadets reported being sexually assaulted
at VMI, while 63% said that a fellow cadet had told them that he/she was a

5
 victim of sexual assault while a VMI cadet. Many female cadets reported a
consistent fear of assault or harassment by their fellow male cadets. These fears
are exacerbated by some procedures at VMI, including the inability to lock their
doors. Many female cadets also feel that assault complaints are not or will not
be taken seriously by the VMI administration or that a cadet will suffer
retaliatory consequences for reporting them. Indeed, a Virginia statute makes it
illegal for a university to punish a student for a drug or alcohol offense that
comes to light during a report of sexual assault. The statute applies to every
institution in the Commonwealth, with one notable exception: VMI. Although
VMI conducts extensive sexual assault training on post, female cadets report
that male cadets treat it as a joke and an opportunity for misogynistic humor,
without consequence. Cadets perceive that the VMI-provided training is often
not respected or taken seriously.

• VMI’s Title IX records reflected a competent and compliant investigation and

adjudication process, once a Title IX case is opened. However, the investigation
revealed that some sexual misconduct incidents do not make it into that Title
IX process due to victims’ concerns of being ostracized for or retaliated against
for reporting—or simply because their reports are ignored. Numerous female
cadets say that reports are made, through proper channels, but still go
unaddressed; some stated that they made a report of their assault but it
received no action from the VMI administration. Cadets reported that VMI
administrators have intimidated female cadets to reconsider assault reports,
including by asking them to consider the impact on the male assailants’ careers.
In addition, cadets reported that VMI’s support services, especially mental
health services, were deficient and poorly communicated. One third of female
cadet survey respondents somewhat or strongly disagreed that VMI’s method of
addressing reports of sexual harassment and assault is appropriate; 47%
reported that they felt the opposite way. It is possible that instances reported as
part of this investigation may, upon individual inquiry into each incident,
constitute Title IX violations.

• The investigation addressed whether these findings might constitute civil rights
violations. While the investigation identified significant issues with racial
harassment, intolerance, and climate, it did not identify a clear Title VI
violation. On gender and sexual misconduct, the investigation identified several
instances and patterns that implicate Title IX that may require further
investigation.

The picture of race at VMI that has emerged from this investigation is
complex. Many alumni and current cadets (most but not all Caucasian) have
reported that they never observed or experienced any instances of racial
intolerance during their time at the Institute. On the other hand, a number of
alumni and current cadets (especially African Americans) have reported that they

6
did experience racial discrimination or intolerance at VMI and that it was fueled or
aggravated by VMI’s culture. Yet, members of the VMI community who did not
experience or observe racism or sexism at VMI (even if they believe those who did)
often do not comprehend that VMI’s own history, traditions, and unwillingness to
change foster a racist culture at VMI. This culture impedes VMI’s ability to recruit
cadets and faculty from underrepresented populations. VMI’s delay in addressing
its Confederate symbolism and past, its delay in undertaking DEI initiatives, and
the continued, loud resistance to reform efforts among many in the VMI
community are a sign to African Americans that they are not valued or wanted at
VMI. VMI has responded in the past that “these problems exist everywhere” and
“we are no worse than any other school.” Those statements are inconsistent with
VMI’s motto of “don’t do ordinary” and are detrimental to VMI.

VMI’s culture creates barriers to addressing and solving these problems

Second, VMI must address elements of its culture that contribute to an “us
versus them” mentality, including with respect to race and gender. This culture
includes VMI’s potent and ongoing resistance to change, denialism, secrecy, refusal
of oversight, and suspicion of outsiders that creates a barrier to forward progress.

The reaction to the investigation from the larger VMI community and the
Institute itself demonstrates the effect of this problematic culture. The unusual
amount of vitriol, criticism, condescension, and condemnation from many in the
VMI community regarding the investigation has been alarming. Additionally,
despite a pledge of cooperation, VMI’s leadership sought to control the
investigation, the message, and the report’s findings. VMI also sought to keep
members of the VMI community, including current senior administrators, from
participating in interviews, and it engaged in public messaging designed to
encourage the VMI community to disbelieve and reject this report, particularly
when their efforts to thwart the investigation proved unsuccessful. These actions
by VMI negatively impacted the investigation, especially because, as VMI knew,
there was no process to compel VMI’s cooperation.

In preparing for this report, the Team received reports that members of the
VMI community wanted to come forward and participate, but were either too
scared of retaliation from VMI or too intimidated by its leadership and alumni to
do so. Moreover, many in the VMI community expressed to the Team, the press,
online forums, and elsewhere that they were convinced that the investigation was
biased, predetermined, or already discredited. Many individuals did provide
information, but under the circumstances, the act of sharing critical views of VMI
with the Team was riskier and more difficult than if VMI had supported the
investigation. Had VMI expressed consistent public support for the investigation
and a willingness to cooperate, listen, and improve, this investigation would likely
have been more fulsome and less combative. Nevertheless, members of the VMI
community were offered a variety of methods, some anonymous, to provide
information.

7
 The cooperation and candor of the current cadets and faculty who did come
forward stood in stark contrast to the reaction from VMI’s leadership. Many of the
critical findings in this report came not from information provided by VMI but from
individual cadets and faculty who provided information directly, outside of VMI’s
control.

VMI must be held accountable

Third, while VMI has taken recent steps to improve the culture around race
at the Institute, it did not do so until forced, following intense media scrutiny,
executive action, and legislative attention. VMI’s planned steps to promote
diversity and inclusion are important and significant. VMI has laid out a detailed,
thoughtful plan of all of the activities it is undertaking to address issues of race at
VMI. 2

However, VMI’s past reaction to suggestions of change do not inspire

confidence that it will follow through on this plan. Moreover, VMI’s messaging with
respect to this investigation has been contradictory. Its initial reaction to the
investigation was that it was unnecessary and had a predetermined result; as VMI
Board of Visitors Chair William Boland stated in his October 20, 2020 open letter,
which still appears on VMI’s website, “systemic racism does not exist here and a
fair and independent review will find that to be true.” From the Team’s
interactions with Mr. Boland, it is clear that he is the lead decision-maker for VMI
on all matters relating to this investigation. Mr. Boland has also concluded and
announced that VMI’s problems with race are commonplace, and that they are no
worse at VMI than anywhere else: “Virtually all colleges in the 50 states can point
to inappropriate behavior by their students or faculty members. VMI is not
immune.” 3 VMI also issued a public letter, co-signed by Mr. Boland, rebutting this
investigation’s initial reporting on race-related findings, further denying the
existence of any racial problems at VMI. It has been apparent that VMI wants
nothing to do with an actual independent review, and will only consider a report
“fair” if it supports VMI’s own assertions.

This investigation found that institutional racism and sexism are present,
tolerated, and left unaddressed at VMI. The racist and misogynistic acts and
outcomes uncovered during this investigation are disturbing. Although VMI has no
explicitly racist or sexist policies that it enforces, the facts reflect an overall racist
and sexist culture. Until last fall, VMI had shown no appetite to significantly
change the biased outcomes their programs produce. The changes underway since
then are part of a critically important and positive step forward. But VMI’s conduct
throughout this investigation, and the facts that the investigation uncovered,
cannot be ignored. They show that VMI will likely follow through on its promised

2VMI’s summary plan is attached here as Exhibit 6.

3https://www.vmi.edu/news/headlines/2020-2021/a-letter-from-the-president-of-the-board-of-
visitors-to-gov-northam.php.

8
reforms only if it is forced to do so. For the betterment of the school, VMI must be
held accountable to its promises and plans to change the current culture. This
should happen through the requirement of regular written reporting to
stakeholders, including the Board of Visitors, SCHEV, the General Assembly, and
the Governor.

This report does not recommend that any of VMI’s core policies, practices
and traditions, including the Honor Code and Rat Line, be abolished. It
recommends that VMI leadership examine how it can create an environment that
does not disadvantage or impose disparate effects on minorities. These
recommendations, detailed below, can be organized into eight categories. They are
largely consistent with recommendations previously presented to VMI and its
leadership from a variety of sources, including current and recent VMI cadets, the
Promaji Club, Del. Jennifer Carroll Foy ’03, a group of senior African American
alumni, and other alumni groups that have been vocal in encouraging change. The
Team has considered all of these recommendations as part of its investigation. The
recommendations listed below are proposed in addition to those outlined by VMI,
or in some cases, in supplement to them. If a recommendation overlaps with a VMI
plan, it is because VMI provided insufficient information on that activity (or its
timing) or because the recommendation was worth highlighting.

1. Maintain accountability

VMI should create a comprehensive, unified, public strategic plan

around DEI improvements, including measurable goals such as
increased diversity in the corps of cadets and faculty; coordination with
1(a) the Alumni Agencies; dedicated funding for recruitment of diverse
cadets; and specific responsibilities for the chief diversity officer. VMI
should consider following the model of the DEI plan at Texas A&M,
another senior military college.

Beginning in January 2022, and for a period of at least three years, VMI
should submit quarterly reports to the Board of Visitors, to SCHEV, and
to the General Assembly detailing VMI’s progress on their own DEI
1(b)
plans as well as the recommendations contained herein. The General
Assembly and the Commonwealth’s executive branch should take the
appropriate action to make this compulsory.

9
 The General Assembly and the executive branch should appoint a
committee, governing body, or other entity to evaluate these reports
measuring VMI’s progress on its stated DEI plan and goals and to
address any lack of substantial progress. This evaluating entity should
be fully independent from VMI without any connection to VMI that
1(c) would be deemed a conflict of interest or give the appearance of
impropriety. Among other things, the entity should have the authority
to collect and review VMI documents and conduct interviews as
necessary. The organizing policies should provide the evaluating entity
with wide-ranging authority to review VMI documents and contact any
individuals, cadets, faculty and administration associated with VMI.

In constituting the evaluating body referenced in 1(c) above, the General

Assembly and Commonwealth’s executive branch should incorporate a
1(d) diverse panel of individuals including but not limited to higher
education experts, military veterans, DEI experts, and a diversity officer
with higher education experience.

The Board of Visitors and administration of VMI should be required to

1(e)
take regular annual DEI training.

2. Improve diversity in leadership and the corps

VMI should include in its plan a strategy with measurable goals to

2(a) recruit, maintain, and promote minority and female administrators,
faculty, and staff.

VMI should establish and support a Faculty Senate and Faculty DEI
Committee (or similar bodies), the purpose of which would be to allow
2(b) faculty an opportunity to discuss ideas and initiatives, including those
related to DEI, and to have a direct reporting line to MG Wins and the
Board of Visitors on such initiatives.

VMI should monitor public statistical information on DEI metrics from

other military colleges and Virginia institutions of higher learning and
2(c) use that information to set goals and measure improvement. VMI
should also examine the efforts made to implement DEI initiatives at
those schools for best practices.

10
 Historically, DEI recruitment and scholarship funding at VMI has
focused almost exclusively on athletes. VMI should review the feasibility
2(d) of establishing and funding scholarships for minority non-athlete cadets
as well as other mechanisms to provide support for minority non-athlete
cadet recruitment and retention, including by using funding from the
Alumni Agencies and other donors.

3. Monitor and adjust institutions and traditions

VMI should perform a root cause analysis as to why minority cadets are
3(a)
drummed out at a disproportionate rate.

VMI does not track key data about cases brought to the Honor Court,
including data about cases that do not reach an investigation or trial.
Given that cadets of color are overrepresented among convictions, VMI
should record and examine the following information about all Honor
Court cases, regardless of the outcome of the case: first and last name of
3(b)
accused, race of the accused, gender of the accused, whether the accused
is an athlete, the details of the charge, and the reporter’s position (cadet,
faculty, staff). VMI should analyze these statistics to monitor and
address any disproportionate impact on minority cadets when it comes
to Honor Court charges and convictions.

The understanding of what constitutes an actionable violation of the

Honor Code varies widely among the corps, and particularly as between
members of the Honor Court on one hand and members of the corps at
3(c) large on the other. VMI should adjust its Honor Court guidance,
training, and practices to clarify what constitutes an Honor Code
violation (as opposed to other rule violations) and what penalty will be
applied.

Many cadets noted the incongruity between a harsh punishment under

the Honor Court for what cadets would consider a relatively minor
offense (lying to a fellow cadet about off-post activities), and a light
penalty under another system for what they would consider a major
3(d) offense (such as sexual misconduct and use of racial slurs). VMI should
examine data related to punishments imposed by the Honor Court, the
Cadet Equity Association, and other disciplinary organizations to ensure
that they are applied equitably and that disparate penalties are not
imposed for the same severity of behavior.

11
 VMI should critically study the Honor Court’s “education” policy. It
should assess whether and how this practice is consistent with VMI’s
“single sanction” policy. VMI should also examine whether this practice
can be applied reliably and consistently, and whether it produces
disparate outcomes on race and gender lines. If VMI retains the
“education” option, it should consider preparing clearer and better-
3(e) defined criteria for when a cadet should be prosecuted and when he or
she should be educated. VMI should also tell cadets, faculty, and
administration that there is actually a “two-sanction system” in which
one possible outcome of an Honor Court referral is informal “education”
that obviates the need for a trial or a possible expulsion. Information on
this “diversion” program should be maintained in the same manner as
described in recommendation 3(a).

VMI should formally examine and consider changing its Honor Court
jury selection process and its policy of allowing convictions without
unanimous verdicts. VMI should also consider including faculty in the
3(f)
jury process and should prohibit juror strikes based on race or gender.
VMI should consistently track information on Honor Court juries to
ensure fairness.

VMI should permit cadets to have the assistance of legal counsel in an

3(g)
Honor Court proceeding.

VMI should provide formal, comprehensive, and consistent training to

all faculty defense advisors to the Honor Court and to the cadets who
3(h)
run the Honor Court, particularly with respect to implicit bias and its
potential impact on prosecutorial decision-making.

VMI should ensure that all incoming cadets, including athletic recruits,
are provided with standardized, complete materials on what to expect as
3(i) a Rat and a cadet before they matriculate. As part of these efforts, VMI
should promote its “One VMI” philosophy to all incoming cadets,
including athletes, to emphasize the goal of a unified cadet experience.

VMI’s Alumni Agencies should supplement their DEI plans to evaluate

and implement DEI efforts undertaken by the alumni associations at
3(j)
peer schools, including establishing affinity groups and associated
events.

12
 4. Temper associations between VMI
and the Civil War and Confederacy

VMI should continue to reduce the emphasis on traditions and

iconography associated with the Civil War/Confederacy, to be replaced
4(a)
by other traditions and historical associations, including those that
promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

VMI should solicit input from current cadets and organizations

4(b) (including the Promaji Club) when considering any action related to
Civil War or Confederate-era iconography, symbolism, and traditions.

VMI should review its practices on allowing cadets to associate with and
participate in community events and celebrations such as parades and
4(c)
should ensure (by implementation of a policy or otherwise) that these
practices are equitable.

VMI and the Alumni Agencies should adopt and adhere to a policy that
4(d) prohibits the acceptance of funds from any entity that discriminates or
supports discrimination based on race or gender.

5. Actively address racist, sexist, and other

unacceptable language and behavior

VMI should design and implement sensitivity and bystander training

for cadets (including incoming cadets) focused on racism, racial slurs,
5(a) racial jokes, and racial stereotypes. As part of this training, VMI should
emphasize that an individual’s background does not excuse the use of
racist language.

VMI should implement a social media policy with guidelines for cadets’
use of social media to promote VMI’s standards of respect and integrity
5(b)
and compliance with applicable laws. VMI should also monitor social
media to help identify issues of racism and sexism in the corps.

VMI should ensure a strong, vocal, unified, and public response by

leadership condemning all discriminatory, racist, or sexist acts that
occur on post or by a cadet or other individual associated with VMI. VMI
5(c)
should take measures to ensure that such misconduct is treated at least
as seriously, and that it carries at least the same stigma, as instances of
lying and cheating.

13
 VMI should augment its efforts to combat and prevent sexual violence,
including (i) enact a policy that automatically and immediately places
reports of misconduct into the Title IX investigation and adjudication
5(d) protocol; (ii) augment support services and accommodations for victims
of sexual violence; and (iii) implement a policy that requires prompt,
clear, and written communication of those services and accommodations
to the affected parties.

The General Assembly should consider amending Va. Code § 23.1-808 to

5(e) remove the carve-out for VMI, which discourages candid reporting of
sexual misconduct at VMI.

Regardless of whether the General Assembly amends Va. Code § 23.1-

808’s VMI carve-out, VMI should consider amending General Order 16’s
amnesty provision to apply to all instances of drug or alcohol use
5(f)
disclosed in conjunction with a good faith report of sexual violence, and
thus take the approach that all other Virginia higher education
nonprofit institutions take.

VMI should formally study, and should consider amending or removing,

5(g) the channel for reporting Title IX sexual misconduct through the Cadet
Equity Association.

VMI should revise its door locking policy to permit cadets to lock their
5(h)
doors without permission and at any time.

VMI should make LGBTQ issues a priority in its diversity efforts, and
5(i) should make clear, and enforce, that homophobic conduct and language
is unacceptable at VMI.

6. Encourage reporting and transparency

VMI should, with the involvement of the chief diversity officer, design a
campaign to encourage reporting of misconduct beyond simply making
6(a) mechanisms and opportunities available. This campaign should be
supported, demonstrated, and carried out by cadet leadership and
commandant staff, among other individuals.

14
 Consistent with General Order 13, VMI should supplement its reporting
procedures with a confidential, anonymous reporting system (to the
extent permitted by law) for use by cadets, faculty, and staff to report
6(b) incidents and concerns, including those involving racism or sexism.
Those procedures should include, if possible, providing the reporter with
information on how the report was addressed and its status, and should
involve the chief diversity officer.

VMI should collect and publish detailed financial information from the
6(c) Alumni Agencies on how funds are raised and spent, including the
source of the funds and any earmarks.

7. Recognize and celebrate other cultures

VMI should evaluate its policy on appropriate hair styles among

members of the corps of cadets and consider adopting Army Regulation
7(a) 670-1 in this respect. The current policy appears to produce different
and unfair results for cadets of color, and in particular African American
women.

VMI should appoint an external committee to explore, determine, and

make recommendations on formal actions that VMI should take to honor
7(b)
diverse individuals or entities on post, such as the creation of
monuments, the naming of buildings, and the establishment of awards.

8. Address tensions between athletes and non-athletes

In light of the apparent role that the athlete/non-athlete divide plays in

racial tensions at VMI, VMI should formally evaluate its status as a
8(a)
Division I institution, especially given its size and its priority of
achieving a cohesive corps.

VMI should create a written, detailed, measurable plan to bridge the

athlete/non-athlete divide. The plan should specifically address racial
8(b)
attitudes and tensions related to the athlete/non-athlete divide and
include measures to address it.

VMI should develop and implement measures to make the athlete and
non-athlete experience more uniform, and to build mutual
8(c)
understanding and appreciation for each group’s sacrifices and
contributions to VMI.

15
 VMI should increase opportunities for athlete/non-athlete interaction,
such as through roommate assignments and the dyke system. 4 In
8(d) particular, VMI should consider ways the dyke system might be
reformed to avoid passing down anti-athlete bias and to avoid situations
where athletes pair only with other athletes.

VMI should establish uniform guidelines for the recruitment of athletes,

requiring transparency and promotion of the VMI experience. VMI
8(e)
should require all athletics personnel and other recruiting personnel to
follow them, and should verify compliance.

II. Objectives of the investigation and audit

The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) selected
Barnes & Thornburg to act as “an independent, interdisciplinary team to
investigate the culture, policies, practices, and traditions” at the Virginia Military
Institute. 5 As SCHEV explained, the investigation arose in light of “the recent and
historical complaints of racial intolerance at the Virginia Military Institute,” and
included four major objectives. 6 Those objectives, which were supported by guiding
questions in the request for proposals, are:

1. to “identify any civil rights violations or immediate threats of racial

violence”;

2. to “identify possible equity gaps in VMI’s culture, policies, practices,

and traditions”;

3. to “examine VMI across multiple dimensions as compared to other

Virginia Institutions of Higher Education and to the extent possible,
other military academies”; and

4. to “provide a comprehensive recommendation and an assessment plan

for any necessary reforms,” including recommending changes to VMI’s
institutional policies, proposing legislation, or making budgetary
recommendations. 7

4 The “dyke system” or “dyke relationship” refers to the formal mentorship of rat (freshman) cadets
by first class (senior) cadets.
5 RFP 245-110420 at 3 (attached as Exhibit 1).
6 Id. at 3, 4–5.
7 Id. at 4–5.

16
 The guiding questions specifically tasked the Special Investigation Team
with uncovering not just facts, but also perceptions about VMI, recognizing that
understanding the perceptions within various segments of the VMI community is
important to understanding the extent of any racial intolerance at VMI. 8 As a
result, the investigation considered perceptions and opinions offered by cadets,
alumni, faculty, and administrators during the investigation.

SCHEV explained that the investigation should employ diverse

methodologies (including “interviews, focus groups, anonymized surveys, and other
investigative methods”) and should “pay[] particular attention to those vulnerable
members who may be reluctant to participate for fear of retaliation.” 9 To address
that concern, SCHEV directed the Team to protect the confidentiality of those who
provided information for the investigation. 10

III. Investigative procedures and methodologies

The investigation was conducted from January 7, 2021, to June 1, 2021, a
period of 145 days. In total, 39 professionals performed more than 5,000 hours of
work.

The Team used a variety of procedures and methodologies intended to allow

as many members of the VMI Community to participate in the investigation as
possible. Information was collected from 2,496 survey respondents and from 385
interviews. 11 The Team also received information and thousands of documents
from VMI and examined publicly available data.

A. Survey
The Team conducted a large-sample, anonymous, online survey of the VMI
community consistent with standard best practices for surveys. The survey
gathered input from a large number of people in an efficient and standardized
manner, while allowing all eligible persons an opportunity to share their views
anonymously, without fear of retaliation. The methodology used for the survey is
described briefly below and in greater detail in Appendix A.

The investigation’s survey work was led by four social scientists. They
designed the VMI community survey according to generally accepted
methodological principles and practices associated with survey research. Each of
these social scientists have advanced training assessing social attitudes and
institutional culture, and each has significant experience framing, conducting, and
analyzing anonymous online surveys. Focusing on the concepts of diversity,

8 Id.
9 Id. at 4.
10 Id. at 5–6.
11 There is likely overlap in those numbers, as individuals were permitted to participate in both an

interview and the anonymous survey.

17
inclusion, intolerance, and discrimination, a survey was developed with questions
about the culture, policies, practices, and traditions at VMI. The survey also
included benchmark questions used in national surveys (such as surveys on race
relations conducted by the Pew Research Center in the United States).

The survey included 117 questions: 15 demographic questions, 95 conceptual

framework questions, 3 benchmarking questions, 2 investigation attitudes
questions, and 2 closing, free-response questions. Participants were allowed to skip
any questions they chose.

The inclusion of a mix of fixed-choice and free-response questions meant that

the Team could control for consistent analysis across topics while still allowing
respondents to share, in their own words, any relevant issue or topic they feel to be
important. Free-response questions can often provide context for trends seen in
fixed-response questions.

Several steps were taken to minimize potential survey response biases.

First, the survey followed the well-accepted practice of alternating the valence of
question statements; in other words, some questions were phrased to test a
favorable position statement of VMI and its culture, while other questions tested a
more negative position statement. Second, the Team randomized the presentation
order of the response scales themselves; for example, some respondents saw scales
from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, while others saw the reverse order.
Third, the Team randomized question presentation order to minimize potential
bias associated with seeing specific questions before others. In these and all
respects, the survey methodology followed standard best practices for surveys.

To maximize the opportunity for members of the VMI community to provide

input, invitations and responses were sought from every current cadet,
alumnus/alumna, and VMI employee. VMI supplied contact lists for all current
cadets and VMI employees. The Team worked with the VMI Alumni Agencies to
notify alumni about the survey and provide them with the opportunity to sign up to
participate. Then email invitations were sent to all cadets, all employees, and the
participating alumni. Multiple follow up reminder emails were also sent to all
invitees before the survey was closed.

In total, 2,496 individuals provided usable responses. 12 As set out in more

detail in the following table, the respondents included 540 current cadets, 326
members of VMI’s faculty and administration (58 of whom were also alumni, but
for purpose of the survey results are reported only in their faculty and
administration roles), and 1,630 alumni (who were not faculty or administrators)
who graduated in the last 80 years.

12Two respondents’ answers were discarded because they checked all nine possible responses for
race.

18
Table 1: Overview of survey respondents

Category Survey responses

Current cadets 540

Faculty and administrators 326
Alumni 2016–2020 74
2011–2015 102
2006–2010 110
2001–2005 122
As noted above, 58 1996–2000 97
of these alumni 1991–1995 115
respondents are 1986–1990 149
also faculty or 1981–1985 154
administrators, so 1976–1980 172
their responses are 1971–1975 192
categorized in their 1966–1970 203
faculty or
1961–1965 123
administrator roles.
1956–1960 42
1951–1955 25
1950 or earlier 8

The responses to the survey’s fixed-response questions are set out in 12

reports as statistical appendices to this report, and observations about particular
responses are referenced throughout this report. As explained in more detail in
Appendix A, the statistical appendices include raw data without weighting applied,
to avoid introducing any bias in reporting the survey results.

B. Interviews
1. Interview metrics
The Team also interviewed 385 members of the VMI community, as broken
down in the following table:

19
Table 2: Total members of VMI community interviewed
Number
Category
interviewed
Current cadets 73
Faculty and Current 56
administrators Former 13
Alumni 2010–2020 41
2000–2009 50
1990–1999 32
1980–1989 32
1970–1979 58
1960–1969 26
1950–1959 4

Any cadet, employee, or alumnus/alumna was able to contact the Team

either by phone or by email to request an interview through the Team’s hotline.
The Team also reached out to certain individuals, including current cadets, to
request interviews. The interviews were all voluntary and were often conducted by
two members of the Team in addition to the interviewee.

Before the interviews, the Team advised the interviewee that he or she could
have his or her own counsel present, if the interviewee desired, and explained to
current cadets that VMI had pledged that there would be no retaliation in response
to their statements. In the interviews, the Team sought information both about
what individuals personally experienced and also about what they had heard from
others, consistent with the direction to investigate perceptions held by the VMI
community.

As to the 73 current cadets interviewed, the Team interviewed 21 cadets

who reached out to the Team to be interviewed and 52 cadets whom the Team
selected in an effort to interview a diverse cross section of cadets. The
demographics for these groups are shown in the following charts.

Table 3: Current cadets interviewed, by race

Cadets interviewed, by race
Caucasian 39
African American 17
Asian 9
Non-Resident Alien 4
American/Alaskan Native 4

20
Note that according to SCHEV and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS), Hispanic or Latino/Hispanic ethnicity is distinct from race, which
is why the race and ethnicity categories are reported separately here. This
approach is also used by the U.S. Census Bureau. 13

Table 4: Current cadets interviewed, by ethnicity

Cadets interviewed, by ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 66
Hispanic 7

Table 5: Current cadets interviewed, by gender

Cadets interviewed, by gender
Male 43
Female 30

The cadet interviews also included a cross-section of cadets with respect to

class year and with respect to status as an NCAA athlete, a distinction addressed
later within this report.

Table 6: Current cadets interviewed, by class

Cadets interviewed, by class
First class (senior) 28
Second class (junior) 22
Third class (sophomore) 11
Fourth class (freshman) 10
Former cadet (did not
1
graduate)

Table 7: Current cadets interviewed, by athlete status

Cadets interviewed, by athlete status
Non-Athlete 44
Athlete 29

The Team also interviewed 12 parents of current cadets. Of these parents,

10 were Caucasian, 1 African American, and 1 of unknown race. As to ethnicity, all
12 parents were non-Hispanic. As to gender, 10 of the parents interviewed were
male, and two were female.

13See https://www.census.gov/ topics/population/hispanic-origin/about/comparing-race-and-hispanic-

origin.html.

21
 Turning to the faculty and administration, 13 of the 15 members of the
Board of Visitors agreed to be interviewed and were interviewed, as was MG Wins
on two separate occasions. A meeting was also held with all of the members of the
Honor Court, who were accompanied by three faculty or administrator
representatives of the Superintendent as well as VMI’s outside counsel and counsel
for the Honor Court members themselves.

Finally, the Team interviewed 243 alumni from graduation years spanning
the 1950s to the 2020s. In total, 41 individuals from the last 10 graduation years
reached out for an interview. The response from more recent alumni was not as
robust as the response from older alumni. Because the RFP required that the
investigation focus on the current VMI climate and culture on post, greater weight
was generally given to comments from current cadets, current faculty, recent
alumni, and recently departed faculty than to alumni, particularly where the other
comments were not pertinent to the recent or current climate at VMI.
Nevertheless, as with the cadets, faculty, and administration, any alumnus or
alumna who reached out was given the opportunity of an interview, regardless of
class.

A variety of steps were taken to ensure that information provided by

interviewees would be kept confidential. Those steps included internal safeguards
regarding access and content of documents, as well as using a randomized
numbering system to identify interviewees. This report therefore refers to
interviewees only by the number assigned to their interview, and additional efforts
have been made to exclude identifying details where possible.

2. Limitations on interviews
This report sets out findings based on the evidence collected during the
investigation. The Team’s ability to collect information through interviews was
limited in several ways.

First, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Team was largely unable to
conduct interviews in-person or on post. Indeed, VMI reported that it was enduring
a COVID-19 outbreak during much of the first portion of the investigation. As a
result, most of the interviews took place by videoconference or telephone, which of
course limited the personal connection that in-person conversations provide. Still,
the Team made multiple trips to post for in-person interviews and open houses. All
individuals on post were alerted to the presence of the Team and the location and
time of the open houses so that they would have the opportunity to meet with a
Team member if they wished.

Second, though the Team extended interview invitations to a diverse,

representative sample of the cadets, many declined to be interviewed, many of
them minorities. Third, as to alumni, the Team’s efforts to interview alumni of
diverse opinions and experiences was significantly hampered by the fact that the
Team never received a list of alumni. The Team requested this list from both VMI

22
itself and from the VMI Alumni Agencies, the consolidated group that comprises
VMI’s alumni and fundraising entities. VMI did not provide this alumni
information, and referred the Team to the Alumni Agencies; the Alumni Agencies,
in turn, declined the Team’s request for its alumni list, citing privacy concerns.
This position prevented the Team from developing a representative sample of
alumni or inviting specific alumni—primarily recent graduates, racial minorities,
and women—to participate in interviews or focus groups. As a result, the Team
had to resort to identifying alumni from publicly available information, referrals
from other alumni, and, most often, outreach by alumni themselves. While the
Team did collect relevant information from these efforts, the possibility exists that
the alumni interviewed (particularly those who reached out to directly) felt, on
balance, more strongly about the issues addressed in the investigation than the
general alumni population. As a result, the alumni interviews may not have been
representative.

Fourth, VMI attempted to have its counsel (as opposed to counsel

representing the individual interviewee) present during interviews, particularly
during interviews with cadets, faculty, and administrators. From the beginning of
the investigation, the Team has objected to this practice. The Team repeatedly
explained to VMI that the presence of VMI counsel, who would report back to VMI
leadership, could make cadets and VMI employees reluctant, out of fear of
retaliation, to convey sensitive information or information that might reflect poorly
on VMI. As explained in prior reports, VMI (through counsel) denied this potential,
insisting that having VMI counsel present would somehow benefit the interviewee
and make them more candid and forthcoming.

The Team agreed that VMI could have its counsel present for individuals
with the authority to speak for VMI as an entity— i.e., a group of “control persons,”
consisting of the Superintendent, individuals who report directly to the
Superintendent, and members of the Board of Visitors. But soon thereafter, VMI
counsel began appearing in interviews of VMI employees who did not fit the agreed
parameters. For example, VMI’s counsel were present during interviews with a
number of mid-level staff who did not report directly to the Superintendent. These
non-control persons for whom VMI nonetheless sent counsel included a number of
personnel in the middle or near the bottom of the VMI organizational chart. 14 This
prompted a dispute between the Team and VMI, with VMI’s counsel disputing the
particulars of the prior agreement and stating that, in any event, it would not deny
its counsel to VMI personnel who requested it. Subsequent interviews revealed
that some interviewees were told or suggested by a superior to request that VMI’s
counsel participate in the interview.

14See Exhibit 2 (VMI Organizational Chart (May 2019), available at

https://www.vmi.edu/media/content-assets/documents/Organizational-Chart-7-19.pdf (last visited
May 19, 2021).

23
 Fifth, these issues regarding representation delayed the Team’s access to
faculty and administrators. As discussed in the Team’s last report, most of the first
three months of this five-month investigation were wasted with disputes over
access. While the Team was able to interview those who themselves reached out to
the Team early on during the investigation, the Team was not able to send out
invitations to faculty and administrators for interviews until March 3, had to pause
the process on March 10, and were not fully cleared by VMI to affirmatively reach
out to faculty until March 30, 2021. The Team does not know what, if anything,
VMI communicated to faculty in the interim.

Sixth, a number of members of VMI’s administration, including several with

responsibilities directly relating to some of the most critical race and gender issues
that arose during the investigation, declined interview requests. This included two
high-ranking current and former administrators.

Additionally, VMI’s counsel conditioned the participation of at least one

interviewee on VMI’s counsel’s receipt of questions in advance, which was rejected.

Seventh and finally, some of the hostility encountered by the Team appears
to have originated with VMI’s assertion that investigators asked VMI to suspend
the Honor Code (discussed in more detail in the March 8 interim report). 15
Intentionally or unintentionally, VMI and the Alumni Agencies fed that mistrust
with inaccurate comments about the investigation that they issued to the press and
to alumni. These actions may have limited the number of members of the VMI
community who chose to participate in interviews or the survey and may have
affected the substance of the interviews that did take place.

C. Focus groups
The Team conducted six focus groups: three involving cadets and three
involving faculty and administration). The Team’s methodology for these focus
groups is summarized here and explained in greater detail in Appendix B. Focus
groups have advantages and disadvantages. They are good at eliciting deeper
discussions about complex topics, and they allow for clarifications and follow-up
questions. On the other hand, they are limited by the smaller number of
participants (here, no more than 10 per group) to promote discussion within the
groups and can be affected by interpersonal dynamics.

1. Cadet focus groups

The Team conducted three cadet focus groups, in person at VMI, with each
consisting of a different group of cadets (a “general” group selected without regard
to race or gender, a female group, and a racial minority group) in an effort to
provide a variety of environments in which different cadets would feel comfortable
engaging in frank discussions. Starting with a spreadsheet of current cadets, the

15 March 8 report at 2–4.

24
Team’s social scientists eliminated anyone who had already been separately
interviewed (or had declined to be interviewed) and then sent invitations to 79
individual cadets. Based on initial response rates, the Team’s social scientists
invited another 134 cadets, for a total of 213 cadets (about 13% of the corps of
cadets). Of those invited, 30 cadets signed up to participate in a group, and 18
ultimately participated (7 cancelled, 4 confirmed but did not attend, and a
scheduling conflict precluded 1 from attending). Their demographic information,
based on the VMI-provided spreadsheet, is as follows:

Table 8: Demographics of the three cadet focus groups

General Minorities Women
Category Focus Focus Focus Total
Group Group Group
Total Participants 5 6 7 18
Race Asian 0 3 1 4
African American 0 1 0 1
Caucasian 4 0 6 10
Hawaiian / Pacific
Islander 1 1 0 2
American Indian /
Alaska Native 0 1 0 1
Ethnicity Hispanic / Latino 0 1 0 1
Class First 2 1 1 4
Second 1 2 4 7
Third 0 0 0 0
Fourth 2 3 2 7
Area of Liberal Arts 3 1 1 5
Study STEM 2 5 6 13
Gender Male 5 4 0 9
Female 0 2 7 9
Athlete 1 3 3 7

The cadet focus groups, which were moderated by social scientists from the
Team, lasted two hours. The moderators posed questions on topics such as the Rat
Line, VMI’s culture, traditions, and recent related changes, racial and gender
related items, cadets’ desired changes, challenges to achieving those changes, and
feelings about the investigation. The session also concluded with an “open floor” for
discussing anything the cadets wanted to bring up.

2. Faculty and administration focus groups

The Team also conducted three focus groups with members of the VMI
faculty and administration, remotely via videoconference. As with the cadets, the
Team sent invitations only to individuals who had not already been interviewed.
To recruit a roughly representative group without targeting any specific individual,

25
the Team initially invited 70 individuals and then, based on the response rate,
invited another 71. As a result, the invitations reached 141 faculty and staff (about
71% of the entire faculty and staff population). Of those invited, 21 VMI faculty
and staff signed up, and 17 ultimately participated (2 switched to requesting
interviews, 1 cancelled, and 1 did not attend). Their demographic information,
based on a VMI-provided spreadsheet, is as follows:

Table 9: Demographics of the three faculty focus groups

Category Count

Total Participants 17
Race Caucasian 13
African American 2
Asian 2
Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino 1
Full-time Teaching Faculty 8
Position Admin. Professional 7
Classified 2
Area of Administrative 6
Employment Liberal Arts 5
STEM 4
Athletics 2
Male 9
Gender
Female 8

Like the cadet focus groups, the sessions lasted two hours. The moderators
introduced topics such as valuation of demographic diversity, inclusiveness, the
experience of different demographic groups, race-related events and their relation
to VMI’s culture, desired changes, challenges to achieving those changes, and
feelings about the investigation.

The feedback received from the cadet and the faculty focus groups was
consistent with the feedback received through interviews and survey responses and
so is taken into account in the report without specific citations. Again, those results
are summarized in Appendix B.

D. Telephone number and email for contacting the Special

Investigation Team
As explained in the Team’s interim report, the Team established a telephone
number and an email to allow interested members of the VMI community to
contact the Team directly during the investigation. A total of 594 have contacted
the Team. Specifically, 289 individuals have used the dedicated telephone number
or email address to reach the Team; the remaining 305 have either emailed team

26
members directly or used other means of contact. The individuals interviewed are
included in the numbers reported in Table 2 above.

E. Documents produced by VMI

1. Document metrics
The Team sent its first document requests to VMI on January 27, 2021. Over
the course of the investigation, the Team made 84 distinct document requests on
various topics and received over 100,000 pages of documents. 16 For example, these
requests sought:

• Documents related to the population of cadets, including lists of

matriculated cadets and cadets who attended VMI but did not
graduate; rosters of athletic teams; and lists of cadet organizations
and their members.

• Documents related to graduation and retention rates from 2015 to

present.

• Documents related to the Honor Court, including standard operating

procedures and policies, emails to cadets related to drum outs, 17 files
for cases that resulted in a drum out between 2011 and 2021, and
data about cadets accused of an Honor Code violation and the outcome
of the case.

• Documents related to other disciplinary systems, including the

General Committee, the Rat Disciplinary Committee, the Officer of
the Guard Association, and the Cadet Equity Association. The
documents included files for cadets who received sanctions for
violations of the rules within each system’s jurisdiction, and records
about incidences of sexual harassment and violence, bullying,
discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion, and civil
rights violations.

• Financial documents that show where and how VMI spends its
resources.

2. Limitations on documents
As with the interviews, the investigation was limited to the extent VMI did
not have requested documents, did not produce them, produced them late, or
produced incomplete documents. The production process was unnecessarily
complicated because VMI representatives generally chose to communicate with the
Team solely through counsel. Rarely, if at all, was the Team permitted to make

16 See VMI Global Document Request Tracker attached as Exhibit 3 for a full listing of documents
produced by VMI.
17 “Drum outs” refers to the process of expelling a cadet for and Honor Code violation.

27
inquiries or clarifications regarding document requests directly to the VMI
custodians of the documents, even when the custodians offered to produce them
directly. These document-cooperation issues affected the investigation in a number
of ways.

First, the Team faced significant obstacles in obtaining VMI’s cooperation

with its requests for Honor Court documents. The Team’s very first document
requests—made on January 27—sought all of VMI’s Honor Court-related records.
VMI’s first substantial production of documents in response to this request did not
occur until March 5, 2021. This was less than one business day before the interim
report was due to SCHEV. This production included only Honor Court case files
from 2015–2021 and included only conviction files, since according to its
procedures, the Honor Court promptly destroys all case records for any acquittal or
decision not to prosecute. VMI did not produce the files for 2011–2015 until weeks
later, after repeated follow-ups.

Meanwhile, the Team had asked VMI’s counsel in March if VMI kept any
statistics or spreadsheets on Honor Court convictions, acquittals, and/or decisions
not to prosecute. VMI said it did not. The Team then asked how the Washington
Post was able to obtain conviction statistics cited in a January 29, 2021 article.
VMI initially said that it did not know, but later admitted that VMI was the
source. Then, in a meeting with the Honor Court members (cadets) in April, the
members volunteered that the Honor Court does keep some of the exact data that
the Team had requested weeks earlier and that VMI denied existed.

Throughout much of this time, VMI declined to answer what VMI would
produce and when, why and how certain documents were not located earlier
(particularly when the Honor Court members knew where they were), and how and
why VMI’s answers to the Team’s questions changed over time.

The result was that most of these critical documents, requested in January,
were not produced until late April or May, leaving little time for analysis. In
particular, acquittal-related documents and other data that VMI shared with the
Washington Post prior to January 29 was not produced until April 26; other data
and documents on non-prosecution decisions were not produced until May 5; and
the Honor Court’s member-managed files and other natives were not produced
until May 10.

Some critical documents still have not been produced. This includes a list of
Honor Court members dating back to 2010, which the Team requested repeatedly,
starting in January. 18 Also still missing is a PowerPoint presentation, identified by
the Honor Court members, that details current Honor Court procedures and
possible changes. In the Team’s meeting with the Honor Court, the cadets

18Among other things, a list of the members would allow the Team to analyze the diversity of Honor
Court composition and its potential effect on outcomes.

28
expressed a desire to share this document with the Team but the VMI
administrators in attendance blocked them from doing so. The Team made follow-
up requests to VMI for this document, and VMI did not provide it.

Second, VMI also refused to answer basic questions about key documents
that track Honor Court cases, such as whether VMI produced (1) the documents as
they are stored in the ordinary course of business or (2) modified versions of those
documents. The Team unequivocally and repeatedly requested the former, but the
Team is concerned that VMI produced the latter in at least some instances.

It is difficult to tell which documents were provided as-kept or in a modified

form, especially given VMI’s refusal to say. Still, at least one document was almost
certainly altered to remove data. VMI provided a spreadsheet that lists the 91
drum outs that have occurred since 2011, with various characteristics listed in
specific columns (such as race of the accused, whether the accused is an athlete,
and description of the violation). It was clear from the spreadsheet that VMI had
altered the spreadsheet. Specifically, the spreadsheet contained partial deletions
where it was obvious that VMI had not scrolled down far enough to ensure that all
intended deletions were made.

Third, the Team was unable to conduct analysis on certain topics because
some data was incomplete, not kept by VMI, or not produced. For example, the
data set listing cadets accused of Honor Code violations that did not result in drum
outs dates back only to 2016 and is incomplete. This meant that there was no way
to analyze whether minority cadets were disproportionately represented in all
claims brought to the Honor Court, not just those that resulted in a drum out. The
Team describes the consequences of these gaps in the Honor Court section below.

Fourth, separate from the Honor Court documents, the Team requested
documents, including standard operating procedures, policies, and guidelines, that
VMI uses to decide which disciplinary body has jurisdiction over a certain type of
misconduct. These documents, if they exist, were not produced.

Fifth, while VMI produced budget documents, VMI for months would not
produce the underlying documents that would have allowed the Team to determine
the source of funds and the policies behind their allocation. VMI ultimately
produced this information on May 17, roughly three and a half months after it had
been requested, and after the Team had closed its investigation work and begun
preparing this report. Relatedly, although alumni funds make up more than half of
VMI’s annual budget, VMI did not produce the memoranda of understanding it has
with the Alumni Agencies relating to funds from their component alumni
associations. The Alumni Agencies, in turn, also declined to provide these
memoranda of understanding, or any documents at all on their finances or
expenditures. The Alumni Agencies also declined to provide information on
diversity initiatives, demographic information of donors, demographic information
of recipients of scholarships, grants, and other funds, and information regarding

29
the establishment and expenditures of restricted funds. The requested documents
would have provided significant insight into the processes by which funds are
raised, donated, and distributed to VMI, as well as the institutional priorities of
VMI and the Alumni Agencies and the extent to which diversity is included in
those priorities.

Sixth, and as mentioned above, the Team did not receive any of the
documents at all that it requested from the Alumni Agencies, except for a copy of
an informational PowerPoint slideshow that the Alumni Agencies presented to the
Team at the start of the investigation. For example, in addition to the omissions
noted above, the Alumni Agencies declined to provide a response to the Team’s
request for any complaints from alumni related to racial justice or allegations of
racial discrimination.

Seventh and finally, the Team experienced a delay in the production of

certain documents, including documents relating to Title IX investigations, because
VMI raised privacy concerns under the federal Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act. Once the Team resolved issues relating to that statute, VMI raised
additional concerns under other federal statutes—the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and Title
IX. While legal compliance is important, VMI’s extremely defensive posture, its
habit of raising general concerns about the laws’ applicability without identifying
the specific perceived legal problem, the significant disagreements between VMI
and the Team’s subject-matter experts over the application of these laws, and
VMI’s decision to raise these serial objections over the course of weeks instead of
all at once, caused avoidable delays and prevented timely production and progress
of the investigation. Further, when, in an effort to make forward progress, the
Team and VMI agreed that VMI could redact portions of documents it felt were
protected by federal privacy laws, VMI responded by producing volumes of
documents that were almost completely redacted (full pages, as opposed to
redacting only the information that might identify an individual). This is not
commonplace in legal practice and was not expected by the Team based on its
experience. VMI only provided the unredacted records after it received a letter, at
SCHEV’s request, from the Virginia Office of Attorney General explaining that
VMI misread the law and that state and federal law entitle SCHEV (and the Team,
as SCHEV’s designee) to the requested records without redaction.

F. A final note about maintaining an independent investigation

From the beginning of this investigation, VMI has repeatedly asked to
receive a copy of the investigative reports before they became final. 19 From the

19 E.g., May 5, 2021 letter from VMI to SCHEV (“VMI has asked (and continues to request) a
meeting with SCHEV and B&T to review and comment on the accuracy of the final report prior to
its release—whether to the Governor’s office or more broadly to the Commonwealth.”) (attached as
Exhibit 4).

30
beginning, the Team has refused this preview request. In order to maintain the
independence of the investigation and to avoid the conflict of having the entity that
is under investigation attempting to alter or undermine the content of the report,
the Team declined VMI’s request.

The Team’s refusal to preview the contents of the report has not inhibited
VMI’s cooperation and participation. It has not curbed VMI’s ability to present all
of the information it wants considered in the investigation, to draw to attention
any facts that VMI believes are relevant, or to provide the investigation with
accurate information. For example, VMI provided a two-hour presentation to the
Team in the early days of the investigation and on May 14, 2021, it provided a 72-
page submission to the Team that summarizes its diversity, equity, and inclusion
initiatives. 20

IV. Results of the audit and investigation

A. Immediate threats of violence or evidence of civil rights

violations
The first objective of the investigation was to identify any civil rights
violations or immediate threats of racial violence. 21

In evaluating whether there was evidence of civil rights violations and how
those complaints are handled, the Team considered Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title VI prohibits
discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities
receiving federal financial assistance. 22 Title IX prohibits discrimination based on
sex in education programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance,
providing that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance[.]” 23

The investigation did not identify conclusive violations of Title VI or Title IX,
but it did identify several instances and patterns that may implicate Title IX. To be
clear, determinations of civil rights violations are serious, and often require
individualized, thorough investigations. The team heard numerous accounts of
instances of racism or racial harassment, and numerous accounts of sexual assault
reports that were ignored or insufficiently addressed. The Team did not have the

20 Described more fully below, “Section G, Leadership, official policies, and training.”
21 RFP 245-110420.
22 See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
23 20 U.S. Code § 1681.

31
legal authority or ability to conduct thorough inquiries into each instance and
make legal determinations on each one.

In the race context, Title VI violations can involve issues such as racial
harassment and racially biased discipline. 24 Although the Team found racial
harassment and racially disparate discipline at VMI, these issues typically
involved individual cadets or cadet-run institutions. Title VI analysis for student
conduct is extremely nuanced, often involving the question of whether the
institution created a racially hostile student environment or permitted one to
exist. 25 The Team therefore cannot definitively conclude that VMI currently
violates Title VI. This is especially so given that VMI has recently undertaken
many steps (discussed below) since before the start of the investigation to confront
the issue of race and improve the post environment.

The investigation did not reveal any immediate threats of racial violence.

In the gender and sexual misconduct context, cadets raised several issues
that implicate Title IX compliance. The report discusses these below in Section
IV.I.

The investigation did reveal instances of sexual violence and risk of future
such instances.

B. Climate of racial intolerance

The investigation uncovered concerns with racial intolerance, slurs, and
discrimination on post. Racial minorities, in particular African Americans, observe
and experience issues with race far more frequently than Caucasians.

The accounts below are representative and not exhaustive of the findings of
this investigation, in particular to preserve the anonymity of participants and to
avoid the disclosure of identifying facts.

1. Use of racial slurs

Reports about the use of racially divisive language varied significantly by
individual. Interviewees ranged from never hearing racial slurs to hearing them
“all the time” or “24/7.” 26 In responding to the survey, 88 current cadets (17% of the
corps) reported hearing the n-word “more than a few times” while in contrast, 233

24 E.g., https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/pro-students/issues/race-origin-
issue.html.
25 See, e.g., Stafford v. George Washington Univ., 18-CV-2789 (CRC), 2019 WL 2373332, at *11

(D.D.C. June 5, 2019).

26 See. e.g., Interviewee 332, Interviewee 1704.

32
current cadets (44%) reported “never” hearing the n-word. Alumni and staff were
less likely to report that they had heard the n-word “more than a few times” (108
alumni (7%) and 10 staff (7%)) and more likely to report that they “never” heard it
(969 alumni (60%) and 106 staff (75%)). 27

Responses about hearing other racial or ethnic slurs also showed a similar
pattern, with some reporting hearing other slurs more than a few times and many
reporting never hearing other slurs. 28 Further complicating this issue is the fact
that some cadets and alumni reported hearing “racial slurs” only when being used
familiarly within racial minority groups which, the interviewees noted, may carry a
different connotation. 29

In addition to this survey data, interview responses from current or very

recent cadets also revealed specific instances in which those cadets experienced the
use of racial slurs at VMI. For example:

• One African American cadet stated that his roommates continually

used the n-word around him after he asked them to stop. He said he
reported this to the Cadet Equity Association, but said the CEA does
not have enough authority to actually do something about instances of
racism on post. The interviewee stated that an institution cannot
truly be honorable with a racist culture. 30

• At least one African American cadet and one biracial cadet reported
that they were called the n-word by peers. 31

• Another African American cadet recounted a situation in which a

brother rat was told by his roommate to “go back to Africa” and called
the n-word, and the punishment was only to change roommates. 32

• An Indian cadet reported that his former roommate called him a

“sand n***er” at one point, and also used the term “towel heads.” 33

• An Asian male was called a “Ching” by a corporal during his rat year,
and told not to be a “commie Ching” in front of others. 34

27 Appendix A at 74.
28 Id.
29 See, e.g., Interviewee 223, Interviewee 224.
30 Interviewee 204.
31 Interviewee 264, Interviewee 74.
32 Interviewee 215.
33 Interviewee 2440.
34 Interviewee 2441.

33
 • A current cadet reported being called by the n-word. That cadet did
not feel comfortable doing anything other than accepting the other
cadet’s apology and felt that he could not raise the issue with
authorities, as he felt that minority cadets have a smaller margin of
error on post. 35

• Similarly, a Caucasian cadet reported hearing the n-word “non-stop”

from other Caucasian cadets: “10 times a day from various people,
that’s not an exaggeration. I might be undershooting it.” He reported
hearing it “in my own room, walking by people, at lunch,” and among
his athletics teammates. 36

In each of the above cases, the cadets who used the slur were Caucasian.
These are examples from interviews, and are not comprehensive. Others reported
similar experiences.

Interviewees also noted that the n-word was frequently used on Jodel or
YikYak, social-media apps used by many cadets to communicate anonymously, and
sometimes cadets were called out by name. 37

Some cadets reported that racial jokes are not uncommon on post, 38 and one
noted that jokes of this sort are consistent with the “dark humor” prevalent at
VMI. 39 One female cadet reported feeling like VMI has desensitized her to racist
and sexist jokes. 40

One Caucasian current cadet appeared to defend the use of the n-word by
Caucasians. 41 He said he has heard the n-word from both African American and
Caucasian cadets, but never as a “form of hatred” or in a “hateful tone” when said
by either race. He believes the Caucasian cadets do not “mean anything” by using
the n-word, and thus using it is harmless. It is unfair to the Caucasian cadets, he
said, if the African American cadets say it themselves but then get angry when the
Caucasian cadets say it. Although he opined that it is wrong for anyone of any race
to say the word, he also said that he does not know why African American cadets
get upset when the n-word is not used in a “hateful way.”

35 Interviewee 74.
36 Interviewee 369.
37 Interviewee 2454, Interviewee 171, Interviewee 287.
38 See, e.g., Interviewee 179.
39 Interviewee 192.
40 Interviewee 202.
41 Interviewee 170.

34
 Some current cadets, in interviews and survey responses, reported hearing
the n-word used only among cadets of color. 42 Some narrative survey responses
include the following:

• “The issue lies with conduct not color. A lot of black cadets use the N
word frequently and conduct themselves poorly. There are black
cadets who are incredibly well respected. It is just a matter of how
they hold themselves, and that goes for all races. White kids who hold
themselves poorly are disliked.” 43

• “The only time I heard the N-word was said wa[s] by an African
American cadet, [to] another African American cadet in a joking
manner. I have never heard it in a derogatory way aimed specifically
from a white cadet to an African American.” 44

• “The vast majority of the times that I have heard racial slurs, it has
come from black cadets.” 45

• “The only times I hear racial slurs is when my black, football playing,
roommate calls people the n word.” 46

• “I stated that the n-word is used quite often here at VMI. I believe
that question is unfair and vague. It should be known that yes, that
word is used a lot but, it is used by African American cadets. We as
an Institute have to get rid of this double standard. No one of ANY
race should be allowed to use that word. It is derogatory and was
created to shame and humiliate African Americans. They shouldn’t
want to use that word anymore [sic] than they want white people to
use that word.” 47

Alumni from different time periods recalled hearing racial slurs with
varying degrees of frequency:

2018–2021

• An African American graduate heard the n-word used and reported an

instance where a cadet was caught on an audio recording using the n-

42 Interviewee 223, Interviewee 224.

43 Survey results, row 266, race and gender unidentified.
44 Survey results, row 84, Caucasian male.
45 Survey results, row 88, Caucasian male.
46 Survey results, row 75, Caucasian male.
47 Survey results, row 92, Caucasian/Hispanic, gender unidentified.

35
 word, but when the recording was reported, the speaker was not
disciplined. 48

• An African American graduate reported being called the n-word

“many times” at VMI. 49

• A recent African American graduate reported hearing the N-word on

post with frequency. 50

2010–2013

• A Caucasian graduate who served as a cadet captain recalled

incidents involving racial comments, where the speakers were
disciplined by being demoted to private and required to walk penalty
tours (a punishment consisting of one hour of supervised marching
while carrying a rifle). 51

2006–2009

• A Caucasian 2008 graduate reported hearing “a lot” of people using

the N-word, but described these as “isolated incidents.” 52

• A Caucasian 2006 alumnus described hearing jokes about race “all the
time.” 53

• An African American female alumna from the class of 2006 reported

hearing racial slurs “regularly.” 54

2002–2005

• A Caucasian 2002 alumnus described hearing “many” racial slurs. 55

1998–2001

• A Caucasian graduate from rural Virginia stated that use of racial

slurs was common and absolutely part of life in barracks. He noted
that he did not interact with people of color before attending VMI and

48 Interviewee 20 (example listed in March 8 Report at 10).

49 Interview 17 (example listed in March 8 Report at 10).
50 Interviewee 9.
51 Interviewee 33.
52 Interviewee 2460.
53 Interviewee 519.
54 Interviewee 231.
55 Interviewee 2434.

36
 that many cadets come from conservative families where racial
sensitivity is not taught. 56

• An African American graduate did not hear racial slurs directed at

him, but other cadets he knew heard the n-word or other racial
slurs. 57

1994–1997

• An African American graduate from 1997 described a roommate who

routinely taunted him, including asking if he had a father because
“Black people don’t have fathers,” telling him that “Black people
aren’t smart,” and asking “why did someone like you come to my
school.” 58

1989–1992

• An African American alumnus from 1989 remembers hearing the n-

word yelled out during the drum out of an African American cadet.
That alum also noted that if an African American cadet hung up a
picture of a girlfriend, it would be defaced with expletives. According
to this alumnus, racism was “baked into the cake” at VMI. 59

1985–1988

• A Caucasian alumnus from 1985 described hearing racial slurs

“24/7.” 60

Alumni (including a 2020 graduate) also pointed to coded language, noting

that other cadets would sometimes use terms like “your kind” or “your type” to
refer to African American cadets. 61 Some alumni reported having significant
issues, when they were still cadets, with older alumni who came on post. 62 These
alumni were permitted to come into barracks and would make offensive comments
to female and African American cadets.

VMI’s own internal investigations have substantiated instances of racial

slurs. Specifically, VMI provided a 223-page document titled “VMI Cadet
Government Investigations with Racial Components from 2015 to 2020.” 63 The

56 Interviewee 34.
57 Interviewee 16.
58 Interviewee 21.
59 Interviewee 63.
60 Interviewee 1704.
61 See, e.g., Interviewee 53, Interviewee 20.
62 Interviewee 350, Interviewee 137, Interviewee 26.

63 From the information available, the Team could not confirm whether any overlap existed
between the bulleted instances in this section and the instances identified in VMI’s internal
investigations.

37
document described 17 accounts between 2015 and 2021 where allegations that
VMI concluded had a “racial component” were made. Of those 17 accounts, 13 of
the allegations were substantiated, while four lacked a preponderance of the
evidence regarding the allegation. The 2019–2020 school year accounted for the
highest number of allegations with a “racial component”—six allegations were
made, of which four were substantiated and two lacked a preponderance of the
evidence regarding the allegation.

Of the allegations, many, if not most, involved cadets using racial slurs, most
commonly the n-word. Of the 17 allegations provided, a professor made at least
one, an NCAA official and a basketball player at a sporting event alleged that
cadets were using the “n-word,” and a company commander made the third
allegation. The incident regarding the “Trump Wall”/“No Cholos Allowed” costume
at a VMI Halloween party—as discussed in a Washington Post article, which linked
to a photograph of the costume—was also among the allegations provided in the
reports by VMI. For the substantiated claims, VMI punished the cadets. The
punishments included penalty tours (ranging from five to fifty tours), confinement
(ranging from one week to three months of confinement to one’s room, to the
barracks, or to post), cultural awareness training and counseling for all or some
respondents, and demerits. Some substantiated allegations also required written
letters of apology as a penalty, one resulted in loss of rank, and one resulted in a
suspension.

The Team’s investigation of the use of racial slurs revealed slurs and racist
jokes have historically been spoken and heard at VMI, and they continue to be
spoken and heard at VMI. VMI does punish the use of racial language when it is
reported. However, it appears that there are instances in which racial language or
jokes are used and not reported, or where administrators make excuses for cadets
who use this language as being uninformed. VMI provides education and training
to those cadets after the fact, but not proactively to all cadets, including incoming
cadets. In fact, it appears that VMI does not provide any sensitivity training
around racism to cadets that might deter the use of racial slurs and jokes. This
should be addressed. 64

2. Perceptions about whether there is a climate of racial

intolerance at VMI
According to the survey results, African American cadets and Caucasian
cadets generally perceive the racial climate at VMI differently:

64 See Recommendation 5(a)

38
 • 50% of African American cadets strongly or somewhat agree that there is a
culture of racial intolerance at VMI. 65 In contrast, only 10% of Caucasian
cadets strongly or somewhat agree with this statement. 66

• 42% of African American current cadets rated the extent to which people
who are African American are discriminated against at VMI as “a lot,” while
only 4% of Caucasian cadets think there is “a lot” of discrimination against
African American cadets. 67

• 50% of African American cadets strongly or somewhat agree that it is harder

for people of color to succeed at VMI than it is for Caucasian cadets, as
compared to 5% of Caucasian cadets agreeing with that statement. 68

• 33% of African American cadets strongly or somewhat agree the post

environment at VMI is welcoming to all types of people, as compared to 81%
of Caucasian cadets. 69 Likewise, 42% of African American cadets strongly or
somewhat agree with the statement, “I feel comfortable being myself at
VMI,” as compared to 86% of Caucasian cadets. 70

Consistent with these results, cadet interviewees reported different personal

experiences. Some said they have never witnessed any instances of racial
intolerance on post. 71 In particular, several cadets of color said that they have not
personally experienced any racial issues on post. 72 A Hispanic cadet felt that every
school has racial issues, and she feels like VMI is being picked on. 73

Some comments of note include the following:

2018–2021

• An alumna described her professor’s discussion in class about her

father’s involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. 74

• There was an incident, as reported in the Washington Post, where a

cadet threatened to “lynch” another cadet and “use his body as a

65 Appendix A at 110.
66 Id.
67 Id. at 169.
68 Id. at 116.
69 Id. at 100.
70 Id. at 102.
71 Interviewee 202, Interviewee 223, Interviewee 2438.
72 Interviewee 195, Interviewee 198, Interviewee 224, Interviewee 2447, Interviewee 2450.
73 Interviewee 2450.
74 Interviewee 17.

39
 punching bag.” This threat resulted in the suspension of the cadet for
one year. One alumnus with firsthand knowledge stated that the class
voted to expel the cadet but that the administration commuted his
punishment to a suspension. 75

2005–2002

• A former female cadet who was “very concerned” about issues of race
and gender at VMI reported leaving the school after learning of a plan
to physically assault her. 76

1994–1997

• An interview subject described a letter sent to a cadet of color

containing racial slurs or threats. The administration investigated the
issue, and the police were involved. 77

Both the written responses to the survey’s free-response questions and

statements made during interviews illustrated these different perceptions. Some
current cadets believed that racism at VMI is rare or nonexistent:

• “I have not experienced any sort of racism or discrimination at VMI. I

am friends with cadets of all colors here and am proud to say I’ve
never witnessed any type of racism.” 78

• “I have never experienced, seen, or heard of a black cadet being called

the N-word at VMI. I have only frequently heard it used by black
cadets to address other black cadets.” 79

• “I strongly believe that racism at VMI is purely isolated events, and

not apart [sic] of a systemic problem.” 80

• “Nobody here cares what your race is it is all in your merit. We all go
through the same ratline together black, white, Hispanic, purple it
doesn’t matter. We all go through the same struggles as rats and see
each other as equals. The way people see you at VMI is by how good of
a cadet you are and how much you care about other people.” 81

75 Interviewee 9.
76 Interviewee 2382.
77 Interviewee 47.
78 Survey results, row 195 (Asian, male).
79 Survey results, row 196.
80 Survey results, row 203 (Caucasian, male).
81 Survey results, row 210 (American/Alaska native, male, athlete).

40
 • “Knowing that we truly do have a family here, I know I nor my
[brother rats] would never discriminate against each other because we
truly are family.” 82

In contrast, other cadets stated that racism against cadets of color exists at
VMI:

• “I believe there is 100% racism present at VMI and it is disgusting.” 83

• “In my opinion as [an] African-American Cadet Athlete, I feel a lot

safer at VMI now with Major General Wins as Superintendent
knowing that he is accepting to change. I did not feel safe on campus
when General Peay was Superintendent. I would never walk alone at
night in fear of being harmed or targeted.” 84

• “My roommate is Asian-American, he has told me of multiple

instances of other white cadets making covid-related ‘jokes’ behind his
back.” 85

• “The issue here isn’t that there are rules designed to be racist, it is
that this school attracts white conservative men like moths to a lamp
and the culture here CLEARLY reflects that. Whether it is unequally
enforced rules or people feeling very comfortable using slurs, the main
issue here is that no one is willing is call these people out on it
because this horrible culture is incubated by the fact that this school
is demographically homogenous.” 86

• A mixed-race cadet felt as if approximately 20% of the corps are

openly racist. 87

• A Hispanic cadet said that she had witnessed and personally

experienced multiple incidents of racism. She reported that she often
witnessed fellow cadets of color (and herself) being treated more
harshly, or ignored, when similarly situated Caucasian cadets were
not. 88

82 Survey results, row 23 (Asian, male).

83 Survey results, row 186 (Caucasian, male)
84 Survey results, row 67 (African American, male, athlete).
85 Survey results, row 280 (Caucasian, male).
86 Survey results, row 300 (Caucasian, female).
87 Interviewee 171.
88 Interviewee 205.

41
 2018–2021

• A graduate reported that he counseled other minority cadets they

needed to suppress their culture to make it through VMI. As an
example, Caucasian cadets could blast country music while African
American cadets would be penalized for dancing to hip hop music. He
also reported being repeatedly harassed about his hair even when it
was within standards. 89

2002–2005

• An African American alumnus expressed concern that someone on

post needs to be trained to handle African American women’s hair. He
noted that they are expected to wear their hair a certain way but that
no one can do it properly. 90

1993–1997

• A 1996 alumnus noted that mixers were not inclusive, as they played
Dixie and exclusively Southern music. Confederate flags were also
present. “Everything” telegraphed that the mixers were not for him. 91

• Some African American alumni reported other cadets and faculty

assuming they were athletes. 92

Finally, a handful of survey participants went so far as to complain that the

real problem at VMI is racism against Caucasian cadets and that, in their view, it
is worse than racism against African Americans. These comments reflect the
attitudes about racism that exist at VMI in the absence of sufficient DEI training
and strong leadership on DEI:

• “I think that while everyone wants to focus on white racism towards

blacks, they fail to realize that they themselves are being racist to
white and black cadets alike. White people are treated horribly due to
this investigation and are often met with more severe punishments
now.” 93

89 Interviewee 20.
90 Interviewee 290.
91 Interviewee 53.
92 E.g., Interviewee 47.
93 Survey results, row 36 (Caucasian, male).

42
 • “There is racism towards ‘White’ and ‘Black’ people at VMI... I have
experienced more racist acts towards ‘White’ cadets than towards
‘Black’ cadets.” 94

• “There are race issues against black people, but I would say there are
even more against white men here.” 95

• “I believe that VMI is rapidly approaching an environment that

shames being white and only supports students of color.” 96

• “[T]here is more racism toward white cadets by black cadets that is

unseen and unnoticed due to the white cadets not being listened to or
believed. There is also more racial slurs, including the n-word, said by
black cadets on a daily basis than any said by any other group of
cadets in a year.” 97

The survey results suggest that the cadet experience varies among different
groups of people of color. In particular, African American cadets feel less at home
at VMI than do Hispanic cadets. The survey asked cadets to rate the extent to
which they feel that people of their race have a difficult time fitting in or feeling
like they belong in the VMI corps: 58% of African American cadets said that their
African American peers had “a lot” of difficulty, while only 11% of Hispanic cadets
responded that way about their Hispanic peers. 98

Several alumni highlighted the role of social media in relation to issues of

race and gender. For example, some African American alumni did not feel they
experienced racism during their time as cadets, but that they had seen racism in
Facebook groups as alumni. 99 Since the beginning of the investigation, many
alumni have actively posted on VMI alumni social media pages and message
boards. While these posts discuss a wide range of topics from varying perspectives,
a large portion of the posts and comments are cast in a political, left-versus-right,
conservative-versus-liberal light, with the vast majority of commenters identifying
with the right/conservative ideology and expressing disdain for the left. Some
alumni posts include confederate flag photos and discussions that include
disparaging references to African Americans and other minorities, the Black Lives
Matter movement, members of the LGBTQ population, and women (including
nostalgic call-backs to the “Old Corps,” a term used for the corps prior to the
admission of women). The Team did not see any posts with explicit racial slurs,

94 Survey results, row 52 (Caucasian, male).

95 Survey results, row 98 (Caucasian, female).
96 Survey results, row 121 (male, race undisclosed).
97 Survey results, row 233 (male, race undisclosed).
98 Appendix A at 105–06.
99 Interviewee 47, 65.

43
although these are often monitored and taken down by Facebook or other social
networking sites.

C. Demographic information about VMI as compared to other

higher-education institutions
The Team also reviewed publicly available data comparing VMI to other
Virginia higher-education institutions and to other military institutions. The data
underlying these statistics comes from the State Council of Higher Education for
Virginia and from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).
The comparison groups include 15 Virginia public institutions, 25 private Virginia
institutions, and 10 military institutions (including the five federal service
academies and five military colleges). 100 For specific details about the methodology
used, see Appendix C at 3.

This data generally shows that, with limited exceptions, VMI tends to trail
other comparable Virginia and military institutions when it comes to the diversity
of its cadets and faculty, and that VMI’s demographic makeup generally does not
reflect the makeup of its surrounding populations or the U.S. Armed Services.

1. Student-body demographics
VMI’s student body is 75% Caucasian or unknown, 8% Hispanic, 6% African
American, 5% Asian or Pacific Islander, 3% multi-race, and 2% foreign (such as
exchange cadets). Relative to the comparison groups, VMI had a higher percentage
of Caucasian students, with Virginia public institutions at 56% Caucasian,
Virginia private institutions at 71% Caucasian, and military institutions at 67%
Caucasian. 101

100 Appendix C at 31 (listing the comparison institutions).

101 Id. at 6.

44
Figure 1: Overall student body composition by race and ethnicity

In comparison to the other senior military colleges, VMI, like the Citadel and
Norwich, had higher percentages of Caucasian students than most larger
institutions. 102

Figure 2: Student body composition at senior military colleges

102 Appendix D at 8.

45
 VMI also had a higher percentage of Caucasian students than the U.S.
military has of Caucasian active and reserve members. 103

Figure 3: Comparison with demographics of the U.S. military

Further, VMI had a higher percentage of Caucasian cadets relative to the

composition of the surrounding population and the Commonwealth, except
compared to Lexington. 104

103 Id. at 10.

104 Appendix D at 11.

46
Figure 4: Comparison of demographics with surrounding populations

When comparing the number of students of color at VMI in 2015 with the
number in 2020, VMI’s enrollment of students of color increased by 5 percentage
points, but still lagged behind the comparison groups. 105 This increase between
2015 and 2020 enrollment was primarily the result of the enrollment of more
Hispanic students. 106

105 Appendix C at 8.
106 Appendix C at 9.

47
Figure 5: Student diversity over time

According to recent data, VMI’s applicant pool was predominantly male, and
the rates for accepted applicants and applicants who chose to attend VMI was
similar for males and females. 107

Figure 6: Admission metric by gender

When comparing whether students who completed their first year were still
at the institution at the end of the second year, VMI’s retention rates for students
of color, for women, and for Pell Grant recipients were higher than the retention
rates for the Virginia comparison groups in 2018. 108 Note that these rates would

107 Id. at 11. Data for admissions metric by race or ethnicity was not available.
108 Appendix C at 14.

48
not account for students who enrolled but left during their first year at a particular
school (such as during the Rat Line).

Figure 7: Retention rates across demographic categories

As for graduation rates, both VMI and the military institutions comparison
group increased overall graduation rates from 2015 to 2018, but the graduation
rates for VMI and the military institutions comparison group decreased for African
American students. 109

Figure 8: VMI and military institutions graduation rates

109 Appendix C at 16.

49
 As for graduation rates at other Virginia institutions, VMI’s 2018 graduation
rates were higher than the median rates for Virginia public and private
institutions both overall and for most race and ethnicity categories. 110

Figure 9: Virginia institutions graduation rates

2. Faculty demographics
On the faculty front, VMI’s instructional staff had a smaller percentage of
people of color than the median at Virginia public institutions and at the military
institutions, but a slightly higher percentage than Virginia private institutions. 111

Figure 10: Instructional staff diversity

110 Id. at 17.

111 Appendix C at 22.

50
 VMI employed fewer people of color in instructional positions compared to
its surrounding general population. 112

Figure 11: VMI instructional staff compared with surrounding population

Within VMI, instructors at the rank of assistant professor had the most
racial and ethnic diversity, while more senior faculty positions had a higher
percentage of Caucasian employees. 113

112 Appendix D at 29.

113 Appendix C at 23.

51
Figure 12: VMI instructional staff diversity

Further, VMI had the highest percentage of Caucasian tenured and tenure-track
instructional staff compared to the median across comparison groups. 114

Figure 13: Comparison of faculty diversity, tenure and tenure track

With respect to new hires, VMI hired seven Caucasian employees for every
person of color, with new hires spread across a variety of roles and departments. 115

114 Id. at 24.

115 Appendix C at 26.

52
Figure 14: New hires by race, ethnicity, and staff category

D. The divide between athlete and non-athlete cadets

As noted in the interim report, one source of tension among the cadets is
perhaps not a direct issue of race, but is intertwined with race: the divide between
those cadets who participate in NCAA athletics and those who do not. While some
alumni observed that “every cadet is an athlete,” alumni and current cadets
repeatedly referred to a divide between “athletes” and “cadets” or “athlete” and
“non-athlete” cadets.

While VMI’s student body as a whole is only about 6% African American (see
Figure 1), roughly 60% of African American cadets are athletes (based on the roster
of current cadets provided by VMI). Put another way, if one were to meet an
African American VMI cadet, there would be a 60% chance that cadet is an athlete.
Based on this, some interviewees and survey responders opined (incorrectly) that a
majority of the athletes are African American. 116

In fact, 70% of athletes are Caucasian and non-Hispanic, and only 18% of
athletes are African American. Some cadets indicated that the reason for this
misperception is that, to some, the term “athlete” refers mainly to members of the
football and basketball teams, but even on those teams, most players are not

See, e.g., Survey results, row 74 (Caucasian, female, non-athlete); Interviewee 162 (Caucasian
116

male); Interviewee 85.

53
African American. According to VMI documents, five of 15 players on the
basketball roster for 2020–2021 and 31 of 93 players on the football roster for
2020–2021 are African American. Accordingly, the assertion that “VMI doesn’t
have a race issue, it has an athlete issue” is misconceived. Any effort to address
racism at VMI will have to include addressing the athlete/non-athlete divide, but
addressing the athlete/non-athlete divide alone will not solve VMI’s race issues.

The charts below shows the breakdown of athletes and non-athletes in

various ways.

Figure 15: Cadets categorized by non-athlete compared with athlete

Non-Athlete Athlete
1218 409
75% 25%

Figure 16: Caucasian and non-Hispanic non-athletes compared with non-

athletes of color
Caucasian and non- Person of color Other Corps Total Corps
Hispanic non-Athlete Non-Athlete Non-Athlete Non-Athlete
941 247 30 1218
77% 20% 2% 100%

Figure 17: Caucasian and non-Hispanic athletes compared with athletes of

color
Caucasian and non- Person of color Other Corps Total Corps
Hispanic athlete Athlete Athlete Athlete
281 127 1 409
69% 31% 0% 100%

Figure 18: Caucasian and non-Hispanic non-athletes compared with

African American non-athletes
Caucasian and non- African American Other Corps Total Corps
Hispanic non-Athlete Non-Athlete Non-Athlete Non-Athlete
941 48 229 1218
77% 4% 19% 100%

54
Figure 19: Caucasian and non-Hispanic athletes compared with African
American athletes
Caucasian and non- African American Other Corps Total Corps
Hispanic athlete Athlete Athlete Athlete
281 72 56 409
69% 18% 14% 100%

According to a number of current cadets and alumni, the divide between

cadets and athletes stems from the different experiences cadets and athletes
undergo. For example, incoming cadets undergo what is known as the “Rat Line”
for roughly six months, which is similar to a basic training environment, with
upperclassmen as the “cadre,” or leadership group. 117 Additionally, cadets of all
classes participate in parades, inspections, and other military events during the
year. Athletes are excused from many of these events and experiences and
therefore do not have to undergo a number of what might be thought of as the more
military and physically taxing aspects of VMI.

From the athletes’ perspective, they have to commit significant time to their
teams and undergo tough physical training as well. These cadet athletes are doing
what is expected of them as NCAA Division I intercollegiate athletes. One graduate
(class of 2011) described an athlete’s day as 0700 formation, breakfast, classes for
first part of day, and then around 1700 going to the football field for practice, film,
or lifting until 1930. 118 Dinner formation followed at 1930, which meant around
2030 to 2100 it was time to study, and finally going to bed around 2300 to 0100 the
next morning. 119 Many athletes arrive at VMI on athletic scholarship, and so some
view the military training as an obligation, not a desire. 120 For others, the corps
events that they miss are a function of timing beyond their control. 121

From the non-athlete cadets’ perspective, the non-athletes are required to

participate in all corps obligations, no excuses, and “pick up the slack” for any
missing cadets. They see completing the obligations normally assigned to the
athletes as a necessary responsibility, but it is not one they particularly like.
Cadets are also required to devote nearly all day Saturday during the football
season to events associated with the games and attendance at the games

117 New Cadet Handbook 2020–2021 at 41 (defining the “Rat Line” as “[t]he whole experience of
being a rat; also the specific path in barracks which rats must use in going from one place to
another”).
118 Interviewee 49.
119 Id.
120 Interviewee 116; Interviewee 8.
121 Interviewee 21.

55
themselves. For students with very little free time, this can give further rise to
tensions. In addition, some non-athletes perceive that athletes are less invested in
the military lifestyle, and less involved in VMI and its traditions, especially during
the Rat Line. Some non-athletes feel that athletes are less willing than they are to
conform with their fellow rats, and are more likely to cheat. 122 A number of
interviewees stated that this sentiment was even stronger toward members of the
football and basketball teams, who are perceived as not working as hard as non-
athletes and as receiving preferential treatment. 123

Members of the VMI community provided some examples of what they view
as preferential treatment. For example, while each of the new athletic facilities
built during GEN Peay’s tenure included lounge areas for the athletes, there is no
similar space available for non-athletes. Some cadets wonder why athletes get a
tutor to help them with classes when other cadets do not. 124 A graduate noted that
when athletes are disciplined, they get sent to a study hall, in contrast to non-
athlete cadets who get penalty marches. 125

Similar tensions exist at other NCAA Division I institutions, but the unique
aspects of academic, athletic, and military training at VMI make it much stronger
and more complex to resolve. Everyone is under significant pressure, which can
cause higher-intensity reactions.

Current cadets’ responses to the free-form questions in the survey illustrate

the divide:

• “I myself have a lot of friends who are athletes here, but one thing I
can tell you and they will tell you themselves is that they did not come
here for the systems we have. Many of them have no problem saying
they just came here for [Division I] sports, or to play here for a year or
two and then just transferring to a bigger school. When I was a rat,
my first day, my roommate said after getting yelled at for not doing
something fast enough or well enough was ‘I didn’t come here for this
Sh*t.’ It’s hard to ignore that and forget that. I do not resent him for
that, it just made me realize that a lot of athletes did not come here
for the same things as me.” 126

122 Interviewee 218, Interviewee 2411; Survey results, row 14.

123 Interviewee 2451, Interviewee 2453, Interviewee 253, Interviewee 2411.
124 See, e.g., Survey results, row 232.
125 Interviewee 19.
126 Survey results, row 185 (male, non-athlete, race undisclosed).

56
 • “There is a known recent history that athletes do not care about the
VMI system and try to oppose rules and authority.” 127

• “Talk more about the culture between student-athletes and the rest of
the Corps. This is what divides the corps. This is where the tension is
not in race but about people who care for the school and want to be
here not those who came for just a sport and [treat] this place with
disrespect.” 128

• “Cadet-athletes here in general are disliked due to the fact they give
little to no care for the school.” 129

• “In high school, many athletes that will receive a college scholarship
look forward to a life of sports, popularity and enjoying their college
life. It seems to me that lots of athletes come in to this school with the
impression that they can live that life and choose when to participate
in the VMI system. That’s just not how it works. When you commit to
one of the most respected lifestyles in America, you can’t decide which
parts you feel like participating in.” 130

• “The reason athletes appear to be disproportionally targeted is

because they tend to be the ones to disregard the system most. Not all,
not even the majority, but some.” 131

• “Athletes also, for the most part do not care as much about the system
(they just care about their sport) as the rest of the corps who came
here for the system, and not for a sport, and the corps resents them
for it.” (Male, row 2.)

• “[T]here is a divide in this school. However it is not a race divide but a

divide between athletes and non athletes. The athletes do not
experience the ratline the way we do, and they get special treatment
throughout their cadetship. This leads to them never really becoming
a true part of the corp[s] unless they actively seek to do so. The
highest concentration of People of color are on NCAA teams. Because
of this people often misread a divide or a feeling of being an outsider
as being because of [their] race when in fact it is because they are an
NCAA athlete.” 132

127 Survey results, row 197 (Caucasian, male, athlete), Interviewee 85 (stating that a group of
athletes committed to ignore the Honor Code).
128 Survey results, row 207 (Caucasian, male, non-athlete).
129 Survey results, row 213 (non-athlete, race and gender undisclosed).
130 Survey results, row 219 (male, athlete, race undisclosed).
131 Survey results, row 220 (multiracial, male, non-athlete).
132 Survey results, row 11 (Caucasian, male, non-athlete).

57
 • “The issue at VMI is that you have some athletes who come here for
the scholarship not knowing what they are getting themselves into.
[It’s] not their fault, they aren’t fully informed on what the school is
like but they get here and do not respect the rules the school or ratline
and this builds resentment against them. Some of these athletes with
this attitude are of color and interpret this resentment as racism, it
isn’t. It is due to their attitude, or perceived attitude, of believing they
are outside the rules.” 133

• “1. The first problem is NCAA coaches lie to prospective recruits about
what VMI is such that they can get better players. Those players show
up and have no idea what they are getting into and otherwise would
not have come here if they had known. 2. The second problem is cadet
athletes who only want to play sports who have no desire/want
nothing to do with the rest of the school.” 134

• “I strongly believe cadet athletes are extremely discriminated against

here, both by the people in power and by the students.” 135

• “The issues in the VMI culture do not strongly stem from racial
origins. I would not argue that there are divides at this school[,] the
largest being the divide causes by NCAA athletics and by gender, and
without a doubt there should not be these divides present. I hope this
investigation remains unbiased and uncovers the truth, that the
issues surrounding this school do not stem from southern culture or
[r]acial intolerance, but instead from easily solved surface level
divides such as those discussed above.” 136

As the above statements illustrate, a number of survey responders and

interviewees stated that the central source of tension on post is based not on race
but on the athlete versus non-athlete divide. But those perceptions were based at
least in part on the inaccurate premise that most athletes are African American,
when in fact (as noted above) only 18% of athletes are African American. This
reflects that the “athlete” problem is just a proxy for a race problem.

For example:

• “Personally I don’t think there is any racial discrimination[] or issues

at VMI. The issue comes with cadet athletes and non athletes. Our

133 Survey results, row 31 (Hispanic, male, non-athlete).

134 Survey results, row 57 (male, athlete, race undisclosed).
135 Survey results, row 61 (Caucasian, male, athlete).
136 Survey results, row 184 (male, non-athlete, race undisclosed).

58
 goal is to recruit the best athletes possible, it’s not our fault that
majority of athletes that come in are African American.” 137

• “The issue of race at VMI comes from the athlete to non-athlete

relationship at VMI. The majority of black students at VMI are
athletes. The mentality of most athletes who are recruited for VMI is
that they are coming to VMI to play [Division I] sports, and their
primary goal is to be a student athlete. When any athlete comes to
VMI not for the military system, they have a tendency to not fully
participate in the system and sometimes actively rebel against it. The
issue at VMI is not that of race; [it is] that of athletes and non
athletes. It just so happens that most athletes on more ‘rebellious’
teams (football and basketball) are black. When majority black
athletes refuse to conform to the military system at VMI, it causes an
issue between athletes and non athletes who came to VMI for the
military system. When the majority of those athletes are black, it
creates unconscious bias within the corps against black cadets, which
is the reason for the issues with race at VMI. The issue is that non
athletes came to VMI for VMI, and athletes came to VMI for sports,
and they just don’t see eye to eye.” [Some punctuation added.] 138

• One cadet stated that the perceived racial divide is actually more
along the line of NCAA athletes vs. non-NCAA athletes, and that it’s
coincidental that more NCAA athletes are African American. 139

Cadets also shared their views on the term “permit,” which many people use
to describe athletes, because athletes are “permitted” to miss regular corps
obligations for practice and games. 140 There is some disagreement about whether
this term is a derogatory term or if it is derogatory when aimed at athletes of color.
A non-athlete of color described the word as a dog-whistle term used toward
African American athletes. 141 He said that permits are thought of as rule breakers
who get out of requirements. A Caucasian athlete reported that while he has never
been called a “permit,” he noticed African American athletes were. 142 A female
athlete of color stated that although it did not bother her to be called a “permit,” it
did bother her brother rats who are football players. 143 Some cadets reported that

137 Survey results, row 74 (Caucasian, female, non-athlete).

138 Survey results, row 263 (Caucasian, male, non-athlete).
139 Interviewee 162 (Caucasian male).
140 See New Cadet Handbook 2020–2021 at 41 (defining “permit” in part as a document that

“grant[s] approval for exceptions to policies”).

141 Interviewee 2440.
142 Interviewee 369.
143 Interviewee 2437.

59
the term is derogatory or is sometimes used in a derogatory way. 144 Other cadets,
both athletes and non-athletes, did not find the term offensive. 145 A current
member of cadre opined that “permit” is not racially charged. 146 Another cadet
stated that it is used to describe all athletes, not just athletes of color. 147

Some alumni also shared the view that the term “athlete” is derogatory at
VMI:

• When speaking about the tension that exists between the largely
minority athlete population and non-athlete population, a recent
graduate expressed the opinion that “athlete” is code for “black” and
has just become another term to refer to African American cadets in a
derogatory way. 148

• A Hispanic alumna (class of 2005) opined that people use the “athlete
title to cover up racism.” 149

• An alumna from the class of 2002 reported being ridiculed by fellow

cadets for dating an African American athlete, and being asked if she
“knew she was white.” 150

Many current cadets also believed that those recruiting the athletes were
not forthright about the expectations of the school and that this contributed to the
issues once they arrived. Some cadets stated that coaches affirmatively tell recruits
that they will not have to participate in many military activities, or they fail to
disclose the full extent of the Rat Line. Some athletes are frustrated that coaches
and recruiters misrepresented the extent of the Rat Line. As one athlete said: “we
[recruits] don’t actually know what is going on, coaches don’t tell us—you’re just
shocked.” 151 Another athlete reported that her coach did not tell her how strenuous
the Rat Line was, and that if she had known, she would not have come to VMI. 152

Below are some additional statements from current cadets about the
recruiting process:

144 Interviewee 197, 198.

145 Interviewee 2437, Interviewee 341.
146 Interviewee 2411.
147 Interviewee 2416.
148 Interviewee 9.
149 Interviewee 2476.
150 Interviewee 2382.
151 Interviewee 374, initial interview.
152 Interviewee 363.

60
 • “Being a cadet athlete, it was a shock to me because the coaches are
not very transparent when they are recruiting you. This can be a
problem because if you come to VMI and expect one thing but get a
completely different experience, you will be very unsatisfied.” 153

• Athletes who are recruited to VMI often do not even know about the
Rat Line, and when they arrive, they try to escape it by going to
practice. 154

• Athletes are only shown good parts of VMI during recruiting, and
none of the bad; and, they [athletes] may not have come to VMI had
they been given the full picture. 155

• “The problem with athletes is that the athletic department is

downright untruthful to prospective cadet athletes and tell them that
they don’t have to follow our rules because they are athletes which is
a borderline malicious lie and creates a divide.” 156

Whatever the impact of race, this investigation reveals a clear tension

between two VMI objectives: (1) achieving a cohesive corps of cadets, who enjoy “a
closeness at VMI that is rare in American colleges,” 157 and (2) fielding competitive
Division I athletics programs. The prevailing view within the VMI community is
that VMI is not succeeding at achieving both objectives, and that the latter
compromises the former.

Coaches at VMI, and everywhere, are incentivized to attract the best athletic
talent; and VMI coaches are responsible for winning, not for ensuring that athletes
and other cadets get along, or for fostering a post-wide community of trust,
dependability, and cohesion. This creates significant risk that recruiters will focus
recruits’ attention only or mainly on the athletics-specific benefits (a scholarship
and chance to play in Division I), and will not promote—and may even hide or
misrepresent—VMI’s other, more strenuous aspects. The risk is especially acute
given that VMI is one of Division I’s smallest institutions, 158 perhaps leading
prospective cadet-athletes to consider VMI when they would not otherwise consider

153 Survey results, row 349 (Male, athlete, race undisclosed).

154 Interviewee 174.
155 Interviewee 207, an African American male.
156 Caucasian, male, row 329.
157 https://www.vmi.edu/cadet-life/daily-life/first-year/ https://www.vmi.edu/cadet-life/daily-life/first-

year/.
158 https://vmikeydets.com/sports/2002/8/8/1420805.aspx.

https://vmikeydets.com/sports/2002/8/8/1420805.aspx.

61
a military college. In any event, if athletes are misled about what they are getting
into, they are bound to become resentful, making the divide worse.

Many alumni shared the same opinions as the cadet opinions above. 159

Some alumni also suggested that this tension starts in the Rat Line, where
first-class mentors, known as “dykes,” 160 teach their “rat” mentees to resent
athletes (and potentially pass on whatever other biases they might carry, such as
disapproval of women). 161 Many expressed the view that the tension is worst
during rat year because the circumstances are so miserable that the perceived
privileges afforded athletes stand in stark contrast to the other rats’ day-to-day
experiences.

There is a common view among alumni that VMI has made little, if any,
attempt over the years to remedy these issues. One cadet referenced a brief
meeting in recent years where the commandant told them these tensions needed to
cease, but there was no action plan or follow up. Another alumnus mentioned that
the issue was discussed at a Leadership Focus Group in which he participated, but
they were unable to come up with a solution. 162 Indeed, several alumni noted that
this divide has gotten worse lately, and that athletes were previously seen as an
integral part of the corps. Some of this divide may well be attributable to the
“corporatization” of Division I sports, but there are also structural issues at VMI
which make it particularly susceptible to this problem.

VMI’s leadership is aware that this divide has existed for some time.
General Peay acknowledged it in his July 2020 letter, encouraging NCAA athletes
“to take advantage more fully of the numerous opportunities at VMI and to grow
beyond the wonderful leadership opportunities they experience on their teams and
in competition.” In turn, he encouraged the corps of cadets to “more fully
understand and appreciate the difficulty of classmates competing at the highest
levels in representing their school, while balancing common challenges of
priorities, time, and difficult academics.” 163 Additionally, MG Wins—himself a very
successful former cadet-athlete—is addressing this divide by developing a vision of
“One VMI” as one of his strategic goals for VMI, and he noted in his May 14 letter

159 See, e.g., Interviewee 118.

160 The “dyke system” is one of the most revered traditions at VMI, whereby each incoming rat
(freshman) cadet is assigned a first class (senior) mentor. Mentors are referred to as “dykes”; their
mentoring relationship is the “dyke relationship.” According to the New Cadet Handbook, the term
“dyke” “originated in the 19th-century mispronunciation of the term ‘to get decked out,’” and the
term often refers to the white cross belts worn as part of dress uniforms.
161 Interviewee 290.
162 Interviewee 33.
163 Peay Letter at 4 (attached as Exhibit 5).

62
that this divide is a theme that has arisen in his recent listening sessions with the
VMI community. 164 Further, members of the Board of Visitors also acknowledged
that many athletes at VMI do not share the same experience as other cadets.

Unless these issues are addressed directly, it is likely that the tensions,
particularly the racial tensions, will remain as a central aspect of the VMI
experience.

E. Disciplinary systems at VMI

1. Overview of VMI’s disciplinary systems
As a military college, VMI has multiple organizations that play separate, but
sometimes overlapping, disciplinary roles. This includes a regimental system, a
cadet government that runs the class system, an Honor Court, and oversight by
administrators, including the Commandant and Superintendent. These systems
fall under different sets of regulations. As explained in a regulation that VMI
provided, a series of manuals called the “Rainbow Books” codify procedures,
regulations, and standards at VMI. 165 These five documents are:

• Blue Book – VMI’s Cadet Regulations;

• Red Book – The Cadet Regiment’s Operating Procedures;

• White Book – The Cadet Government’s Operating Procedures;

• Yellow Book – The Operating Procedures for the Rat Line and 4th
Class Training; and

• Green Book – The Operating Procedures for the Recreational

Activities of Cadet Life Office.

One alumnus told the Team that the “Rainbow Books” also include a “black book”
that governs the Honor Court. While the Team has asked for all Honor Court
governance documents, the Team has not received a “black book,” and because of
the other issues with the production of Honor Court materials, is not certain
whether a “black book” exists.

The following provides a brief overview of these systems, to aid in

understanding which aspects of cadet life they cover and how different values are
enforced through different mechanisms at VMI.

a. The regimental system

The regimental system administers the military component of VMI and is
based on a regular infantry regiment. 166 The cadet regiment consists of two

164 Exhibit 6 at 3.
165 Regulations for VMI at 10 (rev’d 2014).
166 New Cadet Handbook 2020–2021 at 17.

63
battalions comprised of five companies each (nine line companies and a band
company). The regiment is commanded by the cadet first captain, and the
command structure continues from battalion down through companies, platoons,
and squads. Cadets apply for leadership positions in the regimental system and are
appointed as cadet officers and non-commissioned officers by the Superintendent
on the recommendation of the Commandant of Cadets. 167

The regimental system resembles the structure of the military, but appears
to have less influence on a cadet’s daily life than the cadet government does,
because it is the cadet government that administers the class system and the Rat
Line.

b. Cadet government, including the class system and

the Rat Line
The cadet government is separate from but interacts with the regimental
system. The General Committee oversees the cadet government and administers
the class system. 168 Under the class system, each class—the rats, who eventually
become the fourth class (freshmen), the third class (sophomores), the second class
(juniors) and the first class (seniors)—have different privileges and responsibilities.
Unlike the regimental system, where the leaders are appointed by the
administration, the General Committee consists of cadets who were elected by
their respective classes. (The fourth class elects its officers after the spring
furlough.) As a result, some alumni described the positions in the class system as
“more prestigious” than those in the regimental system; consistent with this, the
VMI administration, when briefing the Team, noted that the class system, through
the General Committee, has more authority than the regimental system.

The General Committee authorizes privileges by class. For example, it

controls general permits, certain rules governing which uniforms cadets may wear,
and privileges such as where cadets may use phones and which sidewalks, sinks,
and showers they may use. It also “strictly upholds the standards, traditions,
image and welfare of the entire Corps.” 169 Its jurisdiction is broad, including
punishment for violations of privileges and also VMI regulations, but not including
jurisdiction for penalties involving sexual offenses. 170 As examples of the broad
range of conduct it covers, the General Committee polices the following:
unauthorized Rat Line activity, improper treatment of another cadet based on race,
striking another cadet, failing to pay a debt, leaving the football stadium early,

167 Regulations for VMI at 8 (rev’d 2014).

168 New Cadet Handbook 2020–2021 at 17.
169 White Book at 2-1.
170 White Book at 2-4 & 7-1.

64
chewing gum in public, and anything that might “discredit[] the Institute.” 171 The
General Committee may award any penalty, other than demerits, with the
concurrence of the assistant commandant for cadet government.

The General Committee has four primary subcommittees: the Officer of the
Guard Association, the Cadet Equity Association, the Executive Committee, and
the Rat Disciplinary Committee. 172

The Officer of the Guard Association enforces the conduct standards for the
corps of cadets, manages the dyke system, and serves as the investigative arm of
the General Committee; it is made up of first class privates (i.e., cadets who do not
hold leadership positions in the regimental system). 173 For example, the OGA
investigates cases of hazing, gross misconduct of a cadet, abuses of the dyke
system, and violations of the professional-relations policy. The OGA has three
subcommittees. The first is the Education Committee, which develops and provides
training and education to the cadets as deemed necessary by the VMI
Administration or first class president. The second is the Investigative Committee;
it enforces the conduct of the cadets and investigates matters for the GC and EC
and Administration as requested. Finally, the Dyke Committee oversees
administration of the VMI dyke system and investigates any cases involving
abuses of the dyke system.

The Cadet Equity Association provides education on equity and promotes

respect and equitable treatment for cadets. 174 It also enforces equal treatment of
cadets on the basis of race, gender, or position of leadership in the corps. And the
CEA investigates instances of alleged discrimination and harassment (though in
instances of sexual assaults, it may be involved in an investigation only at the
discretion of the Institute’s Inspector General and Title IX coordinator). 175

The Executive Committee handles serious cases of misconduct. 176 It is made

of the General Committee and the President of the Officer of the Guard Association
(and so consists of cadets from the first, second, and third classes). The assistant
commandant for cadet government attends Executive Committee hearings. 177

The Rat Disciplinary Committee adjudicates violations of rat restrictions,

supervises Rat Line events, and assists in the development of rats. It consists of

171 White Book at 2-4, 2-5.

172 White Book (unnumbered second page).
173 White Book at 10-1.
174 Id. at 21-1.
175 Id.
176 Id. at 2-7.
177 Id.; see also New Cadet Handbook 2020–2021 at 40.

65
first class cadets and second class cadets, but every cadet has a responsibility to
implement the rat system. 178

c. The Honor Court

The Honor Court educates the corps on and administers the Honor Code,
which states, “A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do.” 179
According to the Honor Code Charter, “[t]he Code is the heart of VMI. It pervades
every activity of the Corps—personal, academic, athletic, and military, and
presents a rigid standard by which all cadets must live.” Alleged violations of the
Honor Code are adjudicated by the Honor Court, which consists of first and second
class cadets who are elected by their classmates.

The Honor Code is specifically and solely focused on honesty. It is limited in

its scope in that it covers only actions that directly involve lying (such as false
official statements), cheating (such as in academics), stealing, and tolerating those
behaviors. In other words, instances of racial intolerance (such as the use of a
racial slur) or violence (such as sexual assault), provided they do not involve lying,
cheating, stealing, or tolerating, do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Honor
Court. As discussed below, this is a critical consideration when it comes to the
perceptions of VMI’s disciplinary systems.

The VMI Honor Code is known for the fact that it has a single sanction for
its violation: dismissal from the Institute. Dismissal from VMI occurs via what is
called a “drum out” ceremony. At 0330, drums are sounded and members of the
Honor Court awaken members of the corps by opening individual cadet doors and
instructing them to report to the stoops, and then making the following
announcement (with specifics replacing the underlined words) to the gathered
corps of cadets:

“Tonight your Honor Court has met and found, Cadet name, 180 guilty
of number of counts of violation. He/She has placed personal gain
above personal honor and has left the Institute in shame. His/Her
name shall never be mentioned within the walls of the Institute
again.” 181

178 White Book at 34-1.

179 New Cadet Handbook 2020–2021 at 15.
180 The “drum out” process apparently has very recently changed to exclude the announcement of

the cadet’s name.

181 Standing Operating Procedures, Honor Court (Aug. 2017) at 24.

66
 d. Oversight by VMI administration
The VMI administration oversees each of these disciplinary systems. For
example, a cadet cannot be drummed out for an honor violation without the
approval of the Superintendent. 182 Similarly, the assistant commandant for cadet
government works with the General Committee, and “[t]he General Committee has
the authority to award any penalty it deems necessary, other than demerits, with
the concurrence of the Commandant.” 183 The Commandant addresses violations of
the Blue Book. Faculty members known as “tactical officers” are assigned to each
cadet company and are regularly present in the barracks area.

2. Perceptions within the VMI community of the

disciplinary systems
a. Perceptions of the regimental system
In general, cadets and alumni did not raise many issues with respect to race
or gender and the regimental system; rather, their comments have focused on the
class system and the honor system, which are addressed below. But two aspects of
the regimental system that have drawn some comments are the topic of racial and
gender diversity in leadership positions and the issue of hair-grooming standards
for female African American cadets.

As to leadership positions, among African American cadets, 83% either

somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that VMI should have more people of color in
leadership positions. 184 In contrast, only 22% of Caucasian cadets agreed with that
statement. 185 Similarly, on the issue of gender, 52% of female cadets either
somewhat agreed or strongly agreed that VMI should have more women in
positions of leadership, while only 17% of male cadets agreed with that
statement. 186

It appears to be a widespread view among current Caucasian male cadets

that minority and especially female cadets have an advantage in applying for
positions within the regimental system. For example, some male interviewees told
the Team:

• Females use their gender to access positions they are not really suited
for and that they get these positions to fill a diversity quota. 187

182 Honor Charter 2020–2021.

183 White Book at 2-1 (emphasis added).
184 Appendix A at 91.
185 Id.
186 Id. at 360.
187 Interviewee 211 (Caucasian, male).

67
 • Women get leadership positions because of quotas or because the
standards are relaxed for them, and this creates resentment from the
male cadets. 188

• VMI is practicing equity over equality and putting women into

leadership positions for which they are unqualified. 189

The free-form survey responses from current cadets included some of the
same sentiments:

• “Being a woman and applying for rank increases your chances of

getting a position from what I have witnessed.” 190

• “The only reason I answered [on the survey] that females were not
treated equally is that they have a better chance at certain leadership
positions than their male counterparts.” 191

• “I walk around my school wondering if the positions I applied for and

[am] qualified for will be in jeopardy simply because it looks better to
pick someone of color, due to the current political climate.” 192

• “As far as leadership positions go, minority and female cadets are
encouraged to apply and make the leadership structure more diverse.
But those two groups make up a very small portion of our student
body as is, and many of the members of those two groups have no
interest in leadership positions so they do not apply. We can not
complain about lack of diversity when no attempt is made to hold
positions by diverse cadets.” 193

• “I also think women are sometimes given an unfair advantage when it

comes to getting rank because there is a want to have women in
leadership roles.” 194

• “Females are over represented in leadership positions. There are

many examples of males who have much more qualifications not

188 Interviewee 181 (Caucasian, male).

189 Interviewee 187 (Caucasian, male).
190 Survey results, row 286 (Caucasian, male).
191 Survey results, row 259 (male).
192 Survey results, row 22 (Hispanic, female).
193 Survey results, row 19 (male).
194 Survey results, row 302 (Caucasian, female).

68
 getting positions and losing them to females who are under
qualified” 195

• “Maybe realize women are put into positions because of the fact they
are women. They don’t do as much, they are there just there because
they are women. It seems they are put there to meet some quota about
gender diversity.” 196

A number of female cadets emphasized that leadership positions should not

be awarded based on quotas about gender:

• “[T]he questions at the beginning bothered me a bit, because as a

woman, I earned my rank last year and this year, and I hope to earn
rank again for my 1st class year. I do not want to ever go to a VMI
that says ‘oh we need this many women’ and ‘oh we need this many
POC’ in leadership. I want there to be competition and for only the
very most qualified to have rank and leadership within the Corps. I
obviously do not support discrimination of any sort, but when I look to
those in leadership, I know they got there because they worked so
hard for it, and they earned it, not because someone was trying to fill
a quota or make it look good to the public.” 197

• “From what I have witnessed, being a minority myself, those who

want leadership positions and work for those positions and persist in
their endeavors are successful. It is those who would rather rely on a
social status or associations with higher ups or who do not work as
hard as others that take issue with ‘the system’ when they do not get
what they want. it is easier to blame the system than to take personal
accountability.” 198

The comments from alumni were similar. Some alumni reported a lack of
racial and gender diversity in leadership positions within the regimental system. 199
But others reported that they believe women and minority cadets are at an
advantage for being selected for regimental leadership positions due to a desire to
increase diversity. 200 For example, one alumna noted that she was promoted within
the regimental system by VMI and felt that it was because she was a multiracial
female; she also observed that the part of regimental staff she worked on had more

195 Survey results, row 313 (Caucasian, male).

196 Survey results, row 14.
197 Survey results, row 35 (Caucasian, female).
198 Survey results, row 22 (Hispanic, female).
199 Interviewee 137; Interviewee 159; Interviewee 20.
200 Interviewee 1665.

69
minorities than was proportional for the corps. 201 Some alumni expressed
frustration at this because they felt it led to less capable people being put in these
positions. One alumnus noted that because the demands on a regimental leader are
rigorous, candidates must truly want the position, and if someone is put in a
position they do not truly want to be in, it can be “disastrous.” 202

Comments from one alumna suggested that some female cadets were treated
differently when they achieved leadership positions. The alumna served as the first
sergeant of her company and recalls being heckled by male cadets every time she
stood at formation and gave commands. She was often told by male cadets in her
company to “shut the [f-word] up.” She noted that in her experience, male
regimental leaders were never treated this way. 203

Following Cadet Kasey Meredith’s appointment as VMI’s regimental

commander for the 2021–2022 academic year, many alumni posted messages of
support and congratulations on social media. Several noted that if Cadet Meredith
is the most qualified for the position, then they are happy that she was chosen. A
smaller group of alumni posted social media messages of skepticism that VMI was
only now appointing a female regimental commander to “look good” for the
investigation. The anonymous posts on Jodel regarding the appointment of Cadet
Meredith were not as positive from the corps, many echoing the thought that her
appointment was meant to pacify critics of VMI in light of the current
investigation:

• “Roanoke Times publishes an article on Meredith 15 minutes after the

announcement …. Seems like a PR stunt to me. #VMIConspiracy”

• “Meredith isn’t just representing women but also all those there
gim 204 riders and all those engaged to their cadre corporals.”

• “Shit. Since they givin out positions to minorties, my black ass

could’ve been RCO [lol emoji] #permitandprivate”

• “Let’s just get it out there: She was picked because she’s female not
because she was the most qualified.”

• “The fact that there are already multiple news articles out
immediately after the announcement shows that VMI told the press
early and says all you need to know about the thought process in
choosing her.”

201 Interviewee 24, class of 2009.

202 Interviewee 2286, class of 2013.
203 Interviewee 1768.
204 Gim is a term commonly used at VMI to denote that a cadet is injured or sick or otherwise

dispensed from certain physical activities.

70
 • “Barnes & Thornburg run the corps #fuck”

• “I love MG wins, perfect guy for the job … but now meridith [sic] as
rco? Seems like they’re putting minorities into leadership thinking
that it will distract the public from the real racist/sexist problems that
go on here.”

All of the posts above were posted on Jodel on March 30, 2021, the same day
that VMI announced Cadet Meredith’s appointment. The all-male focus group
expressed similar dismissive attitudes about this appointment. 205

Multiple cadets also raised the issue of grooming standards for African
American female cadets. One African American female cadet said that she and
other African American women are scrutinized for their hair more frequently than
others, and that they have to pay out-of-pocket to have their hair styled off-post
because no one on post knows how to care for African American hair. 206 Another
African American female stated that African American women are singled out and
treated differently because of their hair texture. She added that it is difficult to
form a very neat bun, and that peers who are not African American do not
understand this problem. 207 This interviewee said that Caucasian women come to
formation with disorderly hair and they are not reprimanded. 208 Another African
American female cadet also reported harassment by commandant staff regarding
her hair. 209 This interviewee requested that VMI adopt the Army’s standards for
hair, but that request was denied. 210

b. Perceptions of the cadet government, including

the class system and the Rat Line
Cadets and alumni generally described the Rat Line as mentally and
physically grueling by design. The cadre responsible for overseeing and conducting
Rat Line activities received training before participating and were given guidelines
on what they could say and do to the rats before it crossed the line into physical
abuse. Alumni also stated that if a member of the cadre was getting too heated or
taking things too far with the rats, he or she would be pulled aside and told to

205 Appendix B at 7.
206 Interviewee 163.
207 Interviewee 172.
208 Id.
209 Interviewee 363.
210 Id.; see Army Regulation 670-1, available at

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN30302-AR_670-1-000-WEB-1.pdf

71
correct their behavior, either by other members of the cadre or overseeing
administrators, such as tactical officers. 211

In the survey, when asked how much the Rat Line promotes racial
intolerance and/or discrimination, Caucasian and African American cadets had
different perceptions: while 96% of Caucasian cadets and 58% of African American
cadets responded “none,” 33% of African American cadets said “a little,” and 8% “a
lot.” 212 This difference was much smaller when comparing male and female cadets,
with 95% of male cadets saying “none” and 91% of female cadets also saying
“none.” 213

Many alumni noted that the cadre would often say things to the rats
intended to get under their skin to test them psychologically, often focusing on a
particular weakness someone might have. 214 Rats were supposed to realize that
this was part of a psychological “game.” 215 As a recent alumni explained in a short
book written for incoming cadets, “[t]he hardest thing to accept is that you aren’t
the only one struggling. You have to realize that the system is designed to ‘break
people down’ and challenge them to their core. It’s easy to acquire the mindset that
you have it harder than everyone else and that you are being treated
differently.” 216 In his view, “you need to realize that your cadre isn’t personally
‘attacking’ you. You will get yelled at. Everyone does. It’s easy to start believing
they hate you, or at least that they think you don’t belong at VMI . . . . Believe me
when I say that your cadre doesn’t actually think those things about you.” 217 No
alumni interviewees recalled personally hearing or witnessing any racial slurs or
use of targeted racial language as part of the Rat Line.

Some alumni noted that the class system enables racist and sexist behavior
among cadets by creating avenues for harassment and a harmful power dynamic
where class-chosen leaders and upperclassmen have the power to push around
women and minority cadets. 218 If someone attempted to stand up to racist or sexist
behavior by an upperclassman, they could be brushed off or even punished for
being “disrespectful.” 219 Another African American alumnus noted that during his

211 See, e.g., Interviewee 38, class of 1961; Interviewee 539; class of 1976.
212 Appendix A at 130.
213 Id. at 390.
214 See, e.g., Interviewee 315, class of 1986; Interviewee 520, class of 1976; Interviewee 75, class of

2016; Interviewee 149, class of 1983.

215 See, e.g., Interviewee 315, class of 1986; Interviewee 40, class of 1997.
216 Colin D. Smith ’19, How to Be Successful at the Virginia Military Institute, Self-Published at 5

(2019).
217 Id. at 7.
218 See, e.g., Interviewee 16, class of 2001; Interviewee 22, class of 2001.
219 Id.

72
time at VMI there was a “tangible fear” of upperclassmen for these reasons. 220
Further, women may be underrepresented on the disciplinary bodies of the cadet
government; for example, one female interviewee explained that the General
Committee is nicknamed the “Gentleman’s Club” because no women are typically
in that role. 221 This is indicative of an environment that still contains implicit bias
against women when it comes to positions of power.

A number of current male cadets saw it differently, stating that women

received better treatment. For example, one male interviewee said that female
cadets are treated better in the Rat Line, 222 and another stated that women are
generally given more leeway to get in trouble before serious consequences occur. 223

Although perhaps not explicit, some African American alumni, particularly

athletes, as well as female alumni reported feeling as though they were being
targeted by the cadre in the Rat Line:

2018–2021

• An African American graduate reported that loud music would be

punished if it were hip hop music, but not if it were country music.

• Some African American graduates recall being stopped to do more

pushups than other Caucasian cadets, or being told they had bad
attitudes or were too cocky. (This same observation was also made by
alumni in earlier years.) 224

2010–2013

• A Caucasian female graduate compared the Rat Line to the Stanford

prison experiment (a famous social-psychology experiment).

• One alumna recalled several instances of unequal treatment,

including being “pushed” (stopped and made to do pushups) at every
possible opportunity when her male brother rats were not. She also
recalled being told, “There’s no Title IX in the woods” as her company
entered the woods for a few days to learn survival skills as part of rat
training. 225

220 Interviewee 21, class of 2001.

221 Interviewee 202.
222 Interviewee 211, Caucasian male athlete.
223 Interviewee 181, a Caucasian male.
224 See, e.g., Interviewee 20, class of 2020; Interviewee 22, class of 2001.
225 Interviewee 1768, class of 2010.

73
 2006–2009

• Another alumna reported that women cadets were generally singled

out in the Rat Line. 226

1998–2001

• One African American alumnus recalled hearing “urban” language

and slang being used in reference to him. He also noted that as the
only African American rat in his company, he was usually treated
worse than the other rats (for example, spitting in his face and
making him do more pushups than everyone else). 227

Despite the perceived targeting, alumni who were members of the Rat Disciplinary
Committee did not recall seeing more African American and/or athlete rats being
brought to them for infractions often than other cadets. 228 A recent graduate,
however, who looked into whether athletes received more infractions found a
positive correlation. 229

In contrast to these criticisms, a number of cadets and alumni described the

Rat Line as having a leveling effect where all cadets have to endure similar
hardships and so come together, viewing themselves as “brother rats,” regardless of
race or background. According to some current cadets and alumni:

Current cadets

• “I was a female rat and appreciated how the ratline acted as an

equalizer. I was expected to perform to the same level as all my BRs
[brother rats] and was not targeted or treated differently due to being
female.” 230

• “I personally have a more racially diverse friend group here than I

have ever had in my life. I believe that this place gives everyone a
level playing field and doesn’t take into account race whatsoever. I
believe any act of racism or discrimination at this school is a terrible
horrific thing and it should be absolutely dealt with handily. Racism
is a direct affront to everything that this school stands for and should
not be tolerated. The wonderful thing about VMI is that people here

226 Interviewee 121.

227 Interviewee 22, class of 2001.
228 See, e.g., Interviewee 120, class of 2013; Interviewee 2459, class of 2008; Interviewee 227, class of

1991.
229 Interviewee 234.
230 Survey results, row 146 (Caucasian, female).

74
 are not White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, or mixed race, we are all
Brother Rats.” 231

• “As a student who has transferred in to VMI, I have seen far more
discrimination at my previous University than I have here. VMI
brings people from entirely different backgrounds together and shows
how at the end of the day it doesn’t matter how rich or poor you are,
what the color of your skin is, or what gender you are, all that matters
is coming together as a cohesive team.” 232

2018–2021

• “I was a bit of a brat, middle class family, everything paid for, had it
made. Didn’t understand what it meant to genuinely work hard. VMI
instilled what it meant to work hard and dedicate yourself. . . . I was
arrogant and naive, had a bad mentality coming in. I wasn’t
disobedient but I wasn’t motivated. . . . I’d blame a lot of people for my
problems, because I’m [a particular minority]. It took me a year to
realize it was my attitude, and started taking up personal
responsibility.” 233

2010–2013

• A female graduate described the Rat Line as uneventful.

Pre-1993

• A graduate said that it is a strength of VMI that “anyone who comes

there, black or white, rich or poor, is going to be made to do the same
stuff—treated equally.”

As these examples show, despite its grueling nature and the potential for
targeting underrepresented individuals, many alumni spoke positively of the Rat
Line as a formative, equalizing experience that is essential to the spirit and
character of VMI. 234 Even those alumni who recalled being picked on or targeted in
the Rat Line did not suggest any specific changes that should be made, other than
to try to address the anti-athlete rhetoric that originates there. 235 Alumni
interviewees generally listed the Rat Line as one of the core elements of the VMI
experience that should not be significantly changed or removed.

231 Survey results, row 340 (American/Alaskan Native, male).

232 Survey results, row 342 (Caucasian, male).
233 Interviewee 97.
234 See, e.g., Interviewee 153, class of 2010; Interviewee 241, class of 1990.
235 See, e.g., Interviewee 46, class of 2006.

75
 c. Honor Court data analysis
Current and former members of the Honor Court devoted many hours to
inquiries about the Honor Code and Honor Court procedures, including during one
meeting in which the full Honor Court was present. In addition, the Team reviewed
dozens of files of cases in which the accused was found guilty. (As noted above, the
Honor Court Standard Operating Procedures (“SOPs”) require that acquittal and
non-charge records be destroyed.) Notably, the Team could not review case files for
cadets who are acquitted, because VMI reported that those files are destroyed. The
Team also analyzed data breaking down findings of guilty from 2011 to present by
race, ethnicity, gender, whether the accused was an athlete, and type of violation.

The most critical finding from the data that VMI produced is that cadets of
color are overrepresented among the 91 drum outs since 2011. This is true for
cadets of color compared with the Caucasian, non-Hispanic population at VMI as a
whole. However, it is also true for athletes of color compared with athletes who are
Caucasian and non-Hispanic. And it is true for cadets of color who are not athletes
compared with Caucasian, non-Hispanic cadets who are not athletes. A more
detailed description of these findings appears below.

At the same time, the data VMI produced does not suggest impropriety or
unfair treatment among the 91 cases that resulted in a finding of guilty. To the
contrary, overall, the cases appeared to be well-documented and justified.

It is important to note that the Team was not able to analyze demographic
data for Honor Court cases that did not result in a finding of guilty or an acquittal.
This was due to a significant delay in VMI’s production of relevant documents, as
well as gaps and inconsistencies in the documentation and VMI’s failure to keep
certain records. This is significant. The vast majority of Honor Court investigations
result in the case being “dropped” or declined, or a cadet receiving “education”
instead of facing the potential for trial. Indeed, Honor Court members stated that
they meet five nights per week to discuss the various matters before them, and
most of their work does not result in a drum out. However, VMI did not provide
sufficient information to analyze the demographics of cadets against whom cases
are brought (as opposed to only guilty verdicts). The Team was thus unable to
determine whether discretion at the initial decision of whether to accuse a cadet of
an honor violation raised any concerns about selective enforcement based on race.

i. Honor Court process

Below is a flow chart depicting the Honor Court process, based on the
Team’s review of the Standard Operating Procedures and Charters of the Honor
Court. Cases may be brought by a member of the faculty or staff, or by a cadet, or
by a third party. When a case is reported by someone other than a cadet, one of the
“Superintendent Representatives” who supervises the Honor Court must review
the allegations. The Honor Court then analyzes the allegations and determines

76
whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant conviction. If the evidence is
insufficient to warrant conviction, the case is either “dropped” or the accused
receives “education” to avoid violating the Honor Code in the future.

If there is sufficient evidence, the Honor Court prepares a “charge packet.”

The Superintendent’s Representatives review the charge packet, as does the
Superintendent. If they approve, a pre-trial hearing is authorized. At this point,
the accused cadet is arrested and brought to the pre-trial hearing, where he or she
receives the charge packet. The accused may then decide to plead guilty, which
results in a drum out. If the accused pleads not guilty, he or she faces trial at least
21 days later. In the event of a trial, the Honor Court selects 24 potential jurors
from among the corps. The selection is random as to race, ethnicity, gender, and
other characteristics, except that the pool includes a larger proportion of cadets
from the class of the accused. Ultimately, following strikes for bias and allowed
peremptory strikes, the jury is composed of eight individuals, one of whom is the
alternate. All eight jurors vote on the guilt or innocence of the accused. The vote is
secret. If at least five of seven jurors vote “guilty” on a given count, the accused is
found guilty. The Superintendent reviews the guilty verdict before the verdict is
made public. If the Superintendent approves, the cadet is drummed out. If three or
more of seven jurors vote “innocent” on all counts, the accused is acquitted.

77
Figure 20: Flowchart for Honor Court procedures

78
79
 ii. Composition of the Court

The Honor Court typically has 14 members. The data received from VMI was
contained in the Honor Court charters for 2015 to 2019, and it included only 12
members for each year. Presumably, this is because two members are elected after
the charter is published, per Honor Court procedures. Despite the Team’s early and
repeated requests for this data, VMI did not provide documentation showing the
complete list of members, including the additional two Honor Court members for
academic years 2015–2019. Nor did VMI provide the requested member names
dating back to 2010. Below is a chart summarizing the data:

Table 10: Composition of the Honor Court since 2015

Academic Gender Race Ethnicity
year
2020–21 14 male 11 Caucasian 14 non-Hispanic
2 Asian
1 African American
2019–20 12 male 9 Caucasian 11 non-Hispanic
1 Asian 1 not reported
1 African American
1 Non-resident alien
2018–19 11 male 9 Caucasian 11 non-Hispanic
1 female 2 African American 1 not reported
1 Non-resident alien
2017–18 11 male 9 Caucasian 12 non-Hispanic
1 female 3 African American
2016–17 12 male 12 Caucasian 11 non-Hispanic
1 Hispanic
2015–16 12 male 10 Caucasian 11 non-Hispanic
1 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1 Hispanic
1 African American

Thus, according to the data VMI provided, 81% of the members of the Honor
Court from 2015 to present have been Caucasian. Since 2015, only 3% of Honor
Court members have been female.

iii. The “education” exception

VMI’s Honor Court system is known for its “single sanction” policy—all
convictions result in dismissal. The VMI website states: “The VMI Honor System is
a single sanction system. The system does not recognize degrees of honor. The
sanction for any breach of honor is dismissal.” 236 However, there is some question
as to whether and to what degree that is actually true. The Honor Court SOPs give

236 https://www.vmi.edu/cadet-life/cadet-leadership-and-development/honor-system/.

80
the Honor Court considerable discretion to choose not to prosecute an Honor Code
offense seeking dismissal, and instead to conduct an “education session,” which
involves an instructional conversation between two or three Honor Court members
and the offending cadet:

Education/Correction Sessions: At times, the investigation into a report

of a suspected honor violation does not produce enough evidence to support a
conviction. However, the actions of the cadet in question may raise
significant concerns that such actions are not in keeping with the spirit of
the Honor System. If continued, such actions might lead to honor charges.
Additionally, a Rat could engage in behaviors that may be violations of the
Code. For example, during an inspection a Rat may respond “yes” when
asked whether he had shined his shoes that morning when in fact he had
not. This type of “pop off” or “heat of the moment” response, while a lie, must
be considered in the context of the stresses of the Ratline. In such cases,
members of the Honor Court may conduct an education/correction session.
These sessions are designed to ensure that the cadet understands how such
behavior may bring discredit to himself or herself and the Honor System and
thus motivate the cadet to discontinue the questionable behavior. 237

These SOPs are not clear as to when, in the course of an investigation, the
Honor Court decides to impose “education” as opposed to going through with the
case. 238 The SOPs similarly offer no clear parameters and few guiding principles
for when the Honor Court should prosecute and seek a cadet’s dismissal, and when
the Honor Court should “educate” the cadet. Instead, the language is open-ended,
using words and phrases like “[a]t times,” “may,” “might,” and “could.” The
education policy is also inherently contradictory, stating that it applies when
evidence may be insufficient to prove a lie, but then providing an example where a
statement is clearly a lie, but excusable under stressful circumstances. The SOPs
provide that a transgression that results in education is still considered an “honor
issue.” 239

iv. Guilty verdicts since 2011

There have been 91 drum outs since academic year 2011–2012. Of the 91
drum outs, 44 cadets resigned or admitted guilt, and 47 were tried. (The Honor
Court treats a resignation as an admission of guilt.)

237 See Standard Operating Procedures, Honor Court, VMI, Lexington, Virginia, Updated August

2017, at 7–8.
238 Id.
239 Id.

81
 The Team compared data about findings of guilt from 2011 through 2021
with the list of matriculated cadets as of early 2021 provided by VMI. 240 The
purpose was to compare the proportion of dismissed cadets of certain racial and
ethnic backgrounds with the proportion of cadets of those backgrounds in the
general population. The Team determined that using data for 2021 as the
comparison puts the data about guilty findings in the most favorable light, because
the proportion of people of color in the corps has increased steadily since 2011, as
reflected in VMI’s own documents. 241

Cadets of color represent 23% of the corps, but they make up 41% of
dismissed cadets since 2011. Many at VMI attribute this racial disparity to the fact
that athletes are prosecuted and convicted more—again, following the common
misconception that most athletes are cadets of color. It is accurate that, as a group,
athletes appear to be overrepresented among convicted cadets: while athletes make
up 25% of the corps, they represent 62% of Honor Court convictions since 2011.
However, athletes of color are overrepresented among convicted athletes. While
athletes of color comprise 31% of athletes, they represent nearly 50% of dismissed
athletes since 2011.

The racial disparity exists among non-athletes as well. While cadets of color
represent 20% of non-athletes, they make up 26% of dismissed non-athletes since
2011.

Thus, across all relevant metrics, the number of cadets of color found guilty
of an Honor Code violation is disproportionate to the number of cadets of color in
the control population. The investigation found no evidence of overt bias in Honor
Court proceedings; however, this data suggests that there is an implicit bias
against cadets of color at least with respect to drum outs.

240See VMI matriculated cadets spreadsheet at VMI EA_00000533-728. Athlete rosters are at VMI
EA_00000741-850.
241 See VMI EA_000007678, at 7680 (showing increase in percentage of people of color among
enrolled cadets from 2009 (14%) to 2020 (23%)).

82
Table 11: Data on Honor Court guilty findings and race
Caucasian Person of Other Total
color
Corps of cadets
Number in corps 1222 374 31 1627 242
Percent of corps 75% 23% 2% 100%
Number of guilty 54 37 0 91
Percent of total guilty 59% 41% 0% 100%

Athletes
Number of athletes 281 127 1 409
Percent of athletes 69% 31% 0% 100%
Number of guilty athletes 29 28 0 57
Percent of guilty athletes 51% 49% 0% 100%

Non-athletes
Number of non-athletes 941 247 30 1218
Percent of non-athletes 77% 20% 2% 100%
Number of guilty non-athletes 25 9 0 34
Percent of guilty non-athletes 74% 26% 0% 100%

d. Current cadet perceptions about the honor system

i. General comments

Some cadets or parents of cadets perceive the Honor Code system as unfair
or biased in some way:

• According to one parent of a former cadet, when the cadet was

arrested by the Honor Court, the cadet knew right away that his time
at VMI was over because of how the Honor Court works. 243

• A Caucasian male athlete thought that members of the Honor Court

try to make other cadets afraid of them, but noted that the Honor
Court does not target cadets because of race or gender. 244

242 The VMI matriculated cadets spreadsheet (VMI EA_00000533-728) contains data in 1,661 rows,
but the Team determined that the file contained 34 duplicative entries.
243 Interviewee 73.
244 Interviewee 211.

83
 • An African American female athlete described the Honor Court
process as “scary” because it puts your fate in the hands of other
cadets, and you do not know whether any of them are biased against
you. 245

Other cadets stated that the Honor Code and the attendant single-sanction
system was one of the aspects of VMI of which they were the most proud:

• One Caucasian female cadet noted that the Honor Court system is
part of the “beauty” of VMI and that she would want her friends to
report her and hold her accountable to the system as well. 246

• Similarly, a Hispanic female cadet said that she believes the Honor
Court system is fair and would not change anything about it, despite
that her friend was dismissed for an Honor Code violation. 247

• One Caucasian female cadet explained that she believes the Honor
Court procedures are fair and compared it to her time serving on jury
duty in a court of law; after having served on the Honor Court jury,
she found the processes to be very similar. 248

• A Hispanic female cadet said that cadets “know what they’re signing
up for” when they attend VMI with regard to the Honor Court
process. 249

• A Caucasian male cadet explained that while there is an untrue

stigma that the Honor Court goes looking to get people in trouble, in
reality the Honor Court is careful about investigating before bringing
charges.

• Finally, a Caucasian male cadet stated that the Honor Code should be
expanded because there is more to being honorable than what is
currently in the Honor Code. 250 However, the same cadet noted that
he has seen professors threaten students with the Honor Code for
making mistakes, including a mistakenly uncited source that was not
intended to be plagiarism. 251

245 Interviewee 172.

246 Interviewee 223.
247 Interviewee 224.
248 Interviewee 2438.
249 Interviewee 2450.
250 Interviewee 197.
251 Id.

84
 The survey responses and interviews likewise revealed a strong sense of
loyalty to the Honor Code from cadets as a whole. In the survey responses or in
interviews with cadets, individuals often described the Honor Court’s process as
“colorblind” or fair regardless of skin color. 252 When asked in the survey “the extent
to which the Honor Court promotes racial intolerance and/or discrimination,” 93%
of cadets said “none”; 4% said “a little”; and 2% said “a lot.” 253 Similarly, 89% of
current cadets strongly or somewhat agree that VMI’s Honor Court system
consistently upholds the Honor Code, 254 and 86% of current cadets strongly or
somewhat agree that VMI’s honor court produces fair decisions. 255

However, among current cadets, only 50% of African American current

cadets strongly or somewhat agree that VMI’s Honor Court produces fair decisions,
compared with 88% of Caucasian cadets who strongly or somewhat agree that
VMI’s Honor Court system produces fair decisions. 256 When asked whether cadets
agreed or disagreed that VMI’s Honor Court system “is influenced by the race of
the accused cadet,” 5% of those who answered strongly or somewhat agreed. 257
Breaking that down by race, 25% of African American current cadets strongly or
somewhat agreed that VMI’s Honor Court system is influenced by the race of the
accused cadets; and 3% of Caucasian current cadets strongly or somewhat agree
with the same statement. 258 Similarly, 5% of current cadets strongly or somewhat
agree that VMI’s Honor Court system tends to be tougher on cadets of color—with
25% of African American cadets answering that way, compared to 3% of Caucasian
cadets. 259

Finally, 9% of current cadets strongly or somewhat agree that VMI’s Honor

Court system is influenced by whether a cadet is a cadet-athlete. 260 Among those,
41% of African American cadets strongly or somewhat agree with that statement
while only 8% of Caucasian cadets do. 261 At least one survey respondent, though,
thought this influence went the other way, and weighed in favor of athletes: “There
are numerous instances where I feel bias was taking place but not in a negative

252 Survey results, row 132 (Caucasian, male).

253 Appendix A at 55.
254 Id. at 62.
255 Id. at 60.
256 Id. at 137.
257 Id. at 60.
258 Id. at 138.
259 Id. at 140.
260 Id. at 61.
261 Id. at 139.

85
way for that person (i.e., cases being dropped due to the fact that they were a
valuable asset on a NCAA team).” 262

On questions of reform, 19% of current cadets somewhat or strongly

supported reforming the Honor Court system. 263 Among that group, 50% of African
American cadets somewhat or strongly support reform, as compared with 19% of
Caucasian cadets. 264 It is not clear whether this is frequently discussed on post, as
only 6% of current cadets believe that many or nearly everyone among the VMI
community support this reform. 265 Similarly, 29% of current cadets strongly or
somewhat agree that VMI’s Honor Court system would benefit from updating some
of its formal procedures. 266 Among this group, 58% of African American cadets
strongly or somewhat support some updating, while 28% of Caucasian cadets do. 267

The free-form survey responses shared similarly positive views of the Honor
Court. One cadet stated: “As a cadet, the only thing I have main issues with is the
honor court. I believe the court is designed to churn out guilty responses, as cadets
who go to trial are perceived guilty until proven innocent. However the cadets on
the honor court are some of the most honorable people you will meet. I don’t think
the honor court is racist by any means, just something that I do not think has a
true purpose in the 21st century.” Two other cadets stated:

• “Also if you call the honor court racist, then you have not met some of
these people. These are some of the most trustworthy, smart,
honorable people I have ever met. I know all of them personally and
have never heard them say a single word discriminatory against
someone.” 268

• “The Honor court is one of the primary reasons I came to this school
for the strict one infraction expulsion policy because this is the one
place on earth where it is truly upheld and how they go through the
process is lengthy and thorough to avoid any unfair situations.” 269

ii. Honor Court policies and procedures

With regard to certain policies and procedures of the Honor Court, cadets
who answered the survey provided their feelings about the following aspects of the
Honor Court: 270

262 Survey results, row 171.

263 Appendix A at 50.
264 Id. at 24.
265 Id. at 57.
266 Id. at 62.
267 Id. at 141.
268 Survey results, row 185.
269 Survey results, row 218.
270 Appendix A at 65–67.

86
Table 12: Survey responses of current cadets relating to aspects of the
Honor Court
Topic Views of current cadets
Drum Out Ceremony • should remain unchanged – 88%
• should be studied and possibly changed – 8%
• should be abolished – 3%
Single-Sanction Policy of • should remain unchanged – 82%
Expulsion • should be studied and possibly changed – 12%
• should be abolished – 6%
Secrecy of Honor Court • should remain unchanged – 79%
Proceedings • should be studied and possibly changed – 16%
• should be abolished – 5%
Solicitation of faculty and • should remain unchanged – 55%
cadets to gather information • should be studied and possibly changed – 30%
about other cadets covertly • should be abolished – 15%
Prohibiting cadets from • should remain unchanged – 50%
having an attorney at trial or • should be studied and possibly changed – 34%
pretrial proceedings • should be abolished – 16%
Allowing expulsion based on • should remain unchanged – 46%
non-unanimous verdicts • should be studied and possibly changed – 40%
• should be abolished – 14%

The survey results show that cadets feel strongest about retaining the drum
out ceremony and the single-sanction policy, while there is more support for
examining or abolishing the prohibition on attorneys at trial and non-unanimous
verdicts.

The results above were generally confirmed in cadet interviews. Two

Caucasian male cadets specifically stated that drum outs are an important part of
the Honor Court process because it helps cadets focus on the magnitude of the
situation and remember to follow the Honor Code to not lose everything one has
worked for at VMI. 271 A Caucasian male cadet indicated that he believes removing
the single-sanction system would encourage people to cheat since they might not be
dismissed for it. 272 With regard to an accused cadet’s defense representation in
Honor Court proceedings, a Caucasian male reported that if there is a student
prosecutor, then the accused should have a student defender. 273

iii. Honor Code actionable conduct

The investigation included many discussions with cadets, Honor Court

members, and others about what constitutes actionable conduct under VMI’s

271 Interviewees 169, Interviewee 174.

272 Interviewee 181.
273 Interviewee 187.

87
Honor Code. The 2020 Honor Court charter contains general policies that govern
the conduct of corps of cadets. The charter provides guidelines on (1) certified
statements; (2) lying; (3) cheating; (4) stealing; (5) instigation; (6) malingering; (7)
quibbling; and (8) toleration. Lying, as set forth in the Charter’s guidelines, is
“making an oral or written statement that a cadet knows to be false with the intent
to deceive another person for the purpose of personal gain or advantage.” In
discussions with the Honor Court members, it was clear that the decision to
prosecute centers around whether the individual who lied had an intent to deceive
or lied for personal gain or advantage.

The question of what cadets may be prosecuted for also came up in cadet
interviews. For example, one Caucasian male cadet said that it was his experience
the Honor Court focuses on “nitpicky” things that he does not believe have
anything to do with lying, cheating, or stealing. 274 A faculty member indicated that
professors often make up their own rules about what constitutes cheating because
they don’t want to see a student dismissed, which creates an arbitrary system. 275
An Asian female cadet said that she felt the Honor Court “can” be fair depending
on the offense. Specifically, she believed that cheating should carry a significant
consequence; in her view, though, making a misrepresentation about where you are
going off post should be less severe. 276 A parent of an African American cadet felt
that the Honor Code should be expanded to make instances of racism or hate
crimes Honor Court violations. 277 Finally, another Asian female cadet indicated
that although she believes the Honor Code is applied fairly, she does feel that there
are some unfair instances, such as a cadet who was dismissed for leaving post to
visit with one person instead of visiting with another person she disclosed she
would be visiting. 278

Interviews also revealed that some cadets are aware that the Honor Code
may not actually employ a single-sanction system and that education may be
imposed even where a violation of the Honor Code occurred. For example, a
Caucasian female cadet stated that VMI does not truly have a single-sanction
system and that first-time offenders of all races typically received education
instead. 279

While the Honor Court members were open and forthcoming about the
considerations for the prosecution of lies (and in general), it appears that not all
cadets know which acts will result in education, which are prosecutable and which
are not. This may contribute to feelings of bias or inconsistent application of the
Honor Code. Many throughout the VMI community do not agree or do not

274 Interviewee 170.

275 Interviewee 48.
276 Interviewee 213.
277 Interviewee 278.
278 Interviewee 2442.
279 Interviewee 206.

88
understand what constitutes an Honor Code violation (or which will lead to
education only), and that this broad disagreement and room for interpretation can
produce unpredictable and inconsistent results and provide room for abuse of
discretion.

Honor Court members discussed the importance of education of the corps of

cadets at length, and this appears to be an area of focus for the Honor Court. Honor
Court members stated that the Court intends to improve education about the
Honor Court and Honor Code over the next year. This is also important insofar as
the cadets have concerns regarding the overrepresentation of athletes versus non-
athletes among cadets who are convicted and reports that athletes are not as
educated as other cadets about the VMI experience.

iv. Honor Court juries

Another aspect of the Honor Court process that the Team evaluated was the
non-unanimous jury aspect of the Honor Court. Some cadets thought that
requiring unanimous juries might improve the fairness of the process. A Caucasian
male said that the Honor Court should require a unanimous jury verdict. 280 A
Caucasian female said the Honor Court is generally fair but that votes should be
unanimous to find someone guilty, 281 and an Indian male similarly stated that the
Honor Court was fair in general but unanimous juries should be required due to
the severity of the consequences. 282 ln discussing why a unanimous jury may or
may not be required, some Honor Court members noted that a unanimous jury
would be a higher and more difficult threshold for the prosecutors to meet.

VMI produced ballots showing the jury count for the 2015–2020 Honor Court
cases. Based on a review of these documents provided by VMI, nine cadets out of 61
who were dismissed from VMI after a guilty finding at an Honor Court were
convicted by a non-unanimous jury. It is difficult to know if the outcome would
have changed at all had the jurors known the verdict had to be unanimous.

The investigation also considered VMI’s method of calculating the jury pool.
VMI uses a computer algorithm to generate a random list of 24 cadets to make up
the jury pool. The pool takes into account cadet class years in calculating who
makes up the pool, but does not consider gender or race in selection of the jury
pool. VMI provided information on some jury pools pulled for cadet trials. Between
2015 to present, the following occurred: two of the female cadets who went to trial
did so with a jury pool including only one female cadet; two African American
cadets had a jury pool that did not include a single African American cadet for a
potential juror; one African American, Hispanic cadet on trial had only one African
American potential juror and two Hispanic potential jurors in his jury pool;

280 Interviewee 209.

281 Interviewee 210.
282 Interviewee 2443.

89
another African American cadet had only one cadet of color in the jury pool; and
another African American cadet had only one other African American potential
juror in the pool. While there is no indication that this is the reason any cadet was
found guilty, it is a point of consideration. While VMI has decided to take into
account class years in the selection of the jury, there are other aspects to
potentially consider when selecting a jury pool in order to ensure fairness in the
proceedings.

Some cadets commented on the jury-selection process as well in interviews.

An African American female cadet thought that the jury selection process for the
Honor Court needs to change because too few women and minorities serve on the
juries. 283 Similarly, an African American male athlete stated that athletes
specifically have a target on their back with the Honor Court and that it is his view
that when a large portion of the corps of cadets is Caucasian, a fair jury pool for
minority cadets is unlikely.

Moreover, some cadets made comments about the use of cadets on a jury
more generally. One African American male cadet said that the Honor Court
should be used only in situations where the penalty is not as severe as dismissal
because it is “wrong” to have cadets make those decisions about other cadets. 284
Similarly, an African American female cadet who served on an Honor Court jury
stated that deciding the fate of another cadet felt like too much pressure. 285

As stated at length above, the Team’s review of the 2015–2020 Honor Court
files does not lead the Team to conclude that any one adjustment would change the
outcome of past Honor Court proceedings. The information is instead posited
merely as data points for consideration to ensure the discretionary aspects of the
process are applied evenly across all cadets at VMI. Whatever the current system
is or is not doing, the fact remains that in comparison to the number of cadets of
color at VMI, the percentage of cadets of color dismissed at VMI because of Honor
Code violations is significantly higher.

e. Alumni perception about the honor system

Alumni overwhelmingly supported maintaining the Honor Code in its
current form, and the majority of alumni perceived the Honor Court as fair.
However, a number of alumni expressed concern about certain aspects of the Honor
Court, and alumni perceptions varied significantly along a number of dimensions
related to the fairness of the process and outcomes. Many expressed openness to
some changes to the process and level of oversight, but almost all alumni thought

283 Interviewee 219.

284 Interviewee 207.
285 Interviewee 215.

90
the single-sanction system was both distinctive and important to maintain the
character of VMI. Only a few alumni thought, in retrospect, the single-sanction
system was too harsh. 286

While the Honor Court has always maintained certain characteristics,

including being student-run, it has changed in some ways over time. Initially, the
Honor Court members served as the jury. In the mid-90s, this changed following a
cheating scandal and the exposure of “all right” clubs where cadets agreed to look
the other way with respect to the others’ honor offenses (which is a violation of the
non-toleration clause). 287 After the scandal, the Honor Court began drawing juries
from the corps of cadets. Alumni interviewed generally perceived this to be a
positive change.

The Honor Court also has shifted between allowing and forbidding cadets to
engage counsel in connection with trials. Cadets have the right to a faculty advisor,
but before 2011 they also had the right to legal counsel. Interviewee 49, an African
American football player alumnus, described a situation in which he was set up to
be kicked out of school by his coach and others in the administration. He said that
a faculty member told him that he (the faculty member) had heard this from the
coach and that the effort long predated the cheating allegation that resulted in the
cadet’s prosecution. The cadet had strong legal counsel, which his family had the
resources to secure for him. He said he believes that the administration “assumed
he was poor black boy” without resources to defend himself, and would just leave
the school once he was charged instead of fighting it. He was acquitted. After his
trial, the rules were changed to prohibit outside legal counsel.

Many alumni, even those who wanted to see the Honor Court retained in
largely the same form, believed that permitting access to counsel was necessary or
advisable. 288 One former Honor Court President had no issue with permitting
counsel but noted that faculty often performed better because they were more
familiar with the institution. 289 While alumni survey respondents largely
disapproved of most potential Honor Court changes, 64% of them favored studying
and possibly changing or abolishing the prohibition on counsel. Among alumni
respondents, 60% favored studying or abolishing the use of non-unanimous
verdicts; alumni generally opposed the other potential reforms tested. 290

286 E.g., Interviewee 52, 518.

287 See, e.g., The Cadet, “Honor Regained,” vol. 104, issue 21 (Apr. 1, 2011); Interviewee 11,
Interviewee 33.
288 E.g. Interviewee 99 (expressing view Honor Court is “perfect” but would be fine with permitting

counsel).
289 Interviewee 239.
290 Appendix A at 65–67.

91
 Alumni varied in their perceptions of Honor Court trials. Some were of the
opinion that trials were merely a formality, and that if a cadet reached the point of
trial and the evidence supported it he or she was guilty. 291 One alumnus who also
served on the faculty recalled that the motto of the Honor Court his first class year
was “the mission is attrition,” indicating that they were seeking to get as many
cadets drummed out as they could. 292 Others recounted experiences where they
had seen cadets acquitted at trial. 293

One alumnus who was a defense advocate while he was a cadet and later
joined the VMI staff noted that there was no need to offer a race-neutral reason to
dismiss a juror. 294 If the prosecutor was concerned about sympathy, they could
simply dismiss all people of color from the jury. He suggested that more training
and evaluation should be required to participate in the Honor Court to satisfy the
demands of due process. Another alumnus was not aware of any African American
cadets who had served on a jury. 295

Some alumni suggested openness to requiring a unanimous jury to convict,

both in interviews and survey responses. One recent graduate described an
experience on a jury in which she did not believe the evidence was sufficient to
convict. The cadet had been accused of cheating after the professor enlisted another
cadet to monitor his test. The “monitor,” however, did not actually see the cadet
look at anyone else’s paper. The interviewee was informed at the last minute that
she was the “null” vote and would not be counted. 296 This verdict based on
seemingly tenuous evidence is not consistent with the perception held by several
other interviewees that the prosecutors must collect overwhelming evidence. 297

Alumni also varied in their perceptions of how strictly the single-sanction

system was enforced. For example, according to Interviewee 43, one offense would
not actually get a cadet drummed out. Others, particularly some of the alumni of
color, never heard of any such exceptions and believed the system was “one and
done.” 298 A recent graduate noted that administrators had told him they provided
some leeway for the Honor Code at the beginning to allow for education. 299

291 See Interviewee 234; see also Interviewee 116 (former prosecutor noting that he had to have an
abundance of evidence to bring a case).
292 Interviewee 308.
293 Interviewee 49, Interviewee 55, Interviewee 286.
294 Interviewee 25; see also Interviewee 365.
295 Interviewee 53.
296 Interviewee 17.
297 Interviewee 539.
298 Interviewee 53.
299 Interviewee 9.

92
 Alumni described different experiences with access to the Honor Court.
Some viewed the Honor Court as having an “open door policy” to explain things. 300
Others emphasized the education the Honor Court provided to rats about the
process. 301 According to one alumnus, the Honor Court “bent over backwards” to
make sure cadets had due process and went to “great lengths” to educate cadets. 302
Many other alumni described fear of the Honor Court and scoffed at the notion that
they would consider consulting the Honor Court how to handle a situation.

Many alumni believed that athletes were drummed out more frequently
than other cadets. They varied in their explanations as to why this was the case
and whether they believed it related to race or other factors.

2018–2021

• A recent graduate described situations where money or other

temptations would be left around during the week the football team
arrived on post in an effort to catch someone in an Honor Code
violation. The same alumnus described a situation where test answers
were left within a test booklet, presumably to induce him to cheat. 303
(Note this approach appears to conflict with the rule that
instigation—“[t]hat the accused attempted to influence another cadet
to violate his or her honor”—is itself considered an honor violation. 304)

• An African American graduate reported that when falsely accused of a

General Committee complaint, no action was taken against the cadet’s
Caucasian accuser, under the Honor Code or otherwise, despite proof
the General Committee complaint had been false. 305

2010–2013

• An African American graduate described a situation (which was noted

above) where he was set up by his coach on a cheating charge but
acquitted by the Honor Court. 306

• A graduate who was a cadet captain estimated that 30 drum outs

occurred during the graduate’s time, that about one-third were cadets
of color, and that at least 50% to 60% were athletes. This graduate

300 Interviewee 40.

301 Interviewee 1980.
302 Interviewee 2455.
303 Interviewee 9.
304 Honor Court SOP (Aug. 2017) at 128.
305 Interviewee 22.
306 Interviewee 49, Interviewee 2011.

93
 also believed that women were drummed out at disproportionate rate.
These cadets might be subject to higher scrutiny, so were “caught”
more. This graduate also noted that the baseball team, which was 80
to 90% Caucasian, had a number drummed out, including a member
of the Honor Court. 307

2006–2009

• One Caucasian graduate stated that it was not surprising more

athletes are drummed out, as they have “more opportunities to cheat”
and miss the Honor Code indoctrination in the Rat Line. 308

• An African American graduate reported that fellow cadets of color

thought they were being targeted unfairly, but this cadet opined that
members of a minority group often feel this way if something happens
to one of their members. 309

1998–2001

• An African American football player described an experience where he

was drummed out based on false charges of cheating. Ultimately the
conviction was overturned when he was exonerated by another
witness, but the cadet who made the false report was never charged
with an Honor Code violation. 310 The cadet reported that he felt and
heard that VMI personnel were targeting him for prosecution and
expulsion long before the alleged cheating event that led to his
prosecution.

1994–1997

• Two graduates expressed support for the Honor Code generally, but
believed it disproportionately sanctioned African American cadets. 311

307 Interviewee 33.

308 Interviewee 541.
309 Interviewee 46.
310 Interviewee 22.
311 Interviewee 18, Interviewee 12.

94
 1993–1996

• According to an African American graduate, Honor Court setups of

African American athletes were “common,” and the whole Honor
Court was a “gotcha” system. 312

• An alumnus from the class of 1995 thought it was suspicious that

three or four African American athletes were drummed out, and his
dyke was drummed out under suspicious circumstances. He believed
the Honor Court should be more transparent. 313

• A former cadet who left the Institute was troubled by the drumming
out of two African American student athletes on charges that were
later reversed. 314

• One interviewee’s concern at an honor court proceeding in which an

athlete’s case was tried to a jury containing his teammates was
compounded when, following his acquittal, one of the cadet
prosecutors assured the interviewee that he need not worry, “we’ll get
him next time.” 315

Several alumni stated that they did not observe minority cadets being drummed
out or disciplined at higher rates or, if they were, they did not believe they were
targeted. 316

More generally, opinions concerning the extent to which the Honor Court
targeted certain cadets were likewise varied. Many viewed the process as entirely
fair and impartial. Others thought the system was important to the institution but
was used as a weapon. 317 Multiple alumni described situations where they were
asked to observe other cadets for the Honor Court. 318 A member of the OGA
informed a female alumna from the class of 2009 that, when VMI began accepting
women, they automatically created files for them. 319 The Honor Court also had files
on women and would attempt to gather information about them. This was
described to her as a “targeted campaign” to find ways to kick women out of school.

312 Interviewee 53.

313 Interviewee 47; see also Interviewee 518.
314 Interviewee 11.
315 Interviewee 2468.
316 Interviewee 1698.
317 Interviewee 28.
318 E.g., Interviewee 165, Interviewee 112.
319 Interviewee 10.

95
 Perceptions of oversight over the process also varied among alumni. Some
believed there were adequate checks and balances in place. 320 For example, one
past Honor Court President expressed the opinion that faculty supervisors would
make sure there was enough evidence to proceed. 321 Another past Honor Court
President—a person of color—observed that the Honor Court is “conceptually” fair,
but not in practice. In his opinion, it is not a system that 21 and 22 year olds
should be running without oversight. 322 That opinion was shared by others. 323
Another alumnus, who described himself as a “strong proponent” of the single
sanction system, did not have any objection to more adult involvement if necessary
to make the system more fair. 324 Some described the current procedures as a
system where, while the Superintendent technically had to sign off on results, it
was essentially a rubber stamp with little review at the Superintendent level
following a trial.

An African American alumnus observed that his experience serving on the

Board of Visitors led him to believe there were issues with the Honor Court. 325
Appeals from the Honor Court go to the Board of Visitors. He did not perceive
targeting based on race, but if the Honor Court decided they no longer wanted a
cadet at the school, they could get rid of them. He perceived more targeting of
athletes. Given the “heavy decisions” the Honor Court is making, he thought more
adult supervision and involvement would be prudent.

Some alumni expressed concerns about transparency of the process, 326 while
others emphasized the importance of secrecy so that cadets who were not convicted
would not have a cloud over them. 327 Reports varied as to the extent to which
“everyone knows” about ongoing Honor Court proceedings. Some suggested it was
an open secret, while others claimed never to know what was going on unless or
until a drum out. Either way, the goals of transparency and secrecy are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. It would be possible to provide reports tracking
basic demographic information about investigations and prosecutions without
disclosing the specific identities of the cadets involved.

Finally, the alumni interviews provided a mixed picture of the actual

amount of administrative oversight of VMI’s class system. Several alumni
expressed concern that the administration did not actually exercise oversight, or

320 Interviewee 121.

321 Interviewee 239.
322 Interviewee 63.
323 E.g., Interviewee 69.
324 Interviewee 227.
325 Interviewee 137.
326 E.g., Interviewee 47.
327 Interviewee 282, Interviewee 158.

96
was hesitant to overturn cadet decisions and gave the cadets an excessive amount
of power to punish their peers. These alumni felt that because cadets are
ultimately young adults, they do not always have all the answers and could use
more guidance from “adults in the room.” 328 But other alumni seemed satisfied
with the amount of administrative oversight, especially with regard to the Honor
Court. Alumni who were members of the Honor Court generally said they felt that
there was sufficient administrative oversight. 329

f. Recommendations relating to the Honor Court

In recent remarks to alumni, MG Wins noted that VMI is already in the
process of evaluating Honor Court policies and procedures. This assessment is an
important step. The following are some points to consider as part of that
evaluation.

• The investigation did not find anything to support a conclusion that specific
policies or procedures of the Honor Court cause African American or other
minority cadets to be drummed out at a disproportionate rate. The fact
remains that in comparison to the student body at VMI, African American
cadets are drummed out at a disproportionate rate. VMI should conduct an
internal analysis of what might be causing this result. 330 VMI should also
track and analyze, with regard to cadets reported to the Honor Court by
other cadets or faculty members, whether African American or minority
cadets are accused of violations at a higher rate. 331 Similarly, VMI should
look at whether investigations against African American cadets are
“dropped” at a lower rate than Caucasian cadets and how those numbers
compare to the overall numbers of investigations “dropped.” 332 Again, the
investigation did not reach findings on these questions due to lack of
information. VMI should ensure that records are kept so as to monitor these
matters in the future. 333

• VMI should ensure that its cadets fully understand the Honor Code and the
workings of the Honor Court. Accordingly, VMI should advise cadets of what
will be required of them with respect to the Honor Code (and other key VMI

328 See, e.g., Interviewee 17, class of 2019; Interviewee 159, class of 2004; Interviewee 137, class of
1974.
329 See, e.g., Interviewee 239, class of 1984, Interviewee 43, class of 1979, Interviewee 539, class of

1976; Interviewee 263, class of 1990.

330 See Recommendation 3(a).
331 See Recommendation 3(b).
332 Id.
333 Id.

97
 traditions) even before attending VMI. 334 VMI and the Honor Court should
also enhance education to incoming and current cadets on what constitutes
an actionable violation of the Honor Code as opposed to other rule violations
and what penalty will be applied. 335

• VMI should critically study the Honor Court’s “education” policy and assess
whether and how this practice is consistent with VMI’s “single sanction”
concept. 336 VMI should also examine whether this practice can be applied
reliably and consistently, and whether it produces disparate outcomes on
race and gender lines. If VMI retains the “education” option, it should
consider preparing clearer and better-defined criteria for when a cadet
should be prosecuted and when he or she should be educated.

• VMI should also reconsider the decision to prohibit Honor Court defendants
from having counsel assist at trials. 337 The presence of counsel promotes
fairness and would provide support for a cadet in a time of incredible stress
and need. Denying counsel provides no benefit other than putting the
prosecution’s “thumb on the scale.” VMI’s own insistence on having counsel
present during this investigation further supports reconsideration of this
policy. VMI should also provide enhanced training to faculty advisors to
ensure that they understand and are familiar with all aspects of the Honor
Court system and can capably assist cadets. 338

• Given the importance of the outcome for the students affected, VMI should
reconsider its policy permitting non-unanimous verdicts in Honor Court
cases. 339 There appears to be no or minimal benefit to the current non-
unanimity policy (other than making Honor Court cases easy to win) and
there is an openness among cadets and alumni to make this change. It would
also ensure that, for example, an African American cadet could not be
expelled by a verdict of only Caucasian votes. VMI should also consider
whether to involve faculty in the jury pool and should prohibit strikes based
on the basis of race or gender. 340 VMI should also track the makeup of its
juries to determine whether they represent a fair cross-section of the VMI
community and make appropriate adjustments. 341

334 See Recommendation 3(i).

335 See Recommendation 3(c).
336 See Recommendation 3(e).
337 See Recommendation 3(g).
338 See Recommendation 3(h).
339 See Recommendation 3(f).
340 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
341 See Recommendation 3(f).

98
 • Many respondents noted that the Honor Court produces a harsh penalty for
what cadets would consider a relatively minor offense (lying to a fellow cadet
about off-post activities), and light penalties under other systems for what
they would consider a major offense (such as sexual misconduct and use of
racial slurs). VMI should examine data related to punishments imposed by
the Honor Court, the Cadet Equity Association, and other disciplinary
organizations to ensure that they are applied equitably and evaluate
whether VMI’s disciplinary practices produce inequitable results. 342

F. Responsiveness to complaints versus a culture of silence

A number of alumni interviewees who complained about instances of racial
or gender discrimination or harassment did not feel that VMI’s administration took
them seriously or adequately addressed them. For example, some alumni and a
number of faculty said that there was a culture of silence and lack of consistency
around disciplinary proceedings at VMI.

Current faculty or staff

• A current faculty member said that VMI tries to sweep negative

instances under the rug. 343

• A current faculty member stated that even though the annual climate
survey identifies serious issues, the administration does not take
responsive actions. 344

• Another current faculty member said that the faculty is run like a
dictatorship and has a culture of retribution. 345

• A current faculty member explained that while there is a faculty

working group on diversity, equity, and inclusion, efforts to put
together a forum for talking to cadets about those issues keep getting
put on hold. 346

2018–2021

• A graduate observed many instances of racism that went

unaddressed. For example, a rat was brought before the General
Committee on a charge of disrespect based on using the n-word; the

342 See Recommendation 3(d).

343 Interviewee 23.
344 Interviewee 37.
345 Interviewee 31.
346 Interviewee 48.

99
 General Committee transferred the case to the Cadet Equity
Association, which held a private proceeding to avoid having the rat
labeled as racist. The rat received one demerit, the lowest available
penalty. 347

• An African American graduate asserted that faculty and staff knew

that stuff was wrong but looked away. 348

1994–1997

• A graduate reported an anecdote about an African American fourth

class cadet being assaulted by four people and said that no one was
punished. 349

There were a few common themes in alumni explanations for these

perceptions. First, the alumni interviews showed an overall inconsistent
understanding and use of the various systems and forums for bringing racial and
gender-related complaints. VMI’s class system includes four primary
subcommittees, all of which deal with cadet behavior and discipline in one capacity
or another. Some interviewees, particularly women, recall being unsure of whether
to report complaints to these committees, the commandant’s staff, or directly to the
Title IX coordinator, the Inspector General, or the Superintendent. 350 One alumnus
reported that while he silently endured what he considered to be racist acts, there
was never a straight line in the administration at VMI for him to be able to make a
report to specifically for these instances and that’s why he opted to keep quiet. 351
Others noted that it was clear that they were to report complaints to the General
Committee or Cadet Equity Association, and the cadets who were in charge of
those organizations had the discretion to escalate complaints to the appropriate
administrative party (and more often than not, declined to do so). 352 From the
perspective of alumni interviewees, the number of different routes a cadet can take
to make a complaint, coupled with the discretion by cadets who run the class
system committees to escalate complaints, often resulted in their complaints not
reaching the appropriate person or not being addressed.

There were also some minority and women alumni who could have chosen to
bring complaints, but ultimately decided not to because they believed the

347 Interviewee 17.

348 Interview 302.
349 Interviewee 12.
350 See, e.g., Interviewee 19, class of 2012.
351 Interviewee 53.
352 See, e.g., Interviewee 46, class of 2006 (described as a member of the OGA being able to escalate

complaints or not); Interviewee 17, class of 2019.

100
complaints would fall on deaf ears. One of these alumna noted that she never went
to any of the committees or administration for help because there were no
minorities or women there who would understand her. 353 Additionally, some
minority alumni stated that because VMI is a tough school to graduate from under
the best of circumstances (due to the intense rigor of the academic and military
obligations), it was more important to “lie low” and graduate than it was to
potentially call attention to themselves in a negative light. 354 One alumnus
explained that, as the first person in his family to go to college, he didn’t have other
options and couldn’t risk calling negative attention to himself. 355 Some alumni over
the years raised issues with saluting Stonewall Jackson or marching in the Battle
of New Market. They were penalized for refusing to participate in these
activities. 356

That said, there were other alumni who pointed to some notable exceptions
to a perception of ignoring issues. First, African American alumni from the first
post-integration classes in the early 1970s lodged a complaint with the
administration regarding the playing of “Dixie” and the flying of the confederate
flag at VMI football games, and these practices stopped shortly afterward. Most of
the alumni interviewed about the situation noted that they faced no retaliation or
backlash from the administration after making the complaint. 357 But one
Caucasian alumnus from the class of 1974 said that he still keeps in touch with a
few African American classmates who transferred after they felt that they were
unable to get a “fair shake” with the administration regarding their issues with
Dixie and the confederate flag. 358 In addition, one African American alumnus from
the class of 2015 359 wrote a capstone thesis on racial issues, and included concrete
suggestions for improving certain elements at VMI from that perspective. General
Peay invited the cadet to have a discussion with him to hear more about his
perspective, and this discussion contributed to the decision to stop requiring cadets
to salute the Stonewall Jackson statue. Others expressed the view that the
administration would not have tolerated any discrimination, and some described
situations where misbehavior resulted in loss of rank or, in more extreme cases,
suspension. Finally, several cadets thought the instance of a cadet threatening to
lynch another cadet showed that the administration did respond: one noted that
the rat reported it, and the system listened to the rat, 360 and another asserted that

353 Interviewee 17, class of 2019.

354 Interviewee 20, class of 2020 and Interviewee 49, class of 2011.
355 Interviewee 21.
356 Interviewee 16, 322.
357 See, e.g., Interviewee 135, class of 1974; Interviewee 137, class of 1974.
358 Interviewee 2470, class of 1975.
359 Interviewee 2435.
360 Interviewee 229, ’89.

101
“the biggest thing the news got wrong [about that incident] is VMI suspended the
cadet, but that was during the investigation,” and that “[o]nce investigated, [VMI]
said get the hell out.” 361

A number of alumni provided examples where VMI responded to complaints

or comments from the community. For example:

2010–2013

• A graduate said that the administration ran a Leadership Focus

Group, which consisted of 16 cadets and a faculty member, to receive
focus-group like feedback from cadets, including on issues about the
class system and the honor system. 362

• A female graduate said that VMI had available systems for making
reports about instances of sexism, including to the General
Committee, to the Cadet Equity Association, and to commandant
staff, which would escalate to Superintendent or Title IX
investigator. 363

2006–2009

• An African American graduate observed that a couple of incidents

were reported to the Officer of the Guard Association and escalated
where warranted. 364

1994–1997

• An African American graduate recounted an incident where another

cadet received a letter containing racist slurs; when the
administration was notified, it investigated and then called the police.

Overall, more female interviewees discussed actually making complaints

that were ignored or mishandled than racial minorities making complaints about
racist treatment (this could be due to the feeling discussed above that it is best to
“lie low” rather than call attention to yourself). For example:

361 Interviewee 97, ’21.

362 Interviewee 33, class of 2013.
363 Interviewee 35, class of 2010.
364 Interviewee 46, class of 2006

102
 2018–2021

• One alumna said over her time at VMI she lodged more than one
complaint (regarding both issues of sexual harassment and racial
intolerance) and General Peay never spoke to her about any of them,
even though she had been a guest in his home. “How could complaints
go through the faculty to the dean and to the IG and he doesn’t
know?” She was also discouraged from reporting an incident by
threatening a delay in graduation, on the grounds that cadets cannot
graduate if they are involved in a pending investigation. 365

2010–2013

• Another alumna reported an incident of sexual harassment to the

Cadet Equity Association and was subsequently “publicly shamed” for
reporting it by other cadets (including members of the CEA). She later
reported a separate instance of sexual assault that was not acted on
for at least 10 months afterward, while she continued to live near her
assaulter in barracks. 366

• Another alumna reported more than one incident of sexual

harassment to VMI’s administration, but there was no follow up. In
one instance, she believes it was because the harasser was the son of a
prominent alumnus. She also said she would not have wanted to
report the incidents to the commandant’s staff in barracks, because
they could see what was going on and chose to do nothing about it. 367

To alleviate the confusion, there should be a clear path to report incidents of

racial and gender discrimination and clear consequences for those actions. In both
the interviews and the surveys, some alumni suggested that issues of
discrimination should be treated with the same “zero tolerance” approach as the
Honor Code. 368 As one alumnus noted, VMI administrators like to say that
“ignorance is no excuse,” but when it comes to race they take the position that
“ignorance apparently is an excuse” because some cadets don’t know any better. 369
This individual noted that these concerns were brought to the Commandant but

365 Interviewee 17, class of 2019.

366 Interviewee 19, class of 2012.
367 Interviewee 1768, class of 2010.
368 See Honor Court SOP 2017 page 44 “Neither ignorance nor professed confusion about the correct

interpretation of these policies is an excuse.”)

369 Interviewee 9.

103
nothing was done and no education or other action has been taken there to address
the ignorance among some who come to VMI.

G. Leadership, official policies, and training

1. Command climate with respect to diversity, equity, and
inclusion
In official statements, VMI’s leadership has recently emphasized a desire “to
erase any hint of racism at VMI, in our communities, and in our country” and “to
challenge the Corps through the class and regimental systems to address
unbecoming conduct and racism. 370 VMI has created a diversity, equity, and
inclusion committee, is currently searching for a Chief Diversity Officer, and is
addressing race and gender issues through its Vision 2039: Focus on Leadership
plan. MG Wins has also been focusing on addressing racial issues at VMI; he often
repeats the phrase “One VMI.” A number of members of the Board of Visitors
expressed the view that this investigation is redundant, because the Board and
VMI are already addressing the issues that led to this investigation, via the above-
referenced changes and other changes relating to Civil War iconography discussed
below. This ignores the obvious; that VMI only began to engage in these efforts
after the investigation was announced. The majority of steps that VMI highlights
either occurred within the last year or are still in progress (e.g., the Five Pillars
Plan, the new DEI committee on Board of Visitors, the new DEI committee at the
Alumni Agencies, the appointment of chief diversity office, the appointment of a
new Superintendent, the appointment of a female regimental commander, the
adoption of DEI principles, the creation of a diversity dashboard, the creation of a
committee on ceremonies and memorials, the moving of the Stonewall Jackson
statue, the changes to the Memorial Parade, the plan to move flag poles, and plans
to improve recruiting and training programs). Before these steps, no administrator
interviewed could identify any plan or program to increase female or minority
enrollment in the corps or employment in the faculty.

VMI has provided an overview of its diversity, equity, and inclusion

initiatives. 371 In addition to the measures just mentioned, VMI highlights
additional examples, including:

• the confirmation of MG Wins as the new VMI Superintendent;

• the appointment of VMI’s first female regimental commander;

• the addition of a diversity, equity, and inclusion committee for the

Board of Visitors, the adoption of seven guiding principles for
diversity, equity, and inclusion;

370 Peay Letter, at 1, 2.

371 May 14, 2021 letter from VMI to the Special Investigation Team (attached as Exhibit 6).

104
 • the creation of a diversity dashboard to monitor admissions,
graduation rates, and hiring;

• the creation of a Board of Visitors committee to evaluate ceremonies

and memorials;

• the creation of a diversity, equity, and inclusion committee for the

Alumni Agencies;

• ongoing development of an enhanced racial sensitivity training for

cadets, faculty, and staff;

• adding a new core curriculum course called the American Civic

Experience, which will include discussion of civil rights issues;

• ongoing review to improve VMI’s diversity hiring program; and

• expansion of recruiting efforts directed at minority and female cadets.

See Exhibit 6 for VMI’s own description of these programs.

Notable omissions from VMI’s written plans include any establishment of a

DEI office or website promotion of DEI efforts at VMI. This is another arena in
which VMI is significantly behind its peers. Unlike its peer schools, 372 VMI does
not have a DEI office or any significant or sophisticated DEI operation, nor does it
address or promote any DEI efforts on its website. Washington & Lee, also located
in Lexington, has an Office of Inclusion & Engagement, a significant DEI presence
on its website, and offers a DEI “virtual visit” program as part of its recruiting
efforts. 373

While the overview that VMI provided included corps-wide training relating
to Title IX and gender issues, the only training VMI’s overview identified as
addressing race was training within VMI’s ROTC program. 374 According to VMI’s
website, about 800 members of the corps of cadets are in the ROTC program, out of
the roughly 1,700 cadets. As a result, VMI has not identified any training relating
to racial issues that is corps-wide. Further, the ROTC program falls under the
Department of Defense, so the training curriculum is controlled by DOD, not VMI.

On the issue of faculty diversity and leadership in the classroom, VMI also
has a hard time recruiting and retaining diverse faculty. Interviewee 343
participated in the hiring of twenty faculty members. Of those twenty hires, two

372 See https://dei.virginia.edu/ (University of Virginia); https://my.wlu.edu/office-of-inclusion-and-

engagement (Washington & Lee); https://www.citadel.edu/root/diversity-council (The Citadel);
https://www.inclusive.vt.edu/ (Virginia Tech).
373 See https://my.wlu.edu/office-of-inclusion-and-engagement;

https://www.wlu.edu/admissions/virtual-visit/dive/.
374 Exhibit 6 (VMI’s letter, which includes as its Exhibit A, a memorandum on the ROTC training

curriculum).

105
were female and one was African American. Many faculty interviewees have
reported that VMI is not the most attractive place to teach, noting the relatively
low salary, the small town where VMI is located, and the lack of a graduate or
research program, among other reasons. Interviewee 37 mentioned that a
department recently had an opening for a professor position and that every single
applicant was a Caucasian male. Other interviewees mentioned that VMI is a
tough place to teach because professors are in a constant battle with the
commandant’s staff for cadets’ time, and professors cannot schedule anything
outside of class time. Further, one of the criteria professors are evaluated on is
“cadet development,” which is an extra component of evaluation not present at
other institutions. Some interviewees indicated that they would spend nights and
weekends at VMI in order to meet with and accommodate cadet’s schedules, but
that faculty do not get compensated appropriately for all of the extra work that is
required to teach at VMI. Interviewee 378 stated that he is aware of some people
not even applying to VMI because of the uniform requirement.

As to the command climate historically, multiple alumni interviewees noted

that the Commandant sets the tone, which means that the emphasis on and tone
relating to issues of race and gender may change over time. For example, alumni
from the 1970s observed that the Commandant during their cadetships would not
tolerate racism of any kind and was adamant about racial equality. Similarly, a
graduate from the 2013 class reported that the Commandant at the time made it
clear he cared about minority groups at VMI. Others have indicated that the
Commandant during their time at VMI was not as adamant or focused on these
issues.

2. Treatment of Civil War history

a. Iconography and traditions
Another obvious and important aspect of VMI’s culture is that it has long
focused on events and individuals related to the Civil War. For example, after a
graduate donated a statue of LTG Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson to VMI in 1912, at
some point a practice arose of requiring fourth class cadets to salute the statue.
According to various alumni, while this tradition was in force African American
cadets who refused to salute the statue were given penalty tours. VMI ended this
tradition in 2015, and in December 2020 VMI removed Jackson’s statue from in
front of the barracks, with the intent of moving it to the Virginia Museum of the
Civil War.

During the Civil War, VMI cadets fought in the Battle of New Market to fill
a gap in Confederate lines. VMI emphasizes to new cadets that “[t]he Battle of New
Market marks the only occasion in the history of the nation where an entire

106
student body—the Corps of Cadets—fought in armed conflict.” 375 While cadets used
to take the Cadet Oath at the New Market Battlefield State Historical Park, GEN
Peay announced on July 29, 2020, that he was moving the location for the Cadet
Oath to an on-post location at VMI. 376 He also announced that the celebration of
New Market Day on May 15 would be broadened to honor all VMI alumni who
have died for their country and that the parade would be retitled as the VMI
Memorial Day Parade and held on the parade ground, not on the battlefield.

There was a wide range of responses among current cadets to the treatment
of Civil War history on post. Among survey participants, 45% of current cadets
rated the extent to which Confederate symbols on post promote racial intolerance
and/or discrimination as “none,” 38% rated the extent as “a little,” and 17% rated
the extent as “a lot.” 377 But African American current cadets were much more
likely to feel that the symbols promote racial intolerance and/or discrimination,
with 50% rating the extent as “a lot” as compared with 18% of Caucasian current
cadets. 378 Similarly, 33% of African American cadets rated the extent to which
celebrating VMI’s Southern heritage promotes racial intolerance and/or
discrimination as “a lot,” as compared to only 8% of Caucasian current cadets. 379
On the free-form survey results, a Caucasian male cadet stated: “I think the
attachment to New Market, the confederacy and Jackson lets racism seep into our
culture and unconsciously affect us.” 380

In regard to the removal of the Stonewall Jackson statue, most cadets

agreed with or were not upset by the removal of the Stonewall Jackson statue. 381
Some of the cadets were disappointed by the removal, with one saying that he felt
that it was a symbol of VMI’s history as opposed to a symbol of racism. 382 Among
Caucasian current cadets who participated in the survey, 59% rated the extent to
which the statue of Stonewall Jackson promotes racial intolerance and/or
discrimination as “none,” 29% rated the extent as “a little,” and 12% rated the
extent as “a lot.” 383 By comparison, among African American current cadets who
participated in the survey, 25% rated the extent to which the statue of Stonewall
Jackson promotes racial intolerance and/or discrimination as “none,” 25% rated the
extent as “a little,” and 50% rated the extent as “a lot.” 384 Among all current cadets

375 New Cadet Handbook 2020–2021 at 13.

376 Peay Letter at 5 (attached as Exhibit 5).
377 Appendix A at 53.
378 Appendix A at 128.
379 Id. at 129.
380 Survey results, row 33 (Caucasian, male).
381 See, e.g., Interviewee 188, Interviewee 2451, Interviewee 2461, Interviewee 267.
382 Interviewee 2445, Interviewee 170.
383 Appendix A at 128.
384 Id.

107
who participated in the survey, 62% rated the extent to which the statue of
Stonewall Jackson promotes racial intolerance and/or discrimination as “none.” 385

In regard to the Battle of New Market, feelings among current cadets were
slightly less uniform. Some African American cadets felt like participation in the
New Market traditions made them feel uncomfortable and shameful. 386 One
African American cadet concluded that the New Market tradition made him feel
uncomfortable and weird because he had to wear the clothes of someone who “did
not want me to be on this Earth.” 387 But many cadets felt that the New Market
traditions should remain. Even cadets who thought that other Confederacy-related
traditions could be eliminated felt that memorizing the names of the cadets who
died at New Market should continue. 388 There was at least one non-Caucasian
cadet who agreed with this, viewing the New Market march and the memorization
of the New Market cadets as important to building camaraderie during the Rat
Line. 389 Another African American cadet said that while he strongly disagreed with
New Market charge, he could see the perspective of some that the traditions were
more about the character of the cadets than the cause they fought for. 390 Of those
who participated in the survey, 76% of Caucasian cadets rated the extent to which
honoring VMI’s role in the Battle of New Market promotes racial intolerance
and/or discrimination as “none,” 18% rated the extent as “a little,” and 5% rated
the extent as “a lot.” 391 In contrast, 50% of African American cadets rated the
extent to which honoring VMI’s role in the Battle of New Market promotes racial
intolerance and/or discrimination as “none,” 17% rated the extent as “a little,” and
33% rated the extent as “a lot.” 392 Among all current cadets who participated in the
survey, 78% rated the extent to which honoring VMI’s role in the Battle of New
Market promotes racial intolerance and/or discrimination as “none.” 393

Many cadets felt strongly that the traditions of VMI generally should remain
unaltered. These feelings were especially evident in the free-form survey
responses:

385 Id. at 53.

386 Interviewee 219.
387 Interviewee 198.
388 Interviewee 187.
389 Interviewee 195.
390 Interviewee 204.
391 Appendix A at 129.
392 Id.
393 Id. at 54.

108
 • “Our culture and history are a major part of VMI and taking down a
statue of a professor from the Institute does nothing but piss the corps
off and creates resentment of the highest end of leadership.” 394

• “Instead of trying to erase our history and act like it didn’t exist, we
can learn from it to make better decisions for the future of all people.
Our brother rats blood, my dyke lines blood was spilled on those fields
and that should not be forgotten. This Institution fought against the
union because our state Virginia, the same political leaders who hold
office today (democrats, John Letcher (34th Governor of VA during the
Civil war), called us to action. We are part of the Virginia Militia and
were called to action and that does not make us racists. If you forget
your history you are doomed to repeat it.” 395

• “When Stonewall Jackson is celebrated, he is celebrated for his

military genius and fighting for his home. He’s also celebrated for
breaking the law by teaching slaves to read so they could read the
bible. When the Cadets at New Market are celebrated, they are
celebrated for being teenagers who stood up and defended their home
when they were called on. When we celebrate Southern Heritage, we
celebrate the good parts of our past. Any racial/ethnic group has
terrible moments in history if you look hard enough. I have never once
heard a Cadet, faculty member, or any member of leadership celebrate
slavery or oppression.” 396

• “VMI’s past association with the confederacy does not affect our
culture today.” 397

• “Bring back Jackson statue. Jackson statue’s rightful home is in front

of Jackson arch, and relocating it elsewhere was nothing but an
attempt to appease a small minority of the VMI community which
happens to be supported by the radical leftists in the State
government.” 398

• “Doing away with statues and renaming buildings, while trivial and
do not pose any immediate threat to the integrity of the Institute, are

394 Survey results, row 216 (male).

395 Survey results, row 216 (male).
396 Survey results, row 219.
397 Survey results, row 273 (Caucasian, male).
398 Survey results, row 21.

109
 a meager, pitiful attempt at erasing history only to appease the
public.” 399

• “We celebrate the New Market battle not because of the confederacy,
but because cadets our age and younger [were] ordered to risk their
lives and they won the battle. In today’s society many American teens
don’t honor or respect the sacrifices made, but VMI instills respect,
honor, and duty.” 400

• “There is nothing wrong with the confederate history. It is a part of

vmi and cannot be taken away. If we erase our history we are more
liable to repeat it in the future. Vmi stands as a beacon of the south
and a permanent reminder of what happened in the civil war. It
should be looked upon as a place of pride and a place of fighting for
what people believed in.” 401

In May 2021, VMI’s Board of Visitors voted to erase Jackson’s name as the
author of a quotation mounted in bronze in the student barracks. Jackson’s name
will also be removed from the post memorial hall and one of the arches leading to
the barracks. They also voted to have “Virginia Mourning Her Dead” honor all
former cadets who have died in wars, and to preserve, contextualize, and possibly
relocate the New Market Battle mural. 402 Because this occurred during the writing
of this report, the investigation did not specifically address these decisions with
interviewees.

Alumni are quite divided on the importance of Confederate iconography and

practices. Many did not have a strong understanding of the meaning behind the
iconography when they were cadets and just did what they were told. 403 Some
cadets of color objected to saluting Stonewall Jackson or marching in the Battle of
New Market and were disciplined in the past, although VMI has now made
changes to accommodate those views. 404 Some alumni were vocal when the
committee established to address iconography and memorials announced plans to
address three of the 400 Civil War-related items on post. Alumni views varied from

399 Survey results, row 22 (Hispanic, female).

400 Survey results, row 25.
401 Survey results, row 36 (Caucasian male).
402 See Exhibit 6 at 6.
403 See, e.g., Interviewee 46, class of 2006; Interviewee 121, class of 2009.
404 See, e.g., Interviewee 29, class of 1976; Interviewee 16, class of 2001; Interviewee 140, class of

1975.

110
believing the Confederacy played almost no role at VMI to viewing it as central to
the institution. 405

Overall, many of the alumni who participated in the investigation either

supported or did not object to the removal of the Stonewall Jackson statue. The
survey results show more division, with 68% of alumni respondents “strongly” or
“somewhat” opposing the removal. 406 Based on the Team’s interviews, many
Caucasian alumni did not think about the meaning of the statues and traditions
while at VMI but understood now, reflecting back, how those symbols could be
oppressive. 407 Several expressed the view that if the symbols bothered their
Brother Rats, they should be removed. 408 There was a significant group of alumni,
on the other hand, who believed the statue was part of history and should have
remained there. 409 Of those who objected, some were concerned with substance,
and others were concerned with process. The latter believed there should have
been a more rigorous process with input from all stakeholders before removing the
statue. 410

Alumni likewise have varying views on the remaining statues. In the

interviews, fewer alumni stated that the iconography was something that
absolutely should not be changed about VMI. Most highlighted the Honor Code and
the Rat Line as the aspects of cadet life that should be protected. Several suggested
that the statue “Virginia Mourning Her Dead” (which commemorates the VMI
soldiers killed at New Market) should commemorate all VMI soldiers lost in battle,
not merely the Confederate ones.

There is a divide between how alumni view the Civil War and its
representations in today’s VMI culture. Recent graduates of color discussed how
they found the iconography and traditions to be degrading. For many of the cadets
of color, celebrating aspects of the Civil War celebrates those who would have kept
them enslaved. 411 For some of the other alumni, they viewed the Confederate
soldiers as simply fighting for where they were from and thought they should not

405 See, e.g., Interviewee 2434; Interviewee 323, class of 1985; Interviewee 65, class of 1969
(Confederacy played almost no role); Interviewee 159, class of 2002; Interviewee 121, class of 2009;
Interviewee 69, class of 1995 (Confederate history is a huge part of VMI).
406 Appendix A at 49.
407 See e.g. Interviewee 39, class of 1997; Interviewee 370, class of 2014; Interviewee 531, class of

2012.
408 See e.g. Interviewee 2456, class of 2018; Interviewee 292, class of 1969; Interviewee 150, class of

2004.
409 See e.g. Interviewee 66, class of 1973; Interviewee 120, class of 2013; Interviewee 153, class of

2010;
410 Interviewee 112.
411 See, e.g., Interviewee 135, class of 1974; Interviewee 140, class of 1975.

111
be villainized. 412 They expressed concerns about “erasing history.” 413 As to New
Market, they view it as honoring those who answer the call as opposed to honoring
those who stand on the wrong side of history. 414

Emphasis on Confederate symbols and support for the Confederacy will

likely present a barrier to recruiting cadets of color, making VMI appear as a non-
inclusive environment particularly those not from the South who are not used to
seeing Confederate symbols. VMI appears to understand this, as the Board of
Visitors has established the Ceremonial and Memorials Naming and Review
Committee of the Board to continue the work of examining imagery and traditions
on post. 415 Other recommended actions for the Committee include:

• Deemphasizing the accomplishments of those associated with the

Confederacy and re-focusing on other prominent VMI alumni
(including women and people of color);

• Providing more education and diverse perspectives on the Civil War

and broadening general knowledge one has to memorize in the Rat
Line to be more inclusive. One VMI employee 416 suggested that the
area from which the Jackson statue was removed should be
redesigned with two statues of Marshall, one in his military uniform
from WW II and one in civilian clothes as he wore while implementing
his eponymous plan. That employee believed that a display would
more faithfully represent the mission of the Institute, which serves to
develop both military and civilian leaders.

• Engaging current cadets and cadet organizations, including the

Promaji Club, in discussions about future actions related to
iconography and traditions as well as actions to commemorate
minority groups. 417 In addition to providing cadets a voice in these
decisions, this will help avoid “blind spots” as the Committee works
through these issues.

412 See, e.g., Interviewee 38, class of 1961; Interviewee 36, class of 1997; Interviewee 2286, class of
2013.
413 See, e.g., Interviewee 291, class of 1981; Interviewee 2284, class of 2006.
414 See, e.g., Interviewee 292, class of 1969; Interviewee 228, class of 1970; Interviewee 2385, class of

1988.
415 See Exhibit 6 at 6.
416 Interviewee 327.
417 See Recommendation 4(b).

112
 b. Lee-Jackson parade and Martin Luther King Day
As explained in the interim report, Lee-Jackson Day, honoring Confederate
Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, was a state holiday in Virginia
until 2020, when it was replaced by Election Day. Lee-Jackson Day traditionally
occurred on the Friday immediately before the Monday federal holiday of Martin
Luther King Jr. Day. An African American cadet (’01) explained that while some
cadets perceived Lee-Jackson Day as about culture, duty, and honor, others see it
as celebrating the fight to preserve slavery. 418

At least two recent graduates reported that there were inconsistencies in the
way VMI treated the Lee-Jackson Day parade and the parade in honor of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. They reported that marchers in the Lee-Jackson Day
parade were allowed on post and that cadets were permitted to participate in
related activities. But when cadets sought to attend the parade in honor of Dr.
King, they were turned down. 419 Similarly, a former faculty member recounted that
a few years ago the Promaji Club (a VMI club that supports minority cadets)
received a permit to host or attend a Martin Luther King parade on the same day
as Lee-Jackson Day. 420 After being awarded the permit, though, VMI leadership
informed that club that its members would not be allowed to wear uniforms while
marching in the Martin Luther King Jr. parade, but could wear VMI clothing such
as sweatshirts. As the date for the parade approached, members of the Promaji
Club received anonymous death threats. Then, VMI told the club members that
they would not be allowed to stay on post before the parade and that they would
not be allowed to wear any school clothing. Further, African American cadets were
told to remain in their rooms on Lee-Jackson Day because of the marchers in the
Lee-Jackson Day parade allowed on post that day. 421

c. Instruction about the Civil War

Some alumni and faculty expressed concern over how cadets are taught
about the Civil War. Several alumni (from ’01 to ’12) reported that VMI teaches
only one perspective on the Civil War—that it was not about slavery. 422 Another
graduate (’13) described a history class as Confederate apologetics. 423 A current
VMI faculty member stated that African American cadets are regularly subjected
to the “Lost Cause” reading of the Civil War.

418 Interviewee 16, class of 2002.

419 See e.g. Interviewee 9, class of 2020; Interviewee 20, class of 2020.
420 Interviewee 37; see also Interviewee 302.
421 Id.
422 See e.g. Interviewee 16, class of 2001; Interviewee 22, class of 2001
423 Interviewee 33, class of 2013

113
 In interviews, the Team asked current cadets how they would feel about
implementing a required Civil War class at VMI and received mixed feedback.
Overall, current cadets did not support the proposition. One cadet thought that if
there was an obligatory course on the Civil War, everyone was going to “sleep
through it or joke about it.” 424 She thought that the material would be best
implemented as part of the Rat Line, and she emphasized that the “negatives
behind [VMI’s] tradition[s]” would have to be highlighted as well. 425 Another cadet
said he would support having a class on the Civil War, but not making it
mandatory. 426 In regard to VMI’s contribution to the Civil War, he said that “our
history is ugly … just embrace it and move on.” 427 Finally, the Team was also told
in an interview with a cadet that a VMI professor had a confederate sticker on his
car. 428

As noted above, MG Wins’ May 2021 letter states that VMI will be
introducing a new course, the “American Civic Experience,” which will be part of
the core curriculum and which will include coverage of the U.S. civil rights
movement, of key Supreme Court cases from the Civil Rights era, and of
constitutional principles. He also indicated that VMI will review elective history
courses, including “The Civil War and Reconstruction,” “History of the South from
1865,” “19th Century South Africa,” “Africa in Pre and Modern Times,” “The Old
South,” and “The African-American Experience.”

It is too soon to tell if or how these course changes will be implemented, or

whether there will be any mandatory participation by cadets in these courses or
connection between the classes and other aspects of the cadet experience. But they
may address some of the observations by alumni suggesting additional education
and perspectives on the Civil War. Some cadets offered the opinion that Civil War
topics were taught with an inappropriate degree of sympathy for the South. 429 This
relates, more generally, to a lack of diverse perspectives, which some alumni
pointed to as problematic. 430

Relatedly, several alumni of color questioned why the “general knowledge”

that rats have to learn focuses so heavily on Confederate history. 431 They saw no

424 Interviewee 2461.

425 Id.
426 Interviewee 97.
427 Interviewee 97.
428 Interviewee 171.
429 Interviewee 1704, 53.
430 Interviewee 16.
431 Interviewee 53.

114
reason that it could not be expanded to include the accomplishments of notable
women and people of color.

d. Confederate memorabilia in cadet rooms

Views on this topic, unsurprisingly, varied over time. For current cadets,
only one survey respondent mentioned Confederate flags in the free-response
section, and it was to note that “[e]very once in a while there will be a few people
that show up here with confederate flags, and cadets really don’t have any
tolerance for it.” 432

According to alumni, confederate imagery on post was more common in

decades past. These issues are discussed on page 35 of the March 8 interim report.

3. Policies and training

VMI’s policies and training have evolved over time. Some of the alumni
interviewed attended VMI before women were admitted. They report that there
was significant sensitivity training around the admission of women, and that VMI
continues to offer at least some training on gender issues. The cadre receives some
equity training. 433

Several alumni noted a lack of adequate training on diversity. As noted

above, MG Wins has policies against discrimination434 and is developing programs
to remedy this, as well as expressing a clear “tone from the top” about
discrimination. However, policies without training and reinforcement will not bring
about change. Two alumni pointed out that they received such training only when
they joined the military, and it would have been helpful earlier. 435 For example,
one alumnus stated that he was not prepared to lead diverse troops upon
graduation because he came from a small town in rural Virginia and never learned
how to appropriately interact with people of color at VMI. 436 He emphasized the
importance of getting cadets to buy into the “why” of the training—that it would
make them better leaders. Another “check the box” exercise would be ineffective. It
may be motivating to have military officers and other “real world” speakers to
share the importance of communicating effectively with people from different
backgrounds.

432 Survey results, row 280.

433 Interviewee 2460.
434 General Orders 13, 16, and 90.
435 Interviewee 159; Interviewee 34.
436 Interviewee 34

115
 H. Gender issues
Some cadets consider gender issues at VMI to be of greater concern than
those of race and ethnicity. By way of illustration, one Caucasian male cadet stated
(in a free-form survey response), “Personally, I feel that discrimination against
women is much more common than my brother rats of color.” 437 Similarly, in an
interview, another cadet stated that it is harder to be a woman at VMI than a
minority student. 438 The Team examined these issues in each of its investigation
methods.

1. Sexual Assault
Sexual assault is a problem at VMI. Before proceeding to discuss the
findings, it bears mentioning that this report leaves out considerable detail about
female cadets’ experiences with assault, negative ensuing treatment from fellow
cadets, specific frustrations with their attempts to report the incident, requests for
help and accommodations that were declined or left unaddressed, and how their
assault affected them mentally, physically, and academically. This report
endeavors to provide sufficient detail to explain the substance of the investigation’s
findings, while omitting potentially identifying detail so as to protect the
anonymity of those cadets who chose to participate and share their experiences.

Many women chose not to share their experiences. The Team heard from
numerous female cadets and alumni, and/or their representatives and family
members, that they were assaulted and harassed at VMI, but that they did not
wish to participate in the investigation out of fear of VMI and its alumni.

Sexual assault was a common topic in interviews of female cadets and

alumni. A number of female cadet interviewees reported that they were sexually
assaulted on post or that they know of other female cadets who were. One current
female cadet described an experience during her rat year in which a male cadet
entered her room and groped her breasts. She said that she reported it through the
CEA reporting channel, but no action was ever taken. 439 This same interviewee
said that she told her cousin not to come to VMI because she is terrified her cousin
would be raped since it happens so often. 440 Many female cadets indicated that the
policies requiring that cadets keep doors unlocked and window shades open (unless
actively changing) increase fears of sexual assaults. 441 One female cadet described
these policies as having the effect that women on post “feel unable to be out of the

437 Survey results, row 10.

438 Interviewee 171.
439 Interviewee 205.
440 Id.
441 Interviewee 202, Interviewee 2461.

116
sight of men.” 442 Survey responses align with the interviews: of the current female
cadets who participated in the survey, 14% reported being sexually assaulted at
VMI, and 63% reported being told directly by others they had been sexually
assaulted. 443 Among current male cadets, 3% reported being sexually assaulted at
VMI, and 22% reported being told directly by others that they had been sexually
assaulted or harassed at VMI. 444

A theme of distrust toward VMI’s ability to effectively investigate sexual

assaults emerged during this Team’s investigation. One current female cadet felt
that if she were to be a victim of a sexual assault, the Commandant staff would
sweep it under the rug, so she would go straight to the police instead. 445 She also
expressed concern that she might get in trouble if she reported it to commandant
staff. Likewise, another current female cadet reported that another female cadet
was recently raped on post, and that she and her friends were still trying to decide
what to do about it—they are not sure whether the friend should report it since the
friend was drunk at the time and therefore might get in trouble herself. 446 She said
that alcohol use is a serious violation and that this creates a barrier to reporting
assaults that involve alcohol.

One current female cadet said she was sexually assaulted on post, and
reported it through the proper channels, but the VMI investigator taking her
report cautioned her that the report would ruin the commission and career of her
assailant. 447 The offender was punished with only 10 demerits, 6 weeks of
confinement, and 30 penalty tours.

Another cadet (the one expressing the retaliation fear, above) recounted an
instance in which a friend spoke to commandant staff about experiencing a sexual
assault. The commandant staff member told her, if you cannot handle sexual
assaults, you should not be at VMI. 448 The commandant staff member declined the
Team’s request for an interview.

442 Interviewee 2461.

443 Appendix A at 407, 409.
444 Id.
445 Interviewee 2461 (first interview).
446 Interviewee 210.
447 Interviewee 143.
448 Interviewee 2461. The investigation received information that this member of the commandant’s

staff made similar, appalling, comments to another sexual assault victim, telling her that maybe
VMI was not the place for her and that she was ruining a good cadet’s life (in reference to her
insistence that the male cadet had sexually assaulted her). The female cadet did not want to share
her full experiences with the investigation out of fear of retribution.

117
 Among those who participated in the survey, 61% of current male cadets
strongly or somewhat agree that VMI’s method of addressing and adjudicating
reports of sexual harassment and assault is appropriate, while 12% strongly or
somewhat disagree (28% have insufficient information to respond or neither agreed
nor disagreed). Among female cadets, by contrast, 47% somewhat or strongly agree
that the method is appropriate, and 32% somewhat or strongly disagree (21% not
enough information or neither agree nor disagree). 449

Cadets made similar comments in responses to the free-form survey

questions:

• “1. Being able to lock our doors at night would reduce the number of sexual
assaults and let women feel safer. 2. Fixing the cameras around barracks
would allow people who are assaulted have evidence of the perpetrator
entering their room.” 450

• “I would like to see less guilt tripping when people report sexual assault and
harassment here. When I reported mine, I was told several times that ‘he
may lose his commission or may not graduate on time’ because of this, and I
felt so bad the entire time.” 451

• “I know of women at this school who have been sexually assaulted or even
raped by male cadets. The harshest punishment I have heard of is a
suspension for that literal crime. But, if a cadet is caught cheating on a quiz
that is worth 5 points they can be permanently expelled and shunned from
the school.” 452

In addition, two other concerns related to sexual assault on post were

commonly discussed. First, interviewees raised concerns over the efficacy of the
sexual assault training provided to cadets. Documentary evidence shows that VMI
conducts a number of assault-related trainings. But discussions with cadets reveal
a feeling that these are ineffective or even counterproductive. One female cadet
said that the bystander training was a joke, and that the corps does not take it
seriously 453; another female cadet also said that bystander training was deficient
and that the trauma of her assault was exacerbated by counter-productive efforts
of well-intentioned fellow cadets after the fact. 454 Likewise, a female cadet said
that the male cadets act childishly and offensively during the Title IX training, and

449 Appendix A at 410

450 Survey results, row 19 (Caucasian female).
451 Survey results, row 35 (Caucasian, female).
452 Survey results, row 41.
453 Interviewee 143.
454 Interviewee 2444.

118
also do not take it seriously, and there is no consequence for this behavior. 455
Further, some members of the faculty or administration sought to draw a
distinction between “touching someone’s butt” and “real sexual assault.” And, some
interviewees felt that the support services offered to cadets on post—like academic
accommodations, physical health services, and especially mental health services—
were insufficient. 456

As to alumni, over half of the alumni interviewees attended VMI before

gender integration, and the Team was able to interview only a small sample of
alumni women. Likewise, a few alumni came forward to report instances of sexual
assault or harassment, but the relatively small number of female-alumni survey
responses and interviews limit the ability to draw conclusions or impressions from
that information about the overall prevalence of sexual assault on post in years
past. Still, some alumni described some troubling instances that occurred at VMI,
as described in the March 8 interim report, pages 35-36.

2. Sexual harassment, stalking, and other threats

Among current female cadets who responded to the survey, 27% reported
that they had been sexually harassed at VMI. 457 Consistent with this, a current
male cadet stated that sexual harassment is a part of the culture at VMI and that
women are regularly harassed. 458 As for alumni, 46% of female alumni who
responded to the survey (17 of 37) reported that they were sexually harassed at
VMI. 459

As noted in the interim report, several recent alumni (2018–2021) alleged

that a member of commandant staff had repeatedly walked into women’s rooms
when they had their shades down, which is a sign that they are in the process of
changing clothes. 460 One said that this staff member walked in on her when she
was in her underwear and that he also did this to several other female cadets. 461 It
appears that staff member was reported and assigned a different position, but not
terminated.

A female graduate (2010–2013) explained that she reported instances of

harassment to the Inspector General more than once, but that there was never any
follow up. For example, a particular cadet threatened multiple times to kill her and

455 Interviewee 363.

456 Interviewee 2444; Interviewee 205; Interviewee 143.
457 Appendix A at 408.
458 Interviewee 2440.
459 Appendix A at 712.
460 Interviewee 20.
461 Interviewee 17.

119
engaged in behavior that suggested the threat was legitimate. She also woke up in
the night several times to find him sitting in her room. She believes no action was
taken because he was the son of a prominent graduate. 462

A female graduate (’02, the second class to include females) reported that the
second year after the integration for women was awful and that male cadets were
committed to driving female cadets to quit, because the press stopped watching
after the first year. She recounted that a male cadet peed on a female cadet when
she was sleeping, that males in her company defecated in bags and threw the bags
into the female cadets’ rooms, and that male cadets would go to the rooms of female
cadets and pee on their towels. She was pulled out of her bed at night and taken to
a dark room where she was questioned about her dating and sexual activity by a
member of the Honor Court, who was later found to have exploited his position to
harass female cadets. This alumna was not assaulted during her time at VMI. Still,
her VMI experience was so traumatic that she does not speak about it. 463

Sexual harassment also exists in some measure among faculty and staff as
well: 14% (5 of 30) of female faculty, 22% (2 of 9) of female administrators, and 6%
(4 of 59) of other female staff reported being sexually harassed at VMI. 464 A current
female faculty member recounted going to a convention and being assigned to a
suite with a male colleague; when the colleague tried to enter her room at night
while drunk, she had to put a chair against the door to keep him out. When she
reported this incident, it was laughed off. 465

3. Other harassment and social status

Some female cadets said there is an environment of intolerance toward
female cadets on post. One interviewee said that on Jodel, which is an anonymous
geo-based social media site, there are daily degrading comments about women,
sometimes specific women. 466 This interviewee also felt that the men do not seem
to want women at VMI. 467 Another female cadet echoed this sentiment, stating
that there continue to be people at VMI who do not want women to be there at
all. 468 One female cadet described the environment as a “boys’ club,” and another
female cadet described seeing a sticker on a water bottle that said “Keep VMI for
the boys.” 469

462 Interviewee 1768.

463 Interviewee 303.
464 Appendix A at 469, 530, 590.
465 Interviewee 82.
466 Interviewee 163.
467 Interviewee 163.
468 Interviewee 2437.
469 Interviewee 143, Interviewee 2437.

120
 There is a double standard, a cadet told us, in which the female cadets have
to work harder to be accepted and noticed, and they are subject to a high level of
scrutiny, particularly concerning social behavior. 470 The reputation of women on
post, she told us, is much more fragile than that of men. 471 Of those who
participated in the survey, 28% of current female cadets rated the extent to which
women are discriminated against at VMI as “a lot,” as compared to only 7% of male
cadets. 472 In survey comments, female cadets indicated that “the treatment of
women and the discrimination against women are horrible” 473 and that “[t]his
school is extremely sexist but no one is willing to address it or take it seriously.” 474

During discussions with cadets about gender dynamics on post, the term
“sheed” was often brought up. “Sheed,” which is considered to be shortened version
of the term “she-det,” is used to describe female cadets at VMI. Whether there is a
derogatory connotation associated with the term varied widely among
interviewees. Some female cadets were not personally offended by the word, 475 and
some use it to describe themselves and their female friends. 476 Other people
thought the word was offensive though, especially depending on the use and
tone. 477

As already recounted in earlier sections, multiple male cadets saw things

differently, feeling that female cadets were given unfair advantages on the basis of
gender, including being treated better in the Rat Line, 478 being given more leeway
to get in trouble before serious consequences result, 479 and in competing for
leadership positions. Similarly, a male cadet reported that the lower standard for
physical tests for women causes a grudge among some of the male cadets. 480

Many of the women who attended VMI reported feeling some targeting
based on their gender.

470 Interviewee 2439.

471 Id.
472 Appendix A at 412.
473 Survey results, row 236.
474 Survey results, row 285.
475 Interviewee 2439.
476 Interviewee 341, Interviewee 2415.
477 Interviewee 118.
478 Interviewee 211.
479 Interviewee 181.
480 Interviewee 209.

121
 2010–2013

• A female graduate thought male alumni perpetuate sexism, such as

by wearing t-shirts that say “Save the Males.” 481

2006–2009

• An alumna reported that while she felt that all women were to
officially serve in all of the roles VMI had to offer, very few actually
did, and it was rare for women to hold any regimental leadership
positions at all. 482

• A female graduate said that male cadets expressed hatred and made
derogatory remarks; there was even a group called the “Black Hand
Society” that was trying to find a way to remove female cadets. 483

• Another female cadet reported being told she did not belong because
she was a woman. 484

2002–2005

• An alumna reported never being placed on guard duty with certain

male cadets just because those males did not want to be associated
with the women. 485

Again, other alumni reported better experiences. A female graduate (2010–

2013) said she did not experience any sexism at VMI. 486 And several current cadets
reported positive experiences, including pride in how VMI treats women and how
male cadets (on balance) treat them:

• “VMI is not sexist. I am a female and have never once felt like I was
being judged for being a female. No one cares that you’re a female,
you’re a BR [Brother Rat].” 487

• “As a Hispanic female at VMI I can confidently say that I have never
experienced any racism nor felt at a disadvantage for being a female.

481 Interviewee 1768.

482 Interviewee 10.
483 Interview 10.
484 Interview 24.
485 Interviewee 2476.
486 Interviewee 35.
487 Survey results, row 103.

122
 At VMI you are judged by your character and honor, not by your race
or the color of your skin.” 488

• “While I have encountered men who made it loud and clear that they
don’t think women should be here, I can tell you for far more hours
about the good men and women who remind me on a daily basis that I
DO have a place here, and that I earned it.” 489

Other female cadets say that gender disparity and sexism exist at VMI but
adopt a “that’s just the way it is” approach to it. 490

As a final note on this subject, the historical experience of women at VMI is

important. Women were first admitted to VMI in 1997. VMI did not decide to admit
women, it was forced to, after it lost a protracted legal battle and was compelled to
gender-integrate following the Supreme Court’s 7–1 decision in United States v.
Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). This Supreme Court case is symbolic of VMI’s
staunch views on preserving tradition in the face of change, and is a reminder that
only 25 years ago it felt that women had no place at the institution. It appears that
this feeling remains among important members of the VMI community. Indeed,
VMI Board of Visitors Chair Bill Boland—the person with perhaps the greatest
power and influence in the VMI community—apparently led VMI’s legal efforts to
resist gender integration throughout the early and mid-1990s. 491 (Again, Mr.
Boland has managed VMI’s efforts and decisions with respect to this investigation.)

As noted above, VMI had problems with the treatment of women from the
start, including a male Honor Court member who used his position to sexually
harass women. To VMI’s credit, it expelled that cadet in 1999. But it denied that
this misconduct reflected on the VMI culture—the Institute said that it did “not
indicate a larger problem of sexual misconduct at VMI,” and was simply “an
isolated incident involving a single cadet.” The Institute said that this problem had
“happened everywhere. It’s just our turn now.” 492

That phrasing from 1999 matches VMI’s phrasing today on the subject of
race. As Mr. Boland stated last fall, “Virtually all colleges in the 50 states can point
to inappropriate behavior by their students or faculty members. VMI is not
immune.” This fits VMI’s pattern—noted by many interview participants—of
minimizing and avoiding problems instead of confronting and fixing them.

488 Survey results, row 137.

489 Survey results, row 35.
490 Appendix B at 9.
491 His name appears as counsel of record in multiple reported decisions from the lower federal

courts between 1991 and 1996, representing VMI in the same gender-integration dispute.
492 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1999/06/27/top-cadet-expelled-from-vmi/10d8b3ff-

a8f3-4f39-b829-1e750ab1d7f9/.

123
 Issues of gender inequity and sexual assault may not be unique to VMI. But
the character, quantity, and severity of the issues described above do not exist
everywhere. These issues are worse at VMI and they need to be addressed
immediately.

I. VMI’s Title IX process

In light of the above concerns, and consistent with the parameters of this
investigation, the Team examined VMI’s Title IX process closely.

1. Overview of Title IX
As noted earlier, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides
that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C.
§ 1681. Title IX is enforced by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights
(OCR). Since its enactment, court rulings and guidance issued by OCR have made
it clear that Title IX’s prohibition against sex discrimination includes
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally,
sex discrimination includes sexual harassment and sexual violence.

Before August 2020, the requirements for addressing alleged Title IX

violations were set forth in guidance documents issued by OCR, including its “Dear
Colleague” letters. In general, OCR required schools to have a notice of non-
discrimination policy, appoint a Title IX Coordinator, and establish grievance
procedures for investigating and responding to Title IX complaints. Additionally,
guidance required institutions to provide training to their Title IX Coordinators,
investigators, and hearing officers, and recommended that schools train students,
faculty, and staff regarding Title IX and the school’s process for addressing
complaints.

OCR implemented regulations effective August 14, 2020, making several

significant changes from OCR’s prior guidance, including changes that limit the
range of conduct requiring institutional action under Title IX and that impose a
number of new procedural requirements.

The vast majority of the reports received (through surveys and interviews)
and the records obtained involve pre-2020-amendments incidents.

2. Relevant VMI policies

VMI has three policies that address equity, including gender equity: the
Superintendent’s Statement on Equity at VMI, General Order Number 13 (GO 13);
VMI’s Discrimination, Harassment and Sexual Misconduct policy, General Order
Number 16 (GO 16); and its Retaliation policy, General Order Number 90 (GO 90).

124
 General Order 13 was issued in January 2021 by the Superintendent, MG
Wins. It delineates MG Wins’ expectation that VMI “maintain a culture of civility
and mutual respect” and that all activities “be conducted in a manner that meets
the highest standards for equitable treatment of every individual.” It likewise
relays MG Wins’ intent that questions of “impermissible discrimination, including
harassment, based on race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, veteran status,
sexual orientation, pregnancy, genetic information, or against otherwise qualified
individuals based on disability or based on any other status protected by law” be
addressed “with impartial process, efficiency and energy.” General Order 13
instructs employees to report incidences of sexual violence to the Inspector
General, as mandated by Virginia Code §23.1-806, and directs staff, faculty, and
cadets to report conduct that may potentially violate General Order 16 or General
Order 90 (or both) to the IG as well.

General Order 16 is central to addressing all forms of discrimination and

harassment, including sexual harassment and sexual violence. It was revised in
August 2020 to comport with the new Title IX regulations mentioned above. Before
August 2020, VMI relied on General Order 16, issued in 2015, which was approved
by OCR as a result of a Voluntary Resolution Agreement between OCR and VMI.
General Order 16 (both its current and former iterations) includes VMI’s grievance
procedures, which set forth the process by which complaints of harassment and
discrimination are addressed. As stated in the policy, General Order 16’s purpose is
“to establish clearly and unequivocally that VMI prohibits discrimination,
harassment, and sexual misconduct by individuals subject to its control or
supervision and to set forth procedures by which such allegations will be filed,
investigated, and adjudicated.” The policy requires that employees and visitors
report possible violations of General Order 16 to the IG. Cadets are allowed to
report to the IG or a member of the IG’s staff, the Commandant, or the assistant
commandant for cadet government, or the Cadet Equity Association (CEA). In the
event a matter is reported to any member of the CEA, that person may report it to
the assistant commandant for cadet government, who must then notify the IG.

Regardless of to whom a report is made, no person may undertake

independent efforts to determine whether a complaint has merit or can be
substantiated without first reporting it to the IG.

General Order 90, also implemented in August 2020, prohibits retaliation

against persons who have filed complaints of violations of a VMI policy or
regulation or who have participated in any way in the investigation into such a
complaint, including as a complainant, respondent, witness, investigator, decision
maker, advisor, or appeals officer. Complaints of retaliation must be reported to
the IG and are addressed via VMI’s grievance procedures.

As noted above, non-Title IX disciplinary concerns can have a chilling effect

on the reporting of sexual assault. Specifically, if an incident involved drugs or
alcohol, as is often the case, a cadet might get themselves in trouble, or get

125
witnesses in trouble, for reporting the assault. Virginia law recognizes that this
can have a chilling effect on any college campus, and thus makes it unlawful for
any school to discipline a drugs or alcohol violation made in conjunction with a
sexual assault report, and requires each school to establish immunity for these
situations. But the law specifically exempts VMI, and only VMI, from the rule:

The governing board of each nonprofit private institution of higher education

and each public institution of higher education except the Virginia Military
Institute shall include as part of its policy, code, rules, or set of standards
governing sexual violence a provision for immunity from disciplinary action
based on personal consumption of drugs or alcohol where such disclosure is
made in conjunction with a good faith report of an act of sexual violence.

Va. Code § 23.1-808 (emphasis added).

General Order 16 and General Order 90 comply with the 2020 Title IX
amendments. They were prepared with the advice of counsel and approved by
OCR. The policies are well written and easy to understand, clearly describing
VMI’s policies prohibiting discrimination, harassment, sexual misconduct, and
retaliation, the vehicles through which a complainant may report alleged
violations, and the process followed once a report is received, including the
investigation, hearing and appeals processes.

3. VMI’s implementation of General Order 16

Among other duties (including the investigation of fraud and abuse), VMI’s
Inspector General serves as the institution’s Title IX Coordinator. The IG reports
directly to the Superintendent. COL Jeffrey Boobar served as the IG from 2015
until March 2021, when he became the interim chief of staff. Susan LeMert has
been the interim IG since that time. SFC Christopher Bean serves a part-time
assistant Title IX coordinator. The Team interviewed COL Boobar and Ms. LeMert;
SFC Bean first accepted and then declined the interview request.

The IG is the only full-time staff member in the IG’s office. While others
serve as assistant IGs, they do so on an as-needed basis, having other full-time jobs
within the Institute. Assistant IGs are selected by the Superintendent based upon
recommendations from the IG and are provided extensive investigator training.

VMI provided the Team with Title IX investigation files beginning with the
2014–2015 academic school year through 2020. The Team’s review of those files
and interviews of relevant administrators indicates that the IG’s office is in
compliance with Title IX and OCR guidance and regulations since that time, in
terms of its handling of reports of sexual harassment and assault that make it into
the Title IX investigation and adjudication process. However, based on the
information collected throughout this investigation, the Team cannot tell how
reliable the initiation and implementation of the process is—that is, how often it is
that sexual misconduct, including reported sexual misconduct, makes it into this

126
well-functioning investigation and adjudication process. The report discusses this
further below.

a. Training
The IG’s office is responsible for providing training to faculty, staff, and
cadets to prevent the occurrence of discrimination and harassment, including that
in violation of Title IX. To that end, the IG provides multiple kinds of training to
all cadets throughout their time at VMI. Each rat is mandated to complete “Not
Anymore Training,” an online training tool provided by Vector Solutions that
presents twenty scenarios, in August. Rats are required to get an 80% score to
pass. All rats also receive StepUp bystander training taught by the CEA along with
faculty advisors. Training is provided to all cadets at least annually by both
internal and external resources and the training is designed to build upon what is
learned in prior sessions. As noted above, however, certain trainings can be
unhelpful or counterproductive in practice, given the content of the trainings, the
limited scope of the trainings, and the behavior of male cadets during training
sessions.

VMI takes clear and meaningful measures to ensure cadets are fully aware
of its Title IX policies and practices, including how to report an alleged violation.
VMI publishes such information on its website, on flyers and notices posted
throughout the Institute, and on laminated cards provided to all cadets each year
which they may put in their covers (hats).

b. The Title IX process

i. Pre-August 2020

Per information gathered from records and interviewees, before August 2020
when the new Title IX regulations were implemented, upon receipt of a report of
sexual harassment, the IG would provide the complainant with support services
including counseling (both within and outside VMI), chaplain assistance, no-
contact orders if warranted, or other supportive measures. (Note that all employees
of VMI are mandatory reporters who must inform the IG if they become aware of a
possible Title IX violation.) Once the complaint was signed, indicating that the
complainant wanted to proceed with the investigation, the IG notified the
respondent of the complaint and their rights, and offered any necessary support
services. The IG then began the investigation.

The IG investigated every Title IX case, along with an assistant IG. The two
of them conducted all interviews and gathered evidence together. On completion of
the investigation, the parties were allowed an opportunity to review the evidence.
Thereafter, the IG and the assistant IG would work together to draft a report. That
report included a timeline of events, a description of the evidence gathered
including facts that would substantiate the allegations and those that would not,
an analysis of the evidence, and a recommendation as to whether the complaint

127
was substantiated based on a preponderance of the evidence and, if so, proposed
sanctions. Sanctions could include anything from Blue Book penalties (such as
confinement, penalty tours, and demerits) to suspension or dismissal. Absent
dismissal, the IG always recommended corrective action such as counseling,
training, or community service (or some combination of the three). The parties
were provided an opportunity to review the report and could submit written
comments.

The report and all evidence gathered were then provided to the
Superintendent who could approve, deny, or modify the IG’s recommendations.
Either party could appeal the Superintendent’s decision to an appeals committee
comprised of nine faculty and staff trained by the IG’s office on Title IX and their
role. After a hearing, the committee would draft a report including their decision as
to whether there were grounds for the appeal. That decision would then be
presented to the Superintendent who would make the final decision on the appeal.

ii. Post-August 2020

The process for addressing Title IX complaints since August 2020 has
changed so as to comply with the new regulations. As before, on receipt of a Title
IX complaint, the IG notifies the parties of their rights and provides supportive
resources and the IG and an assistant IG investigate the complaint together, draft
a report, and allow the parties to review the report and the evidence. While
advisors were permitted before August 2020, the new regulations now require that
both parties must have advisors throughout the process, either selected by the
party or appointed by the Institute. Additionally, the investigation report is limited
to a timeline and a description of the evidence. It no longer includes an analysis of
the evidence, a determination of substantiation or non-substantiation, or
recommended penalties.

The report is provided to the decision-maker, one of 12 trained decision-

makers consisting of faculty and staff. The decision-maker is responsible for
holding a hearing, including allowing for cross-examination, after which the
decision-maker renders a decision. Either party may appeal. If they do so, a new
decision-maker is selected to hear the appeal and render a decision. The decision-
maker is the final adjudicator. The Superintendent is no longer involved in the
process.

iii. Assessment of the IG’s performance in

addressing Title IX concerns

It is clear from the interviews and records that the IG’s office has robust
procedures for dealing with Title IX complaints. It takes necessary steps to ensure
cadets, faculty, and staff are aware of their rights and responsibilities with respect
to Title IX, as discussed above. Additionally, the IG, assistant IGs, and all others
involved in the process, including members of the appeals committee under the

128
former rules and the decision-maker under the current regulations, receive
extensive training on how to perform their jobs.

The Title IX files likewise reflect the IG’s strict adherence to Title IX’s
mandates in the adjudication of formal, initiated complaints. The files include
detailed timelines describing each and every step taken during the investigation
process as well as reports describing all of the evidence gathered and careful and
well-reasoned analyses of that evidence. Records reflect sanctions decisions that
are proportionate to the violation. Notably, according to one administrator
interviewee, the IG’s office has only investigated and heard one Title IX complaint
since the new regulations were implemented. Based on cadet interviews and VMI
records, however, there is at least one and perhaps multiple investigations in
process (i.e. not yet completed) post-August 2020. In any event, the Title IX files
overwhelmingly address Title IX allegations made before August 2020.

iv. Structural concerns

VMI’s records and VMI’s administrator interviews convey an institution

committed to ensuring that its cadets, faculty, and staff are free from
discrimination and harassment and to responding appropriately when they are not.
Notwithstanding, two areas of concern should be considered and addressed.

The first concern is the involvement of the CEA as a potential recipient of

reported harassment, discrimination, sexual misconduct, or retaliation. The CEA’s
involvement may have a chilling effect on the reporting of Title IX complaints.
Granted, cadets are not required to report to the CEA and may go directly to the IG
or any employee of the institution and avoid going to the CEA altogether. Offering
the option of reporting to the CEA also allows for more avenues of reporting,
including avenues for those who are uncomfortable talking with a member of the
faculty or staff. But based on its experience in this area, the Team has concerns
that the following factors outweigh the benefits of the CEA’s involvement:

• Sexual harassment and misconduct are serious matters. Title IX and its
regulations make clear that it is the institution’s obligation to address and
remedy it. With the CEA’s involvement, VMI adds another gatekeeper to the
process, thereby risking that reports of harassment and misconduct will
never make their way to it. This concern aligns with the responses heard
several times in the investigations that assaulted cadets reported their
assault but nothing happened, or that assaulted cadets are unsure whether
and how best to report an assault. At least two cadets also indicated that
they understood the CEA to be the only avenue of reporting. 493

• While CEA members are provided training on their duties as recipients of

alleged Title IX violations, the Team questions whether fellow cadets will

493 Interviewee 2444; Interviewee 205.

129
 always forward reports of alleged discrimination or harassment, especially
where, for instance, the alleged respondent is a brother rat or friend of the
CEA member.

• Consistently, there is a risk of retaliation if the alleged respondent is a

brother rat or friend of the CEA member who receives or learns of a report of
sexual misconduct.

• Many cadets are uncomfortable sharing that they have been the victim of
sexual harassment or misconduct with anyone, much less other cadets.
While, as mentioned above, cadets are not required to report Title IX
matters to the CEA, the Team learned of an incident in which a cadet other
than the victim reported the alleged misconduct to a member of the CEA
without the victim’s knowledge or consent. Victims who do not want their
fellow cadets to know about the matter may be traumatized.

• Similarly, the Title IX regulations stress that institutions must maintain

complainant confidentiality in the reporting process. 494 The CEA reporting
mechanism may undermine that principle. There is a risk that once one
member of the CEA becomes aware of a reported Title IX violation, the
information will be spread throughout the CEA and among other cadets,
thereby compromising the victim’s confidentiality. This is especially
problematic at VMI given the tendency of women to be shamed or given
reputations for interactions with men.

The second concern is General Order 16’s Cadet Amnesty provision. The
Cadet Amnesty provision in General Order 16 (§ 14) provides that, to facilitate
reporting, VMI generally will provide amnesty to a cadet who reports a violation of
General Order 16 for “minor disciplinary infractions, such as underage drinking or
fraternization, at the time of the incident.” But that amnesty is qualified. Cadets
receive no amnesty “if (1) the minor disciplinary infraction places or placed the
health or safety of any other person at risk or (2) the cadet who committed the
disciplinary infraction previously had been found to have committed the same
disciplinary infraction.” So, if a victim of or witness to an assault has a past
drinking infraction, and an assault report would reveal they were drinking again,
amnesty would not apply, and the report of sexual assault would result in
discipline for the drinking infraction. As discussed above, this concern is not
theoretical, and cadets say they are or have been deterred from reporting an
assault for this reason.

Amnesty for minor disciplinary infractions may also be offered to “cadets

who are witnesses in an investigation under this policy, who intervene to help
others before a violation of this policy occurs, or who receive assistance or

494 34 C.F.R. § 106.71.

130
intervention.” But “abuse” of amnesty requests may result in a refusal by VMI to
extend amnesty to the same cadet repeatedly.

It is also not apparent to what extent these limited amnesty provisions may
be communicated to or known throughout the corps. The value of an amnesty
policy, even if limited, is to remove the chilling effect of alcohol and drug
infractions, and to give comfort to cadets that they and others will not suffer
disciplinary infractions if they report; if the cadets do not know that the amnesty
policy exists, the policy cannot have its intended effect.

While the Team understands that disciplinary rules (like those for drinking
and drugs) matter, the failure to offer complete amnesty in these circumstances
undermines VMI’s efforts to ensure that all sexual harassment and misconduct is
reported. It likewise relays a message that punishing cadets for infractions matters
more to VMI than protecting those who are victimized by sexual harassment,
including sexual assault.

v. Practical concerns

As noted above, on the subject of Title IX sexual misconduct, VMI’s

structural mechanisms for educating cadets and addressing and adjudicating
reports of misconduct are robust. VMI’s procedures, investigation and adjudication
records, and administrator interviews convey this. Cadet interviews and survey
responses, however, raise concerns about how this works in practice at VMI, as
noted above

These experiences do not appear to be reflected in the VMI Title IX

documentary records, which show a thorough and diligent process for those
formalized complaints that lead to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
Therefore, there appears to be significant risk that future victims of sexual
misconduct will feel deterred from reporting, that sexual misconduct will be
reported with no action, or will be reported and met with attempts to dissuade the
reporter from following through. VMI should address this concern. If done well,
VMI will achieve significant improvement in this area, since the formal process
works well once it is initiated.

4. Title IX compliance
Again, the objectives of this investigation include the identification of civil
rights violations. Title IX—part of amendments to the Civil Rights Act and
enforced by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR)—is a civil
rights law. While the Team could not individually investigate each troubling report
above, these incidents do implicate Title IX compliance, such as:

• If an institute receives reports of sexual misconduct and takes no

action, that violates at least Title IX regulation 34 C.F.R. § 106.44,
“Recipient’s response to sexual harassment.”

131
 • VMI personnel’s actions in response to reports (“you don’t belong at
VMI” and concern for respondents’ careers) could also implicate 34
C.F.R. § 106.44 (in receiving a report, an institution “must respond
promptly in a manner that is not deliberately indifferent. A recipient
is deliberately indifferent only if its response to sexual harassment is
clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.”).

• If VMI relies on a reporting mechanism that cannot reliably maintain

confidentiality, as the Team is concerned is the case with the CEA,
this might implicate 34 C.F.R. § 106.44(a), which requires that the
reporting and responding parties’ names be kept confidential.

As noted above, the Team found that VMI’s investigation and adjudication
procedures, once initiated, were robust and compliant with Title IX, specifically 34
C.F.R. § 106.45.

As for other gender-based conduct, like sexual harassment, the investigation

did reveal instances of this, and cadets and staff alike reported experiencing it.
Whether any specific instance of sexual harassment rises to a Title IX violation
requires a particularized analysis, and an adjudication process conducted by the
institution. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.30 & 106.45. The Team did not and could not
individually investigate each such report, especially for the anonymous survey
responses. Based on VMI’s employee discipline records and its Title IX adjudication
records, it is clear that many instances of sexual harassment go unreported, and/or
that the Institute does not pursue such reports. Just as VMI should improve its
reporting and initiation processes for assault reports, it should do so for
harassment reports as well.

J. LGBTQ issues
The investigation revealed perceptions of inequity in the LGBTQ community
that were largely consistent with the perceptions around race and gender. Not all
cadets who identify as gay feel unwelcome or discriminated against, but some do.

For example, a cadet who identifies as gay stated that he feels relatively
comfortable at VMI. 495 Although someone on Jodel once called him a “f*g,” he
thinks this type of comment is not specific to VMI’s culture, and that it could have
been made at any school. 496

495Interviewee 267.
496 Id.

132
 However another cadet 497 stated that a professor often alluded to her
family’s intolerance of gay people, and one cadet 498 reported that homophobic jokes
are frequently made. Another cadet noted, “it’s so messed up the number of times
you hear homo, gay [derogatorily], f*****t,” at VMI. 499 In response to the survey,
one cadet stated: “The negative attitude towards being openly LGBTQ at this place
needs to be addressed. I know several people who are/were afraid to be themselves.
And once they did come out, they were shunned and made fun of.” 500

Survey responses on this subject are also noteworthy. Forty-six percent of

current cadets agreed “a little” or “a lot” that LGBTQ individuals “have a difficult
time fitting in or feeling like they belong” (though only 14% said “a lot”); 29%
percent said they believed LGBTQ individuals were discriminated against. 501
Cadet answers varied on the use of homophobic slurs, with most cadets’ having
heard such slurs at VMI but in varying degrees of frequency—40% reported that
they never heard them, 25% once or twice, 17% a few times, and 19% more than a
few times. Faculty and administration heard this language less frequently, but still
heard them: 49% of faculty heard them, 10% (13 people) more than a few times;
44% of administrators heard them, 4% (one person) more than a few times. 502

VMI does not appear to have any LGBTQ-specific clubs or groups, and does
not appear to have implemented measures specifically directed toward LGBTQ
tolerance. In MG Wins’ May 14 letter, he noted that the VMI Alumni Agencies’
Board of Directors recently created a DEI Subcommittee, which “represents racial
diversity, gender diversity, religious diversity, and LGBTQ considerations.” 503
Intuitively, the subcommittee appears to engage only with alumni—the letter notes
that the subcommittee meets weekly and has sent an engagement survey to
minority alumni.

Accordingly, any plan to address inequities at VMI should take into account
LGBTQ cadets as a minority group and include education and training.

K. Issues related to religion

The same is true for cadets in minority religious groups. A few cadets
described instances of religious intolerance.

497 Interviewee 197.

498 Interviewee 374, follow-up interview.
499 Interviewee 369.
500 Survey results, row 34 (male).
501 Appendix A at 36, 84.
502 Id. at 75.
503 Exhibit 6 at 13.

133
 A Muslim cadet said that she felt that Muslims are painted in a negative
light. She told the Team that during Halloween, two students dressed in burkas
and pretended to be terrorists. When commandant staff witnessed this, they did
nothing to address it. 504 Although VMI makes some accommodations for Muslim
students during Ramadan, this student felt that VMI unfairly denied her request
to leave post to celebrate Eid. 505

Another cadet stated that, as an atheist, he finds it difficult to talk about his
beliefs on post. 506

As was the case with respect to other minority groups, there were also
cadets in a religious minority who had not experienced any religious intolerance. In
a free-form survey response, one cadet stated: “I’m Jewish and . . . I have
experience[d] nothing but tolerance.” 507

The investigation revealed little evidence of religious intolerance at VMI.

There is, however, a lack of religious diversity, or at least there was in the
participation this investigation. For example, of the 1,626 survey respondents,
1,504 identified as Christian (94%), 16 as Jewish, 11 as Buddhist, 1 as Hindu, and
1 as Muslim. (Twenty-one answered “other,” and 72 preferred not to respond.)
Because of this, VMI should address potential religious inequities and
underrepresentation at the Institute in its DEI initiatives.

L. Financial information relating to diversity, equity, and

inclusion
The investigation also examined whether VMI’s “internal funding decisions
and distribution of state funds [are] equitably dispersed across departments,
divisions, campus organizations, and other institutional entities[.]” 508 Based on the
limited information VMI and related entities provided and a review of the limited
available metrics through which to measure VMI’s allocations, it is not possible to
determine whether VMI’s internal funding decisions and distribution of state funds
are “equitably dispersed.” Those decisions and distributions appear to be kept
confidential.

1. VMI’s available budgetary funds

VMI has three primary funding sources: cadet tuition and fees (which are
considered state funds), restricted and unrestricted private donor funds, and state
general funds. For at least the past six years, cadet tuition and fees have provided

504 Interviewee 374, initial interview.

505 Interviewee 374, follow-up interview.
506 Interviewee 197.
507 Survey responses, row 266.
508 RFP 245-110420 at 3.

134
the largest sum of budgetary funds, followed by the private donations and then
state general funds.

VMI’s donor funds come in large part from alumni. The “VMI Alumni
Agencies” is the consolidating entity that captures VMI’s four alumni
organizations: the VMI Alumni Association, VMI Foundation, Inc., VMI
Development Board, Inc. and VMI Keydet Club, Inc. Although each of these
component entities reports as a separate 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, they
present their financial statements collectively because the corporations serve the
common purpose of raising alumni funds and acting on behalf of alumni to support
VMI.

The VMI Alumni Agencies’ private donations include both restricted and
unrestricted funds. Over the past six budget cycles, the vast majority (86–89%) of
the private donations provided to VMI are restricted funds—that is, they may be
spent only for certain purposes. The restrictions on the private donations are listed
in individual memoranda of understanding for each donation. The Alumni
Agencies declined the Team’s request to produce the memoranda of understanding
or the full list of the donations’ restriction, and VMI stated that it does not
maintain a full list of the restrictions or a copy of the MOUs. Instead, VMI
provided the following examples of private donation restriction categories:

• Restricted to discretionary use by a specific department (e.g.,

chemistry or civil engineering). Restrictions may allow or prohibit
certain classes of expenditures such as salaries, travel, etc.
• Restriction to specific use (such as cadet financial aid) and based on
financial need, academic major, GPA, state or locality of residence, or
other donor imposed restrictions.
• Restriction to support/accomplish a specific purpose (such as funding
a speaker series, providing an emergency assistance fund for cadets,
or funding cadet travel). The administering VMI department may be
specified or assigned by VMI leadership.
• Restriction to provide financial support for faculty positions and for
chairs/professorships in various academic departments.
• Restrictions to support for other purposes from which State funds are
excluded from authorization.

The only restriction mentioned during interviews with representatives of

VMI and the VMI Alumni Agencies that could be categorized as targeting gender
or race was potentially a donation restricted to fund a specific sport scholarship of
which only females participate (such as water polo).

The Team also noted that VMI’s current donor landscape appears to allow a
very small group of donors to have an outsized influence on VMI. Based on VMI’s

135
2015–2019 financials and a presentation provided to the Team by the Alumni
Agencies, only five donors comprise 33% to 48% of the Alumni Agencies’ donor
receipts. When the Team asked, the Alumni Agencies declined to disclose who
these five donors are. The Team thus cannot determine how these donations might
impact funding priorities or other decisions at VMI, or whether these are the same
five donors year over year.

Given the critical role that the Alumni Agencies play in funding and
dictating VMI’s priorities, and given the overwhelming resistance among the VMI
alumni community to DEI progress initiatives and Confederate disassociation, this
report recommends greater transparency in the Alumni Agencies’ fundraising
sources and funding decisions.

2. VMI’s budgetary process

VMI’s annual budget process begins in November when the governor’s office
issues the budget. After any requests for additional funding by VMI are resolved,
VMI receives an updated budget. In January or February, the VMI Alumni
Agencies, based upon formulas and projected annual fundraising over the past 12
quarters (six years), provides VMI with the private (restricted and unrestricted)
donor funds available for the budgetary fiscal year. Then, around February, VMI’s
departments and divisions are provided the prior budget with the five-year
average. The departments and divisions then turn their annual budget requests
into the VMI treasurer’s office.

Once received, four to six VMI personnel review the budget requests. They
then rank the budget requests in priority order based on VMI’s and the reviewers’
priorities and goals for the fiscal year. The reviewers hold a meeting and, generally
speaking, it was reported that each reviewer walks away with something they
wanted to accomplish and prioritize for the budget cycle. In the 2021–2022 budget
process, priorities included office construction for its DEI office, 5% salary
increases, and funds to have a full-time representative at the Office of the Attorney
General assigned to VMI. At the end of the legislative session, when VMI knows
what the tuition and fees will be, the Superintendent and the Board of Visitors
approve the budget.

VMI financials are audited each fiscal year (July 1 to June 30). In January,
VMI meets with the state auditing body for a kick off meeting. The auditors are
reportedly provided with a copy of the VMI Alumni Agencies’ audit, rather than
being provided access to the VMI Alumni Agencies’ books and records.

3. VMI’s distribution of state funds

When determining how to distribute the available state funds, VMI reports
that it takes into account the amount of private restricted donations available for
each department or division before distributing the state funds. In other words,
VMI does not distribute state funds to a department if the department has private

136
restricted donations sufficient to meet its budgetary needs. VMI does this to ensure
that each department is allocated the same amount of state funds. VMI then
distributes the state general funds and fills any gaps with cadet tuition and fees.

Despite multiple requests from this investigation, VMI did not provide
detailed general accounting ledgers until May 20, 2021. Although the Team
attempted to analyze the distribution and allocation of funds to the different
departments, divisions, campus organizations, and other institutional entities, this
delayed disclosure (and apparent discrepancies in certain accounts and cost centers
over the years) prevented the Team from completing a full and fair analysis of the
state fund distribution.

VMI does not have a formal policy or procedure indicating how it factors race
or gender equity into its budgeting or distribution processes. The investigation did
not identify any historical regulation or statute formally requiring such a policy.
Although no formal policy or procedure existed, VMI reports that it has taken into
account equity, including race or gender, with “soft factors” during these processes.
VMI provided the following as examples of initiatives it undertook before 2021 that
it believes reflect an equitable allocation of resources.

• revised the Miller Academic Center’s mission to facilitate cadets’

academic success and timely progress toward a degree;

• developed a comprehensive compensation model for teaching and

research faculty;

• established the Math Education Resource Center and the Open Math
Lab to support cadets in both STEM and non-STEM majors to have
success and thrive in mathematics;

• created the Writing Center to assist all cadets in the development of

writing skills;

• engaged internal staff and external experts for disability services to

assist cadets with disabilities;

• implemented a strategic plan for the VMI Police to facilitate growth

and professionalism, and added a full time investigator to the VMI
police, which will support the Institute’s Title IX coordinator;

• reorganized and expanded counseling services for the mental health

needs of the cadets;

• expanded class offerings and services for the Institute’s wellness

program to benefit faculty and staff;

• supporting purchases from small, women-owned and minority-owned

businesses;

137
 • striving to meet 100% of the demonstrated need of in-state cadets
with grants and loans—for cadets who graduate with debt, the
average is less than $20,000;

• mitigating the impact of tuition and fee increases on low and middle
income cadets;

• hosting an annual college orientation workshop for at-risk youth;

• waiving access fees for all services, support, clubs, and activities to
use laboratories, facilities, or printing;

• providing standard housing to all cadets on post and a comprehensive

food service program that is open and available for 13 hours a day;

• established the VMI Center for Undergraduate Research to more fully

integrate student scholarly inquiry into the VMI experience;

• helped found the Shepherd Higher Education Consortium on Poverty,

a national consortium to develop a curriculum and internship
experiences that allow students to understand issues related to
poverty in the United States; and

• created opportunities through “open enrollment” for both VMI

summer semesters to serve the educational interests of Rockbridge
County and surrounding area residents, as well as cadets.

Beyond that, VMI’s operating budget for fiscal year 2015–2016 indicates a
footnote reflecting that its cadet counseling program added a budget component
(under the title “Unique Military Activities”) “when new State funding was
appropriated due to the assimilation of female cadets.”

VMI notes that there is no historical statutory or regulatory requirement to

implement a formal equity policy and procedure for the budget process, but it
believes that its funds are equitably dispersed. VMI notes that SCHEV’s “Virginia
Plan” (approved in January 2021) encourages the types of measures described
above: the Virginia Plan encourages all institutions of higher education to remove
barriers to access and attainment by diverse students, students from economically
disadvantaged backgrounds, and students with disabilities; to strengthen student
support services (including mental health, mentoring, careers services, and student
basic needs); to focus on affordability for both traditional and non-traditional
students; and to support experiences that improve students’ employment outcomes,
income, and community engagements.

138
 4. Comparison with the DEI initiatives of other senior
military colleges and Virginia institutions
In an effort to compare VMI to comparable institutions with respect to DEI
planning, the investigation also included a review of the publicly available
diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at five senior military colleges. In
reviewing the publicly available data, the Team reviewed whether the institution
had a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion plan.

Table 13: Analysis of sample institutions’ DEI plans

Institution Type of institution DEI plan

1 Texas A&M University senior military college Yes

2 University of North Georgia senior military college Yes

3 The Citadel senior military college Yes

4 Norwich University senior military college No

5 Virginia Tech senior military college Yes

and Virginia public
institution

The Team found that four of the five senior military colleges have written
DEI plans. In comparison, VMI does not have a DEI plan, just a statement of
diversity. The only reference to a plan in the reviewed materials was that in the
2015 six-year plan, VMI listed its Vision 2039 goal of achieving a “Corps of 1500
that is diverse and includes at least 10% Female Cadets,” including a “goal of 150–
200 in female cadet enrollment.”

Of the above institutions, Texas A&M’s diversity and inclusion report was
the only plan that appeared to provide tangible metrics and goals that could be
used to measure progress year-over-year. Including similar metrics in a DEI plan
would allow VMI to measure its progress in the same way.

M. Alumni Agencies and access to success after graduation

One of the objectives the investigation evaluated is whether “alumni from
underrepresented groups report perceptions of student achievement access to
success after graduation.” 509 The investigation examined the resources available to
VMI alumni, including minority alumni, and compared them with the resources

509 RFP 245-110420 at 4.

139
available at other comparable colleges and universities and their alumni
organizations. The evidence showed that, unlike its peers, the VMI Alumni
Agencies do not have any organizational structure, support, resources, or
scholarships specifically for the benefit of minority groups.

In terms of access to success after graduation, minority and women alumni

interviewees generally did not indicate that they were denied access to VMI’s
powerful alumni network or hindered in any way in obtaining successful positions
in the military, graduate school, or other jobs after graduation. 510 To the contrary,
several minority and women alumni interviewees experienced support from the
VMI alumni network in obtaining successful positions in the military, graduate
school, or other jobs after graduation. 511 However, other alumni said they
ultimately chose not to attend alumni networking and other events because they
felt uncomfortable at being the only woman or minority in the room, and were
sometimes subjected to uncomfortable racial jokes that were not said in malice, but
likely in a misguided attempt to make them feel more comfortable. 512 One woman
did report that, despite many efforts to engage with the alumni network, she was
never accepted. 513

These inconsistent experiences may be attributable to the fact that, unlike

comparable schools, the VMI Alumni Agencies do not have an organizational
structure that includes affinity groups like an African American alumni association
or a women’s alumni group. This impedes the ability of African American or other
minority alumni to connect, plan events, interact with current cadets or provide
DEI or other input to VMI as a group. Other comparable institutions—including
the Citadel, Washington & Lee, Virginia Tech, and the University of Virginia—
have established minority alumni groups and/or offered regular events specifically
for minority alumni. For example, the Citadel African American Alumni
Association (or “CA4”) organizes activities for African American alumni including
mentoring African American cadets. 514 UVA, Virginia Tech and Washington & Lee
host Black Alumni Reunions for their graduates. 515 UVA, and Virginia Tech
alumni support and fund alumni scholarships often earmarked specifically for
African American and other minority students. 516

510 See e.g. Interviewee 350; Interviewee 2473.

511 Interviewee 140.
512 Interviewee 137.
513 Interviewee 1768.
514 See https://today.citadel.edu/tag/african-american-alumni-association/.
515 See https://www.alumni.vt.edu/events/2018/04/bar2018.html (Virginia Tech);

https://my.wlu.edu/alumni-engagement/campus-events/affinity-reunions/black-alumni-weekend-
2019 (Washington & Lee); https://alumni.virginia.edu/reunions/black-alumni-weekend/ (University
of Virginia).
516 See https://aig.alumni.virginia.edu/ridley/ (University of Virginia);

https://www.inclusive.vt.edu/alumni/aab/bar/scholarship.html (Virginia Tech).

140
 The only documentation provided by the Agencies was the PowerPoint
presentation used in a March 2021 meeting. Despite multiple requests, no other
documents were received. Accordingly, the investigation considered information
provided at this meeting and a review of publicly available information, and
concluded that the VMI Alumni Agencies are far behind their peers in Virginia and
at other military colleges in terms of alumni DEI efforts. The Agencies do not fund
any scholarships for minority cadets (other than athletic scholarships), support
affinity groups, or plan events for minority alumni.

The Alumni Agencies are aware that they have fallen short when it comes to
diversity and provided some information to the Team on steps they have taken to
respond. According to the Alumni Agencies, in approximately 2012–2013, the
Agencies began actively pursuing minority involvement in its Board after realizing
that the Agencies’ leadership was no longer fully representative of the corps and
alumni base. Currently, the Agencies have three African American members and
one female member on a 27-member Board. In April 2018, the Agencies established
a director-at-large position for training and diversity.

Most of the concrete DEI efforts highlighted by the Alumni Agencies

occurred beginning in the summer of 2020 and focused primarily on improving
diversity in leadership, efforts to engage alumni in discussions, and a partnership
with the Citadel:

• In June 2020, the Agencies initiated a series of “Diversity Discussions” for

alumni focusing on their experiences with, and feelings about, diversity and
inclusion. These discussions have been held in June, July, August,
September, and November of 2020, with one planned for April 2021. Alumni
from the classes of 1972 to 2020 have participated in the discussions. The
discussions have included feedback from minority cadets about things they
may have experienced at VMI that were not handled correctly, and whether
they thought procedurally things could have been done better. The Agencies
noted that during these discussions, several minority alumni voiced a desire
to be more engaged with the alumni community.

• In July 2020, they formed the Agencies’ Diversity and Inclusion

Subcommittee (the “D & I Subcommittee”), which is chaired by Grant
Harris, an African American alumnus from VMI’s class of 2006. According to
the Alumni Agencies, the D & I Subcommittee operates under a charter that
includes the objective of increasing minority leadership through measurable
goals. 517 D & I Subcommittee includes 11 members from the classes of 1980
through 2019, and the Agencies noted that it is diverse in terms of religion,
gender, sexual orientation, and race, although it did not provide specific
details and the Team could not validate them. The D & I Subcommittee’s

517 The Team requested, but did not receive, a copy of the charter.

141
 focus is primarily on increasing participation and representation in
leadership of the Agencies, and educating the alumni base of their efforts.

• The feedback from the Diversity Discussions led to the dissemination of a

Minority Alumni Engagement Survey in November 2020. This is a two-part
survey, and the second part was planned to have been sent out in April 2021
as of the date of the presentation to the Special Investigative Team.
According to the Alumni Agencies, the first part of the survey is more
generic and intended to establish the landscape of overall alumni
engagement. The second part is intended to lead to actionable results to
improve overall alumni engagement, and particularly minority alumni
engagement.

• Beginning in November 2020, the Agencies formed a partnership with the

Citadel, and specifically its Chief Diversity Officer Shawn Edwards. Ms.
Edwards has guided VMI with respect to diversity strategies, and a VMI
alumnus located in Charleston, South Carolina audits meetings at the
Citadel to learn from the school’s diversity and inclusion efforts. The Citadel
alumni association also has a diversity and inclusion committee whose
chairman is included in VMI discussions.

• The Agencies have an alumni engagement conference planned for July 2021,
which will include breakout sessions and presentations focused on diversity
and inclusion.

The VMI Alumni Agencies have taken positive steps in the last year to begin
to address how they can promote diversity in the alumni community. However,
they are far behind their peers and need to evaluate and implement efforts to
connect with minority alumni and provide assistance for non-athlete minority
cadets. 518

N. Faculty matters
The investigation revealed some issues raised by faculty that may relate to
race or gender, but less directly than many of the issue highlighted already. These
issues should also be reviewed as VMI moves forward with any evaluation or
remediation of the current climate.

For example, many faculty referenced VMI as a “three-legged stool,” with

the three legs being the military, academics, and athletics and expressed
frustration that the academic leg is not given as much emphasis as it ought to be,
given that VMI is first and foremost a college. 519 In light of the fact that it is a
liberal arts college and that only about half of its cadets take a military commission
upon graduation, some members of the faculty perceive the heavy emphasis on the

518 See Recommendation 3(j).

519 See, e.g., Interviewee 2414.

142
military instead of on academics as serving the long range plans of only half of the
cadets. For example, Interviewee 2464 noted that the emphasis on academics shifts
based on who is the Dean of Faculty and whether the Dean comes from an
academic or military background. The same interviewee indicated that the current
Dean of Faculty has made a concerted effort to place greater emphasis on and
prioritize academics. Interviewee 84 stated that the administration under GEN
Peay, many of whom are still at VMI, view the faculty as “whiners” and do not
value their contributions to the Institute as much as those with military
backgrounds or experience. Some faculty members noted their perception that
cadets do not respect non-uniformed or lower-ranking staff or faculty as much as
uniformed faculty and administrators. 520

A number of faculty also questioned whether VMI’s top-down approach to

decision-making actually reflects an appropriate military structure. For example, a
recurring complaint was that VMI has no faculty senate, even though the U.S.
Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy have faculty senates, which
suggests there is a way to include faculty input even in a military setting. 521 Some
faculty noted that the U.S. military welcomes input from junior leaders and so is a
more deliberative body than VMI, and that in any event a top-down, authoritarian
structure is a poor fit for an academic setting. 522

V. Conclusion
The VMI cadets, employees, and alumni that came forward as part of the
investigation are generally committed to VMI and its success. They are proud of
their experiences at VMI and grateful for the friends and mentors they met there.
The vast majority were thoughtful, respectful, and cognizant of the challenges
facing VMI. Most were willing to adopt some form of change at VMI, provided the
core elements (the Rat Line, the Honor Court) were maintained. Few believed that
the Confederate history of VMI was a “core” element that must be maintained.

520 See, e.g., Interviewee 146.

521 See, e.g., https://www.usna.edu/Senate/index.php; https://www.westpoint.edu/sites/default/files/
pdfs/ABOUT/USMA%20Governance%20Structure.pdf.
522 Interviewee 30, Interviewee 31, Interviewee 37, Interviewee 84, Interviewee 87.

143
 Should it choose to do so, VMI can embrace change while still retaining its
core values. An honest and open examination of the race and gender issues at VMI,
coupled with a commitment to progress and change is required to allow the VMI
experience to be a challenging but safe and welcoming experience for a more
diverse population of young people. To say the least, VMI has never undertaken
that examination.

Respectfully submitted,

Roscoe C. Howard, Jr.

Christopher J. Bayh
Aaron D. Lindstrom
Kathleen L. Matsoukas
Meena T. Sinfelt
Special Investigation Team
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

144
 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP Special Investigation Team Members

Hillary Abraham Jason Hensley Colleen Naumovich

Adey Adenrele Roscoe Howard Lauren Nottoli

Michael Battle Alyssa Hughes Amit Patel

Chris Bayh Alexandra Kelly Steve Pederson

Neal Brackett Jessica Lindemann Skip Prince

Michelle Bradford Aaron Lindstrom Elizabeth Segun

Janilyn Daub Teresa Maginn Meena Sinfelt

Dennis Devine Tim Maher Erin Steele

Josh Franklin Billy Martin Dennis Stolle

David Frazee Kathleen Matsoukas Trisha Volpe

Audrey Gariepy-Bogui Cristina McNeiley Mariah Whitner

Allison Gerard Steven Merkel Jennifer Wylie

John Heinz Josh Minkler

145