Virginia Military Institute is a bastion for honor, tradition, and leadership. It was founded to develop leaders with integrity and moral courage. Now, the Virginia Military Institute is caught up in a storm involving political agendas and ideological disputes, as well as administrative indecision. This maelstrom is centered around a single, fundamental question: Does VMI still adhere to its core mission or has it been pawned in the game of political power?

This is more than just an internal crisis. It’s a pivotal time that could change the very culture of one of America’s most historic institutions.

Recent controversy over the extension of the contract of Superintendent Maj. General Cedric WINS has highlighted the danger of politics invading VMI’s governance. Backroom deals and political pressure have replaced the measured debates about leadership effectiveness and institution integrity.

Teddy Gottwald, a board member, revealed an alarming claim during the February 2025 Board of Visitors meeting: A state senator had allegedly threatened to withhold funding from BOV members if they did not approve Wins’ extension. Ben Cline then implicated State Sen. Jennifer Carroll Foy citing a alleged warning that VMI’s budget would be “in danger” if Wins, Institute’s first Black superintendent, wasn’t granted a 4-year extension.

Foy’s refusal to deny the allegation, stating that it was not a “fair summary” of her opinions, leaves out the most important part. The specter political coercion looms large over what was supposed to be a simple decision based on merit.

This is not the way VMI was intended to be run.

The history of VMI warns us against external interference. The founders of VMI designed a governance system to protect it from the short-term political winds. They recognized that a military organization must operate above partisanship.

Here we are.

Wins’ supporters point to previous closed-door BOV assessments and a $100,000 Bonus as proof of the success of his leadership. However, these records are opaque in nature which raises serious questions about transparency. How did certain political figures get access to these assessments if they were private? If they were made selectively public, why haven’t all of the community seen them?

The debate has devolved further into accusations of racism and political loyalty tests. It’s also become a platform for ideological grandstanding. Senator Foy’s criticisms BOV President John Adams ‘96, lacking clear evidence, appear to be less about accountability than about scoring political points. This is a disservice done to the Institute’s stakeholders, alumni, and cadets who deserve an honest discussion about its leadership.

Leaders have three options in moments of crisis: they can act quickly, poorly or not at all. This last option is usually the most damaging.

This is the dilemma that now confronts the BOV. The BOV faces a dilemma by failing to discuss Wins’s future during regular meetings. This could lead to his contract automatically renewing without formal deliberation.

Vote to extend Wins’ contract if the board feels that Wins has strengthened VMI. If the board believes otherwise, terminate it. The worst outcome is to do nothing. This suggests that the leadership is more concerned about avoiding criticism than with fulfilling their core duty, which is to safeguard VMI’s missions.

Inaction by the BOV would not be neutral, but would contribute to the erosion of the Institute’s autonomy.

The cadets are often forgotten in the confusion.

While politicians squabble about ideological control, administrators avoid accountability, and cadets suffer crumbling infrastructure, leaky plumbing, black mould, and unreliable WiFI in their barracks. Even during exams, they are forced to attend NCAA matches as “military duties” but can’t purchase a beer in the stadium. While millions of dollars are funneled to administrative buildings and leadership centres, core student needs go unmet.

VMI was created to develop leaders, not to make its cadets pawns of an endless ideological battle. Each dollar spent on vanity projects does not go towards the well-being of cadets, their education or development.

Integrity, transparency and accountability are values that the BOV and state leaders often tout.

Call a Special BOV Meeting — BOV president John Adams ’96 should call a special BOV meeting to discuss and vote about the future of Superintendent Wins. The public should know how each member of the board feels about this important issue.

Demand an Investigation in Full — Allegations about political coercion must be addressed. A neutral investigation, whether conducted by the Virginia Attorney-General or an independent federal agency is needed to restore trust in VMI’s government.

Center Cadet welfare–VMI leadership should put cadets’ tangible needs first, such as improving infrastructure, academic resources and campus life, over ideological battles.

Demand Transparency —All records relating to the Superintendent’s assessments, BOV discussions, and political communication should be made publicly available. The sun is the best disinfectant.

VMI’s founding principle demands leaders with moral courage – leaders who will not compromise the institution’s mission for short-term political goals, but rather for its long-term mission. The question today is whether VMI’s current leadership can meet this standard.

Public, alumni, and cadets all deserve better than bureaucratic inertia and political posturing. They deserve leaders that will take hard decisions even if they come with a political or personal cost.

It’s not just about a Superintendent’s contract. VMI’s future, identity and integrity as a national institute are at stake. If VMI’s leaders fail now, the damage is likely to spread far beyond Lexington.

The history will decide whether the BOV behaved with integrity or bowed to political pressure. We hope they choose bravery.

The Cadet, VMI’s student newspaper, is independent. This column was republished by The Cadet with their permission.