(C) Virginia Mercury This story was originally published by Virginia Mercury and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Excuses not accepted • Virginia Mercury [1] ['Jim Finkelstein', 'Sophia Nelson', 'Roger Chesley', 'Bob Lewis', 'More From Author', 'September', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Coauthors.Is-Layout-Flow', 'Class', 'Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus', 'Display Inline'] Date: 2025-09-18 Last week, George Mason University Board of Visitors’ Rector Charles “Cully” Stimson pushed back against calls for him to resign, spurred by the publication of a report entitled “Uncovering Radical Efforts to Disguise DEI” by conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, where he serves as senior advisor to the president. As rector of GMU’s board, Stimson bears the highest fiduciary duty to Virginia’s largest public university. That duty is clear: board members must act with loyalty, prudence, and care — always prioritizing the university’s interests. This responsibility is not optional; it is the core principle of governance for every nonprofit and public university board. Stimson — who said he is “fully walled off from Heritage’s work concerning education policy” — wants us to see him as just another citizen sharing his personal views and professional background. However, the rector of a public university is not a private citizen. He serves as the presiding officer of the board and has a fiduciary duty of loyalty that requires him to prioritize the university’s interests over his own or those of his employer. To act otherwise undermines the gravity of the office he holds. Yet in his recent letter responding to concerns from the Senate leadership, Stimson demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of what fiduciary duty of loyalty requires. His defense — that he has compartmentalized his work at the Heritage Foundation and that he cannot be held accountable for the writings of his colleagues — misses the point entirely. Fiduciary duty isn’t about building walls in one’s head. It is about eliminating conflicts so deep that the public can be certain your judgment is undivided. His claim that he can simply “check his personal views at the door” is not a standard recognized in law or governance. Fiduciary loyalty requires more than a promise of compartmentalization — it requires the elimination of conflicts that erode public trust. The Heritage Foundation, where Stimson serves as senior advisor to the president, has publicly attacked George Mason University by name and called for federal funding to be withdrawn. That stance directly harms the very institution he is sworn to protect. No “wall” can resolve that conflict. The duty of loyalty requires he choose: serve Heritage or serve Mason. He cannot do both. Whether Mr. Stimson himself writes Heritage’s attacks on Mason is irrelevant. Fiduciary duty is not limited to specific topics. When your employer seeks to cut off federal funding to the university you oversee, your loyalties are irreconcilably divided. What makes this lapse worse is that Stimson is not just an ordinary person; he is an attorney. Thirty years in the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps should have taught him that duty involves not only avoiding impropriety but also the appearance of it. Stimson highlights his JAG service and his unanimous confirmation in Richmond, but these credentials make his failure to understand the duty of loyalty more, not less, concerning. Senate leaders have now clearly stated that his dual roles present “an untenable ethical conflict.” Credentials alone do not resolve conflicts of interest. Nor is this the first time Stimson has betrayed a core ethical duty. In 2007, while serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, he publicly encouraged corporate clients to penalize law firms representing Guantánamo detainees. The backlash was swift and bipartisan, leading to his resignation. At that time, NYU law professor Stephen Gillers coined the term the “Charles Stimson Rule”: never attack lawyers for representing unpopular clients. The New York Times took a firmer stance in a 2007 editorial titled ”Apology Not Accepted.” As the Times stated: “It is hard to render a convincing apology when you are not really apologizing…” The editorial condemned his “loathsome attempt to punish lawyers.” It argued that his “appalling behavior should not be overlooked by the relevant bar disciplinary committee,” emphasizing that the legal profession imposes “a higher duty on those holding public office to obey proper standards of behavior.” Back then, he criticized lawyers for defending detainees; today, he undermines the university he is sworn to defend. Different stage, same failure to understand ethical responsibility. Stimson also fails to mention another revealing part of his record: During President Donald Trump’s first term, he was twice nominated to serve as General Counsel of the U.S. Navy. Both times, his nomination did not advance to the Senate floor for a vote, even in a chamber controlled by his own party. Stimson assures us that the board is “securing the University’s funding.” Yet his employer has publicly urged Congress to withhold federal support from GMU. No Rector can credibly claim to protect funding while working for an organization that calls for stripping it away. The Senate leadership clearly stated in their recent letter that this represents an “untenable ethical conflict.” Stimson claims he can separate his roles, but fiduciary duty involves unwavering loyalty, not divisions. The Times’ 20-year-old judgment still holds today. For George Mason University and for Virginia, the message needs to be even clearer now: “Excuses not accepted.” [END] --- [1] Url: https://virginiamercury.com/2025/09/18/excuses-not-accepted/ Published and (C) by Virginia Mercury Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/virginiamercury/