Author Jeff Thomas leveled strong criticism at the highest levels of the University administration, including President Teresa Sullivan and the Board of Visitors in a seminar Friday about the “heads-up” list he discovered through a Freedom of Information Act request for documents from the University’s advancement office.

The documents revealed the advancement office had tracked applicants who were connected to major donors and that some of these applicants even met with University officials. However, the University has said the admissions office solely determines whether an applicant is admitted.

At the seminar, Thomas alleged the list, which showed preferential treatment for wealthy donors, is just a manifestation of deep-seated corruption within the University administration and the Board of Visitors.

The event was hosted by Flash Seminars, a CIO which, according to second-year College student and Flash Seminars Student Planner Adam Kimelman, hosts seminars on a variety of topics relevant to the University community, often inviting public figures like Thomas.

“Flash seminars got started a couple years ago, and just became a CIO last year,” Kimelman said after the event. “We try to plan about three of these per semester.”

Thomas spoke for about an hour to a small audience of around 15 people in the Newcomb Theater, explaining what he claimed is a vast network of corruption and lies within the highest levels of the University and even in Virginia state politics.

“The lies surrounding this are enough to make Trump and Clinton both cringe,” Thomas said. “Every University official who has said that the University is need-blind has lied. The University is not need-blind.”

He emphasized the injustice of an alleged system that he thought rewards wealth over academic qualifications, urging the audience to consider the qualified students who must have lost an opportunity to attend the University to wealthy donors.

“When we talk about people being accepted or rejected because of wealth, we have to think about the people who are impacted by U.Va.’s callousness and greed,” Thomas said. “How many students who were rejected became ‘un-rejected’ once their parents donated $500,000?”

He explained that he had filed a federal complaint against the school in hopes of prompting a rigorous external investigation of the University.

“I wish that the rulers of Virginia could clean up their own act,” Thomas said, although he doubted their willingness to do so. “The state is incapable of investigating itself on this matter.”

Thomas’ accusations went beyond the University itself, implicating politicians at the state level as well. He said the Board of Visitors is at the heart of the University’s corruption, calling the members “a bunch of political hacks.”

“Almost every member of the Board of Visitors is grossly unqualified to run the school, but got their seats by donating to gubernatorial campaigns,” Thomas said. “Appointing people who are actually qualified to run universities would be a start.”

After his speech’s conclusion, Thomas took questions from the audience. One attendee mentioned a common counterargument to concerns about the watch list — the claim that many selective schools practice similar systems in their admissions.

“Saying that is accusing other schools of crimes,” Thomas responded. “Let’s see the evidence.”

For students at the University, Thomas explained in response to another question, the best method to try to learn more is to use legal means, including Freedom of Information Act requests.

Thomas said he hoped to see an equitable admissions system which does not take wealth into account.

“Children who already have every advantage don’t need another leg up from the government,” he said. “All I ask is that middle- and low-income kids have a fair shot when applying.”

The University has strongly denied Thomas’ accusations of unfairness. University spokesperson Anthony de Bruyn said in an email statement that the University strongly objects to Thomas’ “unfounded allegations.”

“The University remains confident in the integrity of its rigorous admission process,” de Bruyn said. “There is no evidence to support this speculation.”