After a five-month-long search, the Board of Visitors named Scott Beardsley the University of Virginia’s 10th President Dec. 19. This entire process was plagued by pushback from the Faculty Senate, nine of the University’s 14 academic deans, the Student Council, Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger and other key stakeholders. Most of these critics cited concerns about the Board's legality and partisan lean, arguing that both of these factors could risk undermining its legitimacy if a president were appointed. By moving forward despite these widespread calls for delay, the Board sidelined key voices within the University community and concentrated power in a way Thomas Jefferson himself warned against — raising serious questions about the University’s adherence to its founding ideals.
Jefferson championed the idea of governance grounded in deliberation, restraint and legitimacy. In what is now known through the landmark Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, Jefferson confronted a situation in which the outgoing Adams administration attempted to entrench its authority through last-minute judicial appointments known as the “midnight judges.” While legal on its face, the maneuver raised serious questions about legitimacy and the proper exercise of authority. Jefferson criticized the move for its disregard of principled governance, arguing that the appointees should not receive their commissions and conferring them would ignore the principles of fair and accountable governance.
The parallels between this and the University’s current situation are eerily clear. Just as Jefferson viewed last-minute judicial entrenchment as a violation of democratic norms, many at the University see the Board’s actions as similarly problematic. This concern is heightened by the permanence of an appointment made just before Spanberger will presumably fill vacancies on the Board with new voices. The most consequential difference between the two moments, however, is that while Adams’ actions were clearly lawful at the time, the Board’s decision is clouded by unresolved questions about its legitimacy. Those questions stem not from definitively unlawful meeting procedures, but from ongoing disputes over the Board’s composition, as well as the transparency and accessibility of the meeting itself, which together further weaken the ethical foundation of the appointment.
Those who argue in defense of the Board argue that, as Gov. Glenn Youngkin also emphasized, there is “just one Governor of Virginia at any time,” and that state governance relies on respecting the formal authority of current officeholders. From this perspective, the Board was correct to proceed without deferring to Spanberger, since she had not yet assumed office and had no formal authority over the University or its legal processes. The argument here is that maintaining a clear chain of authority and avoiding undue interference from incoming officials is essential to institutional stability and proper governance.
However, this is a public university accountable to the people of Virginia, and the citizens — through their elected Governor — have a legitimate stake in ensuring the University’s leadership reflects broad public trust. Spanberger was chosen by the people in November to assume the highest executive office in the state, and her call for a delay in the presidential appointment was aimed at safeguarding the legitimacy of a process that affects the entire Commonwealth. From this perspective, rigidly invoking the “one Governor” principle risks ignoring the will of the electorate and the broader responsibility of public institutions to prepare for incoming leadership. Jeffersonian principles of institutional legitimacy and accountability suggest that even lawful authority should remain receptive to meaningful input from stakeholders — especially those representing the public’s interest — rather than treating procedural formalities, such as the delay between election day and inauguration, as a shield against democratic oversight.
Supporters of the search have also pointed to the process itself as evidence of legitimacy. In a letter to the Faculty Senate, the University’s search consultant, Isaacson, Miller, emphasized the size and diversity of the search committee, the existence of more than 40 listening sessions and the consideration of nearly 1,300 survey responses that informed the position profile. The committee similarly defended the search as rigorous, fair and consistent with national best practices, arguing that confidentiality was necessary to attract high-caliber candidates. These claims may well be true. But Jefferson’s concern in moments of contested authority was never whether a process was thorough or professionally executed — it was whether those in power exercised restraint when legitimacy itself was in question. A procedurally sound process does not become Jeffersonian simply because it is well run, particularly when finality was imposed despite widespread calls for delay.
In Jefferson’s framework, power and legitimacy are a two-way street. When power is divorced from deliberation and restraint, it risks eroding trust and undermining the very institution it is meant to strengthen — a lesson Jefferson learned firsthand.
At the University, faculty, students and political leaders raised objections not out of obstructionism, but to ensure that the presidential search reflected shared governance and procedural fairness — the cornerstones of Jeffersonian principles. By dismissing those concerns and pressing forward, the Board chose expediency over legitimacy, replicating the very form of institutional entrenchment Jefferson once condemned. If the University is to claim fidelity to its founding ideals, its leaders must recognize that legitimacy is earned not merely through authority, but through listening, restraint and respect for the community they govern.
Ryan Cohen is a senior associate opinion editor for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Read More
EDITORIAL: An eleventh-hour presidential appointment and a community left in the dark
By Editorial Board | December 21, 2025Furthermore, it is hard to ignore that the unanimous vote elevating Beardsley to the University’s top role was undertaken by a Board that is seemingly not legally constituted.
NERO: The University must modernize the Lawn room application process
By Emma Nero | December 19, 2025Students vying for a Lawn room are left with the options of not signing an off-Grounds lease on the gamble of being accepted, or putting their name on a lease and risking financial or legal repercussions for removing their name.
LETTER: An alumnus and parent’s perspective on U.Va.’s presidential search process
By Tom Neale | December 15, 2025The critiques of Mahoney and the Board of Visitors are egregious double standards that I believe are motivated by political differences with Mahoney and the Board.
