On Jan. 12, Scott Beardsley was called to speak before the Education Subcommittee of the Virginia Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee, where he failed his first test as the University’s president. When asked why nine mentions of “diversity” vanished from his CV in 2025, he gave a non-answer — “Whatever my resume has on it now is what it says.” The University community would do well to take him at his word and closely examine his qualifications before falling in line.
Unfortunately, the rest of the Senate hearing raised further concerns about Beardsley’s capabilities. For one, he neglected to provide any vision of the University’s future. He opened his remarks praising the strides towards financial accessibility made under former University President Jim Ryan, but when it came time to outline his own priorities, he equivocated. Setting his own goals would be “far too arrogant,” so he will look for input from the community instead. While listening to the community is admirable, the job of the president is often to make hard decisions. What will be his north star when he is inevitably forced to make hard decisions between the mission of the University and the threat of Department of Justice overreach? If he knows, he did not share it.
Those defending Beardsley are correct to point out that the University needs a leader, but we should interrogate what leadership means in higher education. The presidential search committee that was run by the now-resigned Rector Rachel Sheridan, provided an effective definition when describing their target — “a candidate who is a visionary; could represent all 12 of the schools and U.Va. Health; who would energize students, faculty and staff; is an astute businessperson.” To date, praise of Beardsley has addressed only one of those criteria. Even those critical of the process that appointed him have admitted Beardsley’s considerable fundraising ability, but does he check any other box?
The Senate hearing would have been the perfect time for a visionary president to introduce himself to the General Assembly with an ambitious dream of the future, and yet Beardsley did nothing of the sort. Former Presidents Jim Ryan, Teresa Sullivan and John Thomas Casteen III were all impressive, tenured academics more than capable of representing the intellectual efforts of the University’s faculty, articulating transformational goals and leading with integrity and curiosity across the University, U.Va. Health and the College at Wise. President Beardsley has never published in an academic, peer-reviewed journal. Two GMU professors recently called his CV “misleading” and said it “[raised] fundamental questions about academic integrity.” Similarly, despite serving as dean for more than a decade, the faculty of the Darden School of Business never granted Beardsley tenure, traditionally an acknowledgement of academic rigor and achievement, making him one of only three deans without the honor.
Beardsley’s ability to energize the University community is similarly questionable because of the previous Board of Visitors’ actions. If they truly believed President Beardsley could energize students, faculty and staff, why did they select him in the dead of winter when dorms and classrooms were empty? After watching Beardsley’s performance at the General Assembly, especially when compared to GMU President Gregory Washington and VCU President Michael Rao, are you confident he could deliver an inspiring convocation speech? Could he make first-years excited to join our community? Does he make you proud to be a Hoo? These are the questions the University community should be asking, especially now that 201 faculty have called for Beardsley’s removal.
Unfortunately, Student Council has shown an unwillingness to interrogate President Beardsley’s qualifications. The Representative Body recently passed a resolution titled SR26-02: A Resolution Affirming the Need for Institutional Stability During a Period of University Transition. SR26-02 conveys the Council’s support for Beardsley’s appointment in the name of stability, despite its previous criticism of the process that appointed him and its lack of confidence in the Board that selected him. The resolution expresses this support without a single kind word in Beardsley’s favor. If members of the Representative Body believe President Beardsley to be highly qualified to run the University, they should have said so explicitly. If the only qualification they could bring themselves to mention is that Beardsley is a warm body in Madison Hall, then they have damned him by faint praise.
When President Beardsley was asked why he went against the wishes of the University community and Gov.-elect Spanberger in not calling for the presidential search to be delayed until the Board could be fully, legally constituted, he answered, “In the end, I think UVA needs a president.” I disagree. The University does not just need a president, it needs a great president, and to settle for anything less would be unacceptable. If you believe, as I do, that the University has the potential to be the best in the country, then you should have high standards for the person being paid very well to lead it. The University community should reject any calls to lower those standards. If it ultimately decides that Beardsley does not live up to those standards, it should reject him too.
Seamus Oliver is a fourth-year student in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this guest column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Read More
MADARA: Virginia’s standardized learning system requires reform for English Learners
By Teddy Madara | 5 days agoBy not devoting enough attention to developing English proficiency among non-native speaking ELs, these students are disadvantaged in their exams, and consequently their graduation rates and their futures.
GARVIE: U.Va. should focus on understanding AI before implementing it
By Adeline Garvie | January 19, 2026Because there is no singular or correct approach in an educational world of individualized, class-specific policies, the University must mandate AI literacy training on the ethical, environmental and practical concerns for generative AI.
CLIPPINGER: In praise of the ENWR during the age of AI
By Grace Clippinger | January 17, 2026Writing allows us to clarify complex ideas, wrestle with ambiguity and engage critically with texts and concepts.
