The selection of Scott Beardsley as the University’s 10th president Dec. 19 marked the final step in the Justice Department and Board of Visitors’ unpopular plan to oust former University President Jim Ryan. Disappointed, hurt and enraged, several community members have already called for Gov. Abigail Spanberger to use her power over the Board to immediately force Beardsley out. While this is an understandable impulse — Beardsley was appointed by an illegitimate, unrepresentative search committee — pursuing aggressive action to end the new Beardsley presidency is not the solution. Ending his presidency would risk embroiling the University in even greater turmoil and misses what really needs to be done. Instead, the University community must come together behind Beardsley, collectively focusing on how we can repair what has been broken and move towards a better future.
To get back on the right track, the next University president must be able to turn the temperature down in an incredibly tense environment, balancing strong, differing interests and offering a cohesive path forward. But to do this and create a better future for the University — one where student and faculty voices are valued, transparency is prioritized and the federal government is left out of the decision-making room — the next president needs time and cooperation. From having good faith discussions with community members to working with the Board on policy plans, an effective University president must cultivate willful participation and support from all corners of the institution. A president who sincerely offers engagement to stakeholders but yet faces disdain, disapproval and calls for their firing from those same stakeholders due to the process of his appointment cannot lead the University to that better future.
To reach this better future, not only does the University need an effective president, but it also needs continuity. A 2024 study by Anderson and McGlothlin found that shorter university presidential tenures tend to cause greater levels of institutional instability and employee turnover driven by an unstable administrative environment. With the University already being mired in unprecedented levels of controversy and secrecy over the last year, it cannot afford to allow those studied consequences to grow. Alternatively, having a president with a long tenure could provide a coherent, sustained vision for the University community to buy into, stabilizing the University from the tectonic shifts in governance that have been taking place. Moreover, removing Beardsley may make finding a well-qualified candidate significantly more difficult — frequent turnover positions in higher education are far less attractive to candidates. While some speculate that under the new Spanberger-appointed Board candidates will be more likely to apply than under the previous Youngkin-appointed Board, it is a large risk to force out a sitting president in hopes that there will be better candidates waiting. If a better candidate cannot be found, it is a near impossibility that the University could be led out of the complicated position it is in. Not only would a better future be lost, but the University could even backslide further, losing institutional and national standing.
In order to be an effective president, Beardsley must make a break from the inept, ideological Board which elected him. Indeed, there is some evidence that Beardsley is clearly distinguishable from the Board. Beardsley has actually already garnered significant conservative disapproval due to his past involvement in DEI efforts within the Darden School of Business. Moreover, his background further speaks to his commitment to supporting diversity efforts at the University — he based his doctoral thesis and only book, Higher Calling, on the rise of nontraditional leaders in higher education, emblematic of a broad view of diversity that supports raising those from non-traditional backgrounds.
Beardsley himself being from a nontraditional background, he knows the power of bringing together people from vastly different circumstances — it fosters innovation, community building and critical thinking skills. A leader who is able to think outside of the box and bring together others who do the same could provide a refreshing change to University governance, which has previously seemed ill-equipped to take on the unique problems facing the University today. Furthermore, in a time of such great division, listening to a diverse range of voices throughout the community is necessary to repair the ties that have been strained over the past year. Beardsley is already fostering this vital dialogue, beginning a series of “listening tours” with various stakeholders throughout the University. While there is a lot more work to do in repairing community ties, Beardsley’s unconventional background stands to be an asset in the healing process.
Instead of a moderate, committed community member like Beardsley being thrown under the bus, the Board — who has been the culprit of nearly all the aforementioned missteps in University governance — should face most of the blowback. Beardsley’s only major error has been cooperating with the Board in the controversial search process, which he is rightfully receiving a lot of flak for, but he has an otherwise clean record. Luckily, Gov. Spanberger has, so far, held the right people accountable — upon taking office, she asked five Board members to resign and has appointed 10 new ones. This major step clears the way for the University to move forward from the abhorrent leadership of the Youngkin-appointed Board. Hopefully, this new Board will work with Beardsley to set the University on a better path forward, rather than continue to fall down one of drama and politics which ignores important University stakeholders.
To be clear, Beardsley does not deserve to be unquestionably trusted. He was selected president during a search process that was against the wishes of students, faculty and a governor — something he certainly knew when accepting the position. Additionally, there have been allegations of possible misrepresentation in his curriculum vitae that should be seriously looked into and demand a full investigation. In that vein, he needs to earn the community’s trust through competent, transparent leadership that continuously prioritizes University stakeholders and stands against political pressures. In order for him to have a chance to do that, though, the University community, Board and Spanberger all must clear the way and work with — rather than against — him.
Beckett Anderson is an opinion columnist who writes about politics 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
AHMAD AND WEINGER: Andrews is the only candidate for President willing to speak up for students
By Sarah Ahmad and Eli Weinger | 2 days agoMuch like Roebuck, Andrews recognizes the enormously important role Student Council can play during moments in which students safety is threatened — that of a megaphone which forces those in power to actually listen to students.
AAUP-UVA: The case against U.Va. President Scott Beardsley
By U.Va. Chapter of AAUP | 3 days agoScott C. Beardsley was named U.Va.’s 10th president Dec. 19, 2025. We would like to question this appointment on two grounds — that the process of selection was illegitimate and that Mr. Beardsley’s credentials are less than adequate to the position.
A statement from 191 concerned faculty to the new Board of Visitors
By Concerned Faculty | 3 days agoCritical questions of process regarding the appointment of Beardsley remain unanswered.
