A storm is brewing at the University of Virginia as top board members resign on the eve of a new governor’s arrival.

On Friday, the head of the University of Virginia’s Board of Visitors, Rector Rachel Sheridan, along with Vice Rector Porter Wilkinson and major donor Paul Manning, stepped down from their positions. A fourth member, Douglas D. Wetmore, a prominent alumnus and health care technology executive, confirmed his resignation on Saturday morning. These exits align with Gov. Abigail Spanberger, an alumna of the school, requesting that at least five board members resign before her inauguration on Saturday.

Resignations Tied to Political Tensions

The move has sparked intense discussion across Virginia, with many puzzled by Spanberger’s push to remove board members, as the New York Times reports. Although the incoming Democratic governor hasn’t clarified her reasons, the targeted members were connected to last year’s forced resignation of U.Va. President Jim Ryan. That controversy, driven by pressure from the Trump administration and Justice Department, continues to haunt the university’s leadership.

Ryan left his post last summer after threats of funding cuts and investigations if he stayed, with conservative alumni and federal officials viewing him as too progressive. Ryan pointed blame at the board, stating in a letter, “Paul Manning reached out directly to the D.O.J. lawyers to make sure he was not missing anything, and he said that they told him that if I didn’t resign, they would ‘bleed UVA white.’” Such federal tactics raise alarms about interference in academic institutions.

Let’s be clear—that level of pressure from Washington isn’t oversight; it’s a political bulldozer. Spanberger’s call for resignations now looks like a retaliatory jab, dragging U.Va. deeper into ideological warfare. The university should be above such petty games.

Spanberger’s Influence Alters Board Makeup

After her election in November, Spanberger urged the board to pause on naming a new president to succeed Ryan, but they moved forward and appointed Scott C. Beardsley regardless. With up to five resignations, she could appoint 10 new members to the 17-seat board—previously all selected by outgoing Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin—gaining a majority. Some Virginia Democrats and faculty are pressing her to oust Beardsley, claiming his selection was rushed.

Here’s the issue: while the board’s defiance might seem like standing firm, it also appears reckless when the university craves stability. If Spanberger aims to redirect the university, she must avoid overreaching—removing Beardsley immediately would signal a partisan sweep. Calm, not chaos, should guide her next steps.

Conservative reaction has been sharp, with the Jefferson Council, an alumni group, slamming Spanberger’s actions as “disgraceful.” Their frustration rings loud, viewing this as a power play that mires the school in politics over purpose. It’s tough to disagree when the university’s mission seems sidelined by these clashes.

Higher Education Caught in National Fight

Paul Manning, among those who resigned, was a major asset—his $100 million donation to the university a few years ago bolstered the school’s growth. Virginia Republicans were stunned by his departure, arguing that losing such a supporter only extends the turmoil. They raise a fair concern: pushing out key figures for political gain is a risky move.

This drama isn’t unique to Virginia—it reflects a broader national struggle over elite higher education. The Trump administration’s actions against schools like this one and George Mason University, where board chair Charles D. Stimson resigned on Friday amid parallel issues, reveal a drive to counter what’s seen as a progressive bias in academia. The left warns these efforts undermine academic freedom, but who shapes a university’s direction?

Take George Mason—its president, Gregory N. Washington, faced scrutiny over diversity initiatives, even being asked for a personal apology by federal officials. That kind of meddling creates a chilling precedent, turning campuses into political targets. Universities can’t function under such constant external pressure.

Alumni and Faculty Seek Stability

Alumni stand divided, with groups like Wahoos4UVA advocating for a board focused purely on the university's welfare, free from outside influence. The impact of these resignations on new President Scott C. Beardsley remains uncertain, but the doubt itself harms the institution. UVA needs solid leadership, not ongoing strife.

Spanberger’s quick push to overhaul the board might be sold as a fresh start, but it risks dividing the state before her term even begins. Ousting members tied to past disputes won’t heal the underlying fractures. It might just make them worse.

In the end, UVA is trapped between dueling visions: one seeking to halt what’s perceived as a leftward tilt, and another resisting what it sees as assaults on independence.

Both sides have legitimate points, yet neither prioritizes the students and faculty bearing the fallout. Virginia’s leading university needs a resolution, not endless conflict.