This critical discourse analysis examined the perceptions and their role in social practice of both internal and external constituents of five women and five men university presidents at doctoral-granting institutions who resigned or were fired from their positions through an analysis of publicly available commentary (e.g., social media, blogs). Findings of the study highlight how gender is a key component of the public commentary, indicate differences in constituent support, and illustrate that women are more often criticized due to traditional gender expectations compared to men who primarily faced criticism for the specific scandal or challenge. Further, discourse analysis revealed that a gendered lens continues to shape leadership evaluations and expectations in society.