What Is at Stake

In his 2021 book, Neo-Nationalism and Universities: Populists, Autocrats, and the Future of Higher Education, John Aubrey Douglass notes that throughout history, colleges and universities have spurred individual socioeconomic mobility and societal progress around human rights and racial and social justice while acting as “the locus for not only educating enlightened future leaders but also for opposing oppression and dictators.” The distinctive promise of higher education institutions is derived, in part, Douglass posits, from their ability to function as change agents that have “pushed the boundaries of knowledge and generated societal disruption” in ways that propel “societal rebirth.” Indeed, for Douglass, one of the most vital roles of colleges and universities, their faculty, and students is to critically analyze the social and political problems within society and to become informed and constructive critics. Nevertheless, the capacity of colleges and universities to fulfill this role is often constrained by political environments in which authorities curtail academic freedom and institutional autonomy by, among other actions, restricting social movements and protests in public spaces on campus and attempting to control the historical and cultural narrative.

It comes as no surprise that states under authoritarian rule perpetuate systems that fortify existing social structures and affirm the political positions of the government. For this reason, the advent of a new political environment steeped in anti-intellectualism, in which governmental leaders have cast higher education as the enemy, lends a new sense of urgency to defining the current and future role of higher education and directly confronting the pivotal question Douglass raises, namely, “When are universities societal leaders, and when are they followers—reinforcing the existing political order?”

With a new administration in office in the United States, the prospects of greater federal intervention and the further erosion of liberal education, grounded in the fundamental tenets of the free exchange of ideas and the unfettered pursuit of the truth, are daunting. Proposals to eliminate the Department of Education and dismantle regional and national peer-review systems of accreditation, as well as attempts to control the curriculum and academic research by imposing educational gag orders and leveraging federal funds to end perceived “wokeness” and left-wing indoctrination, are all cause for concern. So, too, are the continuing threats by the congressional Committee on Education and the Workforce to investigate campus leaders who support diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and policies or who champion the rights of student, faculty, and staff protesters. PEN America’s January 2025 report on what could happen in the coming year around federal censorship of higher education points to the likelihood of enhanced “jawboning”—intimidating institutions into censoring themselves—as a primary tactic and immediate weapon. The profound impact of such efforts to chill certain speech emerges in AAC&U’s recent report Academic Freedom and Civil Discourse in Higher Education: A National Study of Faculty Attitudes and Perceptions, based on a national survey conducted in partnership with the American Association of University Professors and NORC at the University of Chicago. For instance, 53 percent of faculty, the report reveals, are concerned about their ability to express what they believe as scholars to be correct statements about the world.

Institutions, individually and collectively, can do much to thwart future attacks on higher education. Speaking out against legislative measures designed to undermine academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and shared governance is a necessary first step, but one that is far from sufficient. This is because, even within liberal democracies, universities have at times become, in Douglass’s words, “tools for serving the privileged and reinforcing the class divisions of a society.” Much of the current mistrust of higher education relates to perceptions that colleges and universities continue to exist within the ivory tower, willfully disconnected from the practical matters of everyday life; that campuses are intolerant of conservative viewpoints; and that, given skyrocketing tuition and burgeoning loan burdens, a college degree is no longer worth the cost.  

Campus leaders at all types of institutions across the United States must reaffirm their core values and help people, both inside and outside of the academy, understand what is at stake for our democracy if officials escalate unwarranted governmental intrusion into higher education. In the process, we need to take seriously Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s enjoinder to “fight for the things you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.” In this age of polarization, partisanship, and disinformation, the ability to persuade others is more challenging than ever. It requires demonstrating genuine care and engendering trust by listening critically and with understanding to people with diverse perspectives. Without this act of good faith, it will be impossible to promote the realization of higher education’s full impact on society, and colleges and universities will lose the capacity to engage as social critics on issues that affect our students and our communities. As Trinity Washington University President Patricia McGuire, who is featured in this issue, reminded readers in an Inside Higher Ed interview following the election of President Donald Trump to his second term, the question is not whether higher education leaders have a moral obligation to speak out but rather how do “we use the levers at our disposal—which are education, learning, research, really good dialogue—to continue to challenge the American community, the American democracy, to live up to its ideals?”

Illustration by Paul Spella