Universities Have Only Themselves to Blame for the Crisis They Face

How Ideological Conformity, Compelled Speech, and Hypocrisy Eroded Higher Education’s Credibility

“America’s great universities are losing the public’s trust. And it is not the public’s fault.”— Robert P. George, Princeton University professor of law and philosophy

For generations, elite American universities stood as proud symbols of intellectual freedom, meritocracy, and open inquiry. They were trusted as neutral spaces where ideas could clash without fear and where the pursuit of knowledge rose above partisan politics. That trust is gone, and not because of some grand conspiracy by anti-intellectuals or reactionary rightwing forces. These universities have only themselves to blame.

Over the past few decades, campuses have drifted from their historic mission toward something very different: ideological monocultures that increasingly resemble far-left political advocacy groups rather than educational institutions. Progressive viewpoints dominate faculty, administration, and campus culture, especially in the humanities and social sciences. Surveys confirm what was already an open secret: conservative and libertarian scholars are rare and unwelcome. This imbalance affects not just what gets taught, but how dissenting voices are treated. Too often they are stigmatized, sidelined, or silenced.

This did not happen overnight. Universities created this climate through years of neglect and self-congratulation. Concerns about ideological conformity were dismissed as overblown or politically motivated. Instead of asking whether the academy was becoming an echo chamber, many doubled down by enacting speech codes, creating bias response teams, and mandating diversity statements. These DEI loyalty oaths were not just constitutionally questionable; they were McCarthy-esque political requirements that compelled faculty applicants to pledge allegiance to a specific political ideology. Institutions that once championed freedom of thought began requiring political and ideological conformity.

The credibility gap widened after October 7 2023, when many universities allowed, and in some cases enabled, rule-breaking protests that disrupted campuses and openly violated policies and laws. This selective tolerance, framed as “justice” or “liberation,” struck many Americans as hypocritical. The same institutions that aggressively policed “microaggressions” and punished minor dissent suddenly looked the other way when demonstrations aligned with progressive causes. Even more troubling, some protests crossed the line from political expression into blatant antisemitic and anti-Israel intimidation, leaving Jewish and Israeli students feeling threatened and unsafe. For the public, the message was clear: universities enforce rules unevenly and prioritize ideology over principle.

The Collapse of Public Trust

The cost of this hubris has been steep. Public confidence in higher education has cratered. In the 1970s, most Americans saw universities as impartial guardians of learning. Today, many view them as political institutions engaged in indoctrination rather than education. That resentment is not confined to conservative media or rural voters. It cuts across demographics. When taxpayers believe they are funding activism instead of scholarship, anger is inevitable.

As Jennifer Frey, Dean of the Honors College and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Tulsa, bluntly put it:

“I think our great public universities, especially our flagship state universities, have a duty to the taxpaying citizens, and I think that universities do need to take very seriously the fact that nobody trusts them anymore. Very few people trust or think positively of higher education. I have been saying for a while that that's an absolute disaster for us. I think now it's very clear that it's an absolute disaster for us, but it's a little too late. We weren't willing to care enough about it to try to do something until we found ourselves attacked from the outside in specific ways.”

Instead of listening to legitimate concerns, the universities often responded with denial or, worse, with moral self-righteousness. They seemed more interested in internal purity tests and promoting divisive political theories than in serving the public that funds them.

The Backlash Was Predictable

Now, the reckoning has arrived. State legislatures are cutting budgets and imposing limits on DEI programs. Major donors are walking away. Polling shows bipartisan support for reforms such as ending race-based admissions and curbing campus political activism.

This is not mere political theater. It is a structural crisis. As one Harvard student commentator warned in The Harvard Crimson:

“(W)hile universities’ blunders might not have caused the current onslaught on academia, they have drastically narrowed schools’ options to respond. By refusing to course-correct earlier, universities must now defend their wildly unpopular reputations and patently unreasonable policies or else create the appearance of submitting to Trump.
Trump has been itching to embarrass Harvard and defund the country’s oldest university. Harvard must be wise enough to put its house in order. Otherwise, Washington will tear it down.”

Elite institutions such as Harvard, Columbia, New York University, and the University of California system no longer hold the moral high ground in the eyes of the public. Their refusal to self-correct has left them exposed not only to state-level backlash but also to potential federal intervention.

It Did Not Have to Be This Way

None of this was inevitable. It happened because these universities refused to take reasonable criticism and common sense proposals seriously. They could have acknowledged ideological imbalance, committed to hiring across the political spectrum, and ensured students and faculty of all viewpoints felt safe to speak. They could have reaffirmed the crucial distinction between scholarship and political activism.

The lesson is clear: credibility, once lost, is hard to regain. If universities want to preserve their autonomy and avoid deeper political intervention, they must stop blaming outside critics and start reforming themselves. That means rediscovering their historic mission of free inquiry, intellectual pluralism, and open debate.

Until then, the crisis of trust will deepen, and the damage to higher education may become irreparable.

References

Bilger M. Americans’ trust in Ivy Leagues is tanking: poll. The College Fix. https://www.thecollegefix.com/americans-trust-in-ivy-leagues-is-tanking-poll/

Smith, E. Required Diversity Statements on Campus: Are They Constitutional?. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/blog/required-dei-diversity-equity-inclusion-statements-campus-analogy

Jenkins, R. (2024, October 17). The Ebbing of the Ivies. Minding the Campus. https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/10/17/the-ebbing-of-the-ivies/

Miller, J. M. (2025, March 27). Harvard can’t fight dirty if its hands aren’t clean. The Harvard Crimson. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/3/27/miller-harvard-columbia-trump-strategy/

Shields J (2017) When college classrooms become ideologically segregated, everyone suffers. NBC News Think/Opinion. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/when-college-classrooms-become-ideologically-segregated-everyone-suffers-ncna804881