A Nation Divided

Prior to the 2024 election, concern over the future of the United States proved to be a significant source of stress in the lives of 77 percent of Americans, according to the American Psychological Association. In fact, stress levels related to the outcome of the US presidential race reached their highest levels when compared to the previous two elections. Americans all along the political spectrum were affected equally, with 80 percent of Republicans, 79 percent of Democrats, and 73 percent of independents sharing a sense of anxiety about where the nation is headed. Despite the commonality in these feelings of disquiet, consensus is dwindling when it comes to determining exactly which policies are needed to move the country in the right direction. In fact, the expansiveness of America’s political divide is reflected in statistics from the Pew Research Center showing that over the past few years, increasing numbers of both Republicans and Democrats describe members of the opposing political party as “close-minded,” “dishonest,” “unintelligent,” and “immoral,” with 83 percent of Democrats saying Republicans are “a lot or somewhat more closed-minded than other Americans” and 69 percent of Republicans saying the same about Democrats.

Given the burgeoning polarization and partisanship that characterizes the current state of our republic, reaffirming and catalyzing the democratic purposes of higher education—foundational to the mission of the American Association of Colleges and University (AAC&U)—are more important than ever. Since our nation’s inception, colleges and universities have played a distinctive role in fostering democratic learning, civic education, community engagement, and efforts to bridge divides, in the classroom and beyond. Yet, for many of today’s critics, higher education was itself on the ballot as a key contributor to the culture wars. For instance, the morning after the election, MSNBC commentator Joe Scarborough blamed the backlash against Democratic candidates partially on the response of campus leaders to pro-Palestinian protesters and the allowance of trans women who transitioned after puberty to compete on women’s sports teams. Scarborough claimed that even his Democratic friends complain bitterly that they are paying tuition when their children are afraid to speak in class for fear of being canceled. 

Institutions of higher education undoubtedly have a responsibility to promote pluralism on campuses and ensure that classrooms are places of welcome and belonging for everyone. This, in turn, requires providing students with practice, from their first to final semesters, with the skills and dispositions necessary to speak across differences, listen critically and with understanding to diverse viewpoints, exercise curiosity and empathy, engage in humanistic identification, and consider the possibility that some of their most fundamentally held beliefs might be mistaken while actively seeking alternative perspectives. 

Nevertheless, these objectives, which are central to higher education’s public purposes, are undermined by recent legislative efforts aimed at curtailing a perceived liberal bias in the academy. Such measures, which impose an ideological agenda of their own, include book bans, limits on tenure and shared governance, and educational gag orders restricting courses and discussions on issues of race, racism, gender, LGBTQ+ identities, and reproductive rights. Politicians have inserted themselves into the appointment and removal of campus leaders; pushed for the establishment of civics institutes and general education curricula “rooted in the values of liberty and the Western tradition”; and classified statements made by professors at public colleges and universities as government speech outside First Amendment protections of academic freedom. Legislators have increasingly attempted to prohibit the use of public funds for research on climate change, anti-racism, vaccine development, and gender affirming and reproductive care. They have also tried to dictate that public colleges and universities measure the economic value and opportunity costs of academic programs, which would require public colleges and universities to prioritize graduating students with degrees leading to high-paying jobs.

The deleterious effects of these moves are captured in a recent report produced by AAC&U in partnership with the American Association of University Professors and NORC at the University of Chicago, based on a national survey of thousands of faculty members from every rank at all types of institutions. Highlighted in this issue of Liberal Education, the study sought to understand perspectives and experiences related to academic freedom, defined as “the freedom of teachers or researchers in higher education to investigate and discuss the issues in their academic field, and to teach or publish findings without interference from political figures, boards of trustees, donors, or other entities,” alongside the right of faculty to “speak freely when participating in institutional governance, as well as to speak freely as citizens.” 

Ninety-three percent of those surveyed are convinced that faculty should be intentional about inviting student perspectives from all sides of an issue, and 57 percent say they encourage mutually respectful disagreement among students either “quite a bit” or “a great deal.” And while 70 percent believe that the amount of mutually respectful disagreement among their students is “about right,” they are themselves becoming less willing to address controversial topics and more likely to self-censor when it comes to expressing controversial or political views. Indeed, many indicate that in our current environment of weaponized speech, the spread of divisive concepts legislation has chilled academic freedom. More than half of all faculty (53 percent) say they are concerned about the ability “to express what they believe as scholars to be correct statements about the world.” Further, as many as 45 percent admit to having refrained from expressing an opinion or engaging in an activity to avoid negative attention and professional repercussions. 

At AAC&U, we argue that the essential purpose of a college or university in a diverse democratic society mandates that beliefs be expressed freely, questioned openly, and evaluated critically and that ideas be shared, challenged, discussed, and debated without fear of retribution or censorship. This conviction follows from an understanding that the strength of American higher education is derived in part from the fact that what is taught inside and outside of our classrooms is protected from direct government control and undue political influence. Thus, in a society riven by division, each of us must do everything we can to safeguard academic freedom and institutional autonomy as we strive to educate for democracy and fulfill the social contract we have made with our students and the public. 

Illustration by Paul Spella