Under pressure, college administrators respond to federal policy and campus speech challenges.

What you may have missed in Inside Higher Ed’s latest survey of university provosts

Shutterstock

Universities have been weathering a storm this year, from various executive orders reversing course on DEI, billions in funding withheld over antisemitism and campus protests, thousands of revoked international student visas, and plummeting public belief in the importance of college. And college leaders are feeling the pressure. Inside Higher Ed’s latest survey of Chief Academic Officers shows that provosts are taking active measures to avoid becoming the next Harvard, Columbia, or Texas A&M.

On the federal front, 75% of provosts broadly disagreed with the idea that “the current federal policy environment for higher education is forcing change that may benefit colleges and universities in the long run,” and only 20% believed that federal interventions and investigations into campus speech and protests are justified. Beyond not seeing the benefit of current federal activity, half of all provosts agreed at least somewhat that “politicians’ efforts to influence institutional strategy and policy are an increasing risk” (emphasis added) to their institutions, which could reflect concerns over pressure from governing boards and state legislators as well as the federal government.

Despite this, more than half of all provosts reported making some kind of adjustment in response to federal policies and actions, including “creat[ing] contingency plans for programs that may face increased scrutiny” (24%), “chang[ing] terminology in departmental names of descriptions” (24%), and “modif[ying] language in course descriptions of program materials (23%). Forty percent of provosts reported scaling back their DEI efforts to some extent, and 55% viewed antisemitism as at least a moderate problem in higher education.

These dynamics were magnified at public doctoral universities, where provosts were simultaneously the most concerned about political interference (75% viewed it as a risk) and most likely to indicate having made adjustments (only 10% reported having made no adjustments, compared to 31-39% of provosts from other institutional categories).

On another question assessing provosts’ strategies for responding to the current federal policy environment, public doctoral institutions were the only category where 0% of provosts reported having “no defined strategy,” compared to 7-11% of other types of institutions.

University leaders are also feeling the increasing threat to academic freedom across the sector. Public doctoral and master’s/baccalaureate institutions are feeling the most pressure, where 43% and 32% of provosts said that academic freedom had been impacted under the present administration, respectively. They were also the most likely to say that academic freedom at their institution was “under significant strain from multiple directions” or “actively being redefined or restricted” (16-17%). By contrast, only 13-17% of provosts at public associate-level colleges and private nonprofit universities reported impacts to academic freedom, with only 2-8% characterizing the climate as “under significant strain” or “actively being redefined or restricted.”

The survey also assessed provosts’ approaches to campus speech challenges, with a new focus on constructive disagreement across campus as a priority. Although 47% of provosts rated the climate for civil discourse as “fair” when thinking about higher education generally, 68% of all provosts rated their own campus climate as “good” or “excellent.” Still, over half of all provosts reported challenges to speech on their campuses, most often related to pressure from donors and alumni regarding institutional positions (25%), internal disputes about appropriate speech policies (24%), and, at public institutions, legislative oversight or intervention in campus matters (38%).

When asked what actions they had taken to promote civil discourse on their campuses, 54% reported implementing some kind of faculty training on “facilitating difficult dialogues/constructive conversations.” Notably, however, it was rare for administrators to impose mandatory training on faculty—just 5% of respondents indicated this, and the other 49% reported their training was optional. About a third of all provosts (35%) reported establishing a voluntary dialogue facilitation initiative on campus.

Public doctoral institutions were the most likely to take many of these actions here, too, with 67% of these institutions offering voluntary faculty training on dialogue facilitation and 50% establishing dialogue facilitation initiatives.

Finally, provosts were eager for examples of effective campus speech policy. When asked what would help them navigate campus speech challenges, the top three most indicated resources were “faculty development on teaching controversial topics” (40%), “model policies that balance multiple interests” (33%), and “examples of effective student programs on civil discourse and/or constructive dialogue” (31%).

Provosts’ actions on their campuses mirror broader shifts now occurring in higher education. In a trend my colleague Erin Shaw recently observed, many elite college presidents emphasized open inquiry and constructive disagreement in their convocation remarks this year. Civics education is experiencing a revival, with many newborn schools of civic thought—several of which were established by Republican state legislatures. And, discussions on the need and importance of viewpoint diversity on campus are center stage.

It seems fair to say that a freshman stepping onto campus in the fall of 2025 could complete college in quite a different environment compared to a senior who graduated in the spring of 2024. Given the turbulence of the political landscape, only time will tell if this is just a passing fad or the beginning of a new trajectory.