A new research initiative indicates that claims of extensive prejudice against conservative students within American higher education, particularly regarding their access to campus resources, might be exaggerated. The study reveals that university administrators demonstrate equal responsiveness to inquiries from both conservative and liberal students, suggesting an absence of systemic bias in this area.
This study was prompted by a noticeable decline in public trust towards academic institutions, particularly among Republicans who increasingly perceive higher education as unwelcoming to conservative viewpoints. Jessica Khan, an assistant professor of American government at Northwest Florida State College, initiated this research to empirically evaluate these perceptions. Her objective was to ascertain whether political beliefs indeed create barriers for students seeking fundamental campus services.
Khan highlighted that discussions about liberal bias in higher education are prevalent in both popular and academic discourse. She recalled an incident in 2017 involving a Turning Point USA representative at Florida State University, who alleged that conservative students faced greater challenges in establishing registered organizations and inviting speakers, yet provided no data to substantiate these claims. This spurred Khan's investigation into the actual treatment of conservative students by university administration.
The study examines two contrasting theories: social identity theory, which posits that individuals favor their own group and discriminate against others, potentially leading liberal administrators to favor liberal students; and public administration theory, which suggests that professional bureaucratic norms promote equitable treatment regardless of personal political leanings. Khan's research aimed to determine which of these theoretical frameworks better explains administrator behavior in real-world university settings.
To test these hypotheses, Khan utilized a correspondence experiment, sending emails from fabricated student profiles to university staff unaware they were part of a study. She conducted two separate experiments to cover different types of student needs. The first focused on forming a new registered student organization, contacting administrators at 1,470 four-year colleges. Emails, identical in tone and length, portrayed the student as liberal, conservative, or politically neutral. Khan analyzed response rates, helpfulness, and response time, finding no significant evidence of discrimination. Administrators responded to liberal students 65% of the time and conservative students 66% of the time, with comparable helpfulness and only marginal differences in response speed.
The second experiment, involving administrators at 1,439 institutions, assessed access to campus facilities for guest speakers. A fictitious student, 'Bradley Schwartz,' requested a room for a political lecture, again with varied political affiliations. The results mirrored the first study: both liberal and conservative requests received approximately 54% response rates. Khan also investigated if geographical political leanings influenced outcomes, analyzing county-level voting data from the 2016 presidential election. She found that local politics did not affect how administrators treated students, demonstrating consistent equity regardless of the surrounding community's political views. These findings underscore the strength of professional norms in higher education, indicating that despite a predominantly liberal administrative demographic, neutrality is maintained in official duties.
These discoveries offer valuable insights into the development of civic capabilities. Establishing student groups and organizing events are crucial for young people to build social capital. If conservative students were genuinely obstructed from such activities, it would impede their involvement in democratic processes. The present data suggests that such institutional barriers are not present at the initial inquiry stage.
It's important to clarify the scope of these findings. While no bias was found in email responsiveness, this doesn't guarantee the complete absence of bias elsewhere in higher education. Potential discrimination could arise during later stages, such as the official approval of club charters. Moreover, this study does not address possible biases in classroom environments, grading, or student social interactions. A campus might still feel unwelcoming to conservatives even if administrative processes are neutral. The research specifically examined administrative gatekeeping, pointing to a potential disparity between public perception and actual administrative practices. This suggests that the erosion of trust in higher education might be fueled by sensationalized narratives rather than pervasive administrative prejudice. Further research is necessary to explore other potential areas of bias, such as faculty advising or funding allocation for student groups. Understanding the origins of perceived bias is vital for rebuilding confidence in academic institutions. Khan also proposes future studies to identify mechanisms, like anti-bias training or specific university policies, that contribute to equitable treatment and can be adopted by other institutions.