Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.
A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.
The Chronicle surveyed 3,844 respondents at two- and four-year colleges in the United States between March 5 and March 20, asking whether they’d recommend their work to others, how their institution has responded to federal actions, and whether they felt free to express their opinions. Here’s what they said.
About half of respondents, across faculty, staff, and administrative ranks, said they were less enthusiastic about recommending their work to others than before Trump took office in January. That included being less likely to recommend that someone pursue a career in their role, at their institution, and in higher education writ large. In open-ended responses, dozens of respondents used the word “uncertainty” to describe their reasons for doing so, noting that research funding, student-loan policies, and visa statuses for international students and scholars were in flux.
About half of respondents, across faculty, staff, and administrative ranks, said they were less enthusiastic about recommending a career in their role than they were before Trump took office.
Somewhat-higher shares said the same thing about working at their institution.
Meanwhile, about a third of respondents said they were more likely to encourage someone to work at their institution.
Most faculty members said they were less likely to encourage someone to work in higher ed writ large.
A higher share of those who identified as somewhat or strongly left-leaning said they were less likely to recommend their work than than those who were somewhat or strongly right-leaning.
One staff member compared their job outlook now to how they felt at the height of the pandemic, saying that both periods were marked by "uncertainty and belt-tightening." But the contexts were different: During Covid-19, the changes that were made felt "necessary but temporary, at least at the outset." In the Trump era, they added, "the changes now feel existential."
Another staff member said that, at their public institution, "doing work in meaningful ways here is a recipe for burnout," particularly for those committed to principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion, which Trump has targeted through a series of executive orders. "There are fewer and fewer spaces to fight and advocate because Trump is intimidating and threatening to take away protections that allow for all voices ... to be heard," they wrote in an open-ended response.
Many faculty members said freezes and pauses in grant funding, including proposed cuts to the funding for indirect costs that pay for facilities and administration, or F&A, made it difficult to encourage others to pursue careers in academe. "With the dramatic decrease in federal funding via cuts to F&A along with bans on words that are integral to my field, the ability to obtain federal funding for future research is virtually nil," one wrote. "The impact on universities and fields that rely heavily on federal funding will undoubtedly cause hiring freezes and cuts to staffing, and possibly even closure of some departments."
Others pointed to threats to academic freedom and what they perceived as Trump's antagonism toward higher ed as reasons to dissuade others from entering the field. "We are in the crossfire for just doing our jobs," one wrote. "Most academics chose their profession because of a dedication to knowledge. Almost all of us have no interest in being in the middle of a culture war."
The hesitancy to recommend working in higher ed came despite many respondents saying the effects of the Trump administration's decisions hadn’t yet fully registered on their own campuses.
Respondents from red states were more likely than those from blue states to report that changes had occurred at their institutions.
The Chronicle's survey, which asked respondents to identify their political affiliation, showed a few strong partisan differences. A markedly higher share of those who identified as somewhat or strongly left-leaning said they were less likely to recommend their work than those who were somewhat or strongly right-leaning. Among left-leaning respondents, 60 percent were less likely to encourage someone to work in higher ed now than they were before Trump's inauguration. Only 12 percent of right-leaning ones answered the same way; in fact, 20 percent of somewhat or strongly right-leaning respondents said they were more likely to advocate for a career in higher ed.
The general hesitancy to recommend working in higher ed came despite many respondents saying the effects of the Trump administration's decisions haven’t yet fully registered on their own campuses. More than 40 percent, or a plurality, said their institution had not made any changes since Trump’s inauguration. The three most commonly reported changes from a list of options were the curtailment of affinity groups for both faculty and of students, and frozen or canceled federal funding. Respondents also reported, in open-ended responses, that they'd seen the shuttering of DEI-related offices, the removal of DEI language from websites and other public-facing materials, halted graduate admissions, and pressure to close academic programs in ethnic or area studies. (Though our survey asked only about whether respondents' own titles, offices, or programs had undergone name changes, many wrote that others within their institution had done so.)
Respondents from red states were more likely than those from blue states to report that changes had occurred at their institutions, though the top-three types of changes reported were the same regardless of state politics. Institutions in blue states appeared to be resisting change at higher rates; respondents in Democratic states were 10 percentage points more likely than those in Republican states to report their institution had not made any changes. Meanwhile, some red-state respondents noted their institutions had begun curtailing DEI work before Trump took office as a result of state laws.
Most of those completing the survey indicated that they were satisfied with how their institutions had responded to the Trump administration's actions.
Just 12 percent said they strongly disagreed with how the leaders of their institution had handled the Trump administration's “executive orders and other new policies.”
While some respondents, in their open-ended answers, criticized their institution’s “radio silence” and lack of resistance to federal policy, most of those completing the survey indicated they were satisfied with their institution’s responses to the Trump administration, with 56 percent agreeing or strongly agreeing with how their leaders reacted. Just 12 percent said they strongly disagreed with their institution's leaders' handling of "executive orders and other new policies announced by the Trump administration," while 16 percent reported being unsure.
Self-described conservatives also expressed higher degrees of confidence in their institution’s administration and financial health, and were more likely to report that people at their institution “can freely express their ideas and opinions.” Among those who leaned somewhat right, 67.2 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement about free expression; 70.2 percent of strongly right-leaning respondents gave the same answer. Meanwhile, 61.2 percent of somewhat left-leaning and 58.8 percent of strongly left-leaning higher-ed employees agreed.
While it's important to bear in mind that far more left-leaning respondents took the Chronicle survey — eight times as many as right-leaning ones — the results do mark an unusual inversion of the notion that left-leaning people typically feel more able to freely express themselves on campuses. A 2024 report by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, for example, found that 55 percent of conservative faculty members reported self-censoring on political matters, compared with 17 percent of liberal faculty members.
One somewhat right-leaning faculty member welcomed the changes that had been brought by the Trump administration, because it "has greatly increased the future prospects of free speech (civil discourse rather than cancel culture) on campus with respect to potentially controversial topics." In addition, the faculty member noted, the government has "also reduced wasteful spending on counterproductive, politically motivated initiatives."
Most respondents said they agreed or strongly agreed that they had confidence in their institution’s administration, financial health, and approach to diversity, equity and inclusion, and that people on their campus could freely express their opinions.
Self-described conservative or right-leaning respondents agreed or strongly agreed at even higher rates.
