91ÇÑ×Ó

Across much of the democratic world, universities face a growing crisis of confidence. Once trusted as engines of discovery and civic reason, they now find themselves distrusted by segments of the public, attacked by populist movements and entangled in culture wars about truth, power and identity.

Nowhere is this more visible than in the US, where higher education has become a political battleground, with universities accused by some of indoctrinating students, by others of abandoning moral clarity, and by many of being elitist and out of touch. The latest wave of hostility from Washington treats them not as national assets but as ideological adversaries.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration proposed a ¡°¡±, offering select universities favourable research funding in exchange for signing a document that would, among other things, freeze tuition, cap international-student enrolment and scrap academic units that ¡°belittle¡± conservative ideas. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology became the . Its president, Sally Kornbluth, wrote that the compact ¡°would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution¡±.

Her refusal was a defining act of leadership. When government funding is tied to political conformity, academic freedom ceases to exist. MIT¡¯s stand ¨C since replicated by of the original nine universities identified by Trump ¨C reaffirms a basic truth: universities serve democracy best when they defend inquiry from every form of coercion: political, ideological or moral.

Even in Canada, similar pressures have surfaced. In my province of Alberta, passed in 2024 initially aimed to require universities to obtain approval from the government of Alberta before accepting federal research funding, in effect allowing the province to block federally funded research it deemed inconsistent with ¡°provincial priorities¡±. Research on ¡°safe supply¡± ¨C public-health approaches to reduce overdose deaths through supervised drug-use sites or regulated alternatives to street drugs ¨C was cited as one example.

The proposal triggered widespread concern across the academic community about political interference, academic freedom, and the erosion of institutional autonomy. And after sustained advocacy, the government adopted under the act that in effect exempted research funding from the wider provisions of the ¡°Provincial Priorities Act¡±. It was a welcome outcome ¨C but also a warning. Academic freedom, once taken for granted in established democracies, can no longer be assumed.

At the same time, public trust in universities continues to erode. The recent 2025 reflected concerns that universities have drifted into political activism. Citing the University of Chicago¡¯s 1967 Kalven Report, which makes the case for institutional neutrality, it urged institutions to remain forums for debate rather than participants in political advocacy.

That principle is sound ¨C but neutrality must be understood with nuance. It does not mean silence on moral questions that touch the core of a university¡¯s mission. For the University of Alberta, this means principled stands on issues such as Indigenous inclusion, equality and freedom from harassment ¨C not as acts of political advocacy, but as expressions of the shared values that underpin the university and make free inquiry possible.

These shared values give universities credibility, integrity and unity of purpose: fairness, respect for evidence, openness to difference and regard for human dignity. The key is to distinguish between values that sustain the conditions for scholarship and political questions that lie beyond the university¡¯s core academic purpose. The goal is not to abandon neutrality but to practise it wisely ¨C maintaining neutrality on matters outside the university¡¯s core mission while showing clarity and conviction on those that go to its heart.

For those of us outside the US, the American experience is cautionary. It shows how easily universities can lose public trust, and how quickly academic debate can be recast as ideological combat. But the problem is not only external. It also reflects an internal drift. Too often, universities have sought to display virtue or moral certainty on questions far beyond their remit, turning spaces of discovery into spaces of conformity. When an institution that once welcomed argument begins to treat dissent as transgression, it invites suspicion and loses the confidence of those it seeks to serve.

The modern university, rooted in the liberal democratic tradition, rests on the conviction that truth is best pursued through evidence, reason and open debate ¨C and that freedom of inquiry is not only an academic value but a civic necessity. As , president of Johns Hopkins University, writes in What Universities Owe Democracy, universities ¡°are not merely bystanders to democracy but deeply implicated in, and essential for, its success¡±.

That conviction underpins our new at the University of Alberta. An interdisciplinary collaboration, led by the department of political science in the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Law, its purpose is to renew civic education and to prepare students to deliberate, dissent, listen and lead. Its foundational course, Engaging Division: Confrontation and Consensus in Civic Life, invites students to practise disagreement ¨C to confront hard questions and learn how to argue without contempt.

This need for civic renewal has never been clearer. In the months following the outbreak of the war in Gaza, campus protests and encampments exposed deep divisions and placed intense pressure on universities to issue moral pronouncements on a conflict far beyond their capacity to resolve.

This moment should prompt a renewed sense of epistemic humility. Universities cannot adjudicate the world¡¯s moral struggles; they can only illuminate them. When they rush to declare moral certainty, they risk trading the credibility of inquiry for the comfort of dogma.

The crisis of confidence facing universities is not only political; it reflects a deeper crisis of truth ¨C a growing distrust of evidence, expertise and reason itself. In an age of social media and manufactured outrage, universities must model a different kind of discourse: one that values reason over rhetoric, curiosity over conformity and evidence over tribal loyalty.

The path forward lies not in defensiveness, but in a renewed belief in what universities uniquely contribute to democratic life. We are not the voice of one side or the servants of the state. We are stewards of an older and deeper tradition that approaches truth through open inquiry and believes in reason¡¯s power to bridge difference and education¡¯s foundational importance to a free society.

However turbulent our times become, our responsibility as scholars and citizens alike is to keep that search for truth alive ¨C for its own sake and for the future of democracy.

is president and vice-chancellor of the University of Alberta.