Degrees of Chill: The effects of political-position taking on tenure-track faculty at R1 universities

Recent domestic and international socio-political crises have reinvigorated debate about whether colleges should issue statements on issues outside of their academic mission, with more colleges than ever pledging neutrality. Although philosophical arguments for and against the practice are in abundance, no empirical research has looked at how position-taking affects faculty and their behaviors. This research addresses this gap through a survey of tenure-track faculty (N=250) at U.S. R1 universities. Findings indicate a majority of faculty are aware of at least some statements, but a non-negligible number are unaware (22%). Most favor neutrality and have disagreed with some of the positions. Nearly one third report self-censoring around statements, and about half are influenced in professionally engagement with a topic based on their university’s position. Formal sanctions were rare, but faculty expressed concerns about marginalization. Differences in responses based on race and tenured status were found. Non-white and untenured faculty more likely to be constrained in expressing their viewpoints, and more likely to be discouraged from participating in professional activities on a topic if their views were misaligned. Most faculty perceived ideological homogeneity among their academic community. The results point to some chilling effect of statements, worth considering neutrality to counteract.