A new study suggests that assertions of widespread bias against conservative students in American higher education may be unfounded regarding access to administrative resources. The research indicates that university administrators are just as responsive to requests from conservative students as they are to liberal ones. These findings were published in the journal Political Behavior.
The motivation for this research stems from a documented decline in public trust toward colleges and universities. This erosion of confidence is particularly pronounced among Republicans, who increasingly view higher education as hostile to conservative viewpoints.
Jessica Khan, an assistant professor of American government at Northwest Florida State College, designed this study to test whether these perceptions reflect reality. Khan sought to determine if political ideology acts as a barrier for students trying to access basic campus services.
“There is substantial debate in popular and academic circles concerning allegations of liberal bias in higher education, but the catalyst prompting the studies in this publication was a meeting that Turning Point USA held at Florida State University when I was a PhD Student in the Department of Political Science there in 2017,” Khan told PsyPost.
“At that meeting, the TPUSA representative claimed that conservative students have a much harder time than liberals starting registered student organizations and inviting guest speakers to campus, but did not furnish any data or analysis to support those claims.”
The study pits two competing psychological and sociological theories against one another. Social identity theory suggests that individuals favor members of their own group and discriminate against outsiders. Since university administrators tend to lean politically liberal, this theory predicts they would favor liberal students.
In contrast, public administration theory argues that bureaucratic norms encourage equal treatment. This perspective suggests that professional standards of non-discrimination would override personal political preferences. Khan aimed to see which of these forces prevails in a real-world academic setting.
To test these theories, Khan employed a method known as a correspondence experiment. This involves sending emails to targets who are unaware they are being studied. The researcher created fictitious student personas to interact with university staff.
The researcher conducted two distinct experiments to assess different types of student needs. The first study focused on the ability to form a new registered student organization. Khan identified administrators responsible for student activities at 1,470 four-year colleges and universities across the United States.
She randomly assigned these administrators to receive an email from a student named “Brett Clark.” The emails were identical in tone and length but varied in the political ideology expressed by the student. One version presented the student as politically liberal. A second version presented him as politically conservative. A third version served as a control group with no identifiable political ideology.
The emails were written to sound like a typical undergraduate inquiry. They included minor grammatical errors to enhance authenticity. The text was designed to be polite and formal.
Khan measured three outcomes: whether the administrator replied at all, whether the reply was helpful, and how many days it took to receive a response. A response was considered substantive if it offered encouragement or guidance on the next steps.
The results of this first study showed no significant evidence of discrimination. Administrators replied to the liberal student 65 percent of the time. They replied to the conservative student 66 percent of the time.
The helpfulness of the replies was also statistically indistinguishable between the groups. Both liberal and conservative inquiries received substantive responses at nearly identical rates. In terms of speed, administrators replied to conservative students slightly faster than to liberal students, though the difference was less than half a day on average.
The second study investigated access to campus facilities. Khan identified administrators responsible for reserving space for events at 1,439 institutions. In this experiment, a fictitious student named “Bradley Schwartz” requested a room to host a guest speaker for a lecture on political issues.
As with the first study, the emails were randomly assigned to present the student as liberal, conservative, or politically neutral. The researcher again measured response rates, the helpfulness of the reply, and the response time.
The findings mirrored the first study. Administrators replied to the liberal request at a rate of roughly 54 percent. The conservative request received a response rate of roughly 54 percent as well.
Khan examined whether the geographic location of the university influenced the results. It is possible that administrators in conservative areas might behave differently than those in liberal areas. She used county-level voting data from the 2016 presidential election to measure local political ideology.
The analysis revealed that local politics did not alter the treatment of the students. Administrators in counties that voted heavily for Donald Trump treated liberal and conservative students with the same level of equity as administrators in counties that voted for Hillary Clinton. There was no interaction between the student’s ideology and the surrounding community’s political leanings.
These findings suggest that professional norms in higher education are robust. Even though the population of university administrators is largely liberal, they appear to adhere to standards of neutrality when performing their job duties. The expectation of bias based on social identity theory did not materialize in these interactions.
The study has implications for understanding the development of civic skills. Forming student groups and hosting events are key ways that young people build social capital. If conservatives were blocked from these activities, it would hinder their ability to participate in democratic processes. The data provides evidence that such institutional barriers do not exist at the level of initial inquiry.
It is important to clarify what these findings do and do not demonstrate. The absence of bias in email responsiveness does not prove that no bias exists anywhere in higher education. Discrimination could occur at later stages of the process, such as during the official approval of a club charter.
Additionally, this study does not address potential bias in classrooms, grading, or social interactions among students. It is possible for a campus environment to feel unwelcoming to conservatives even if the bureaucracy functions neutrally. The study focuses specifically on administrative gatekeeping.
Khan notes that the narrative of conservative victimization is powerful and persistent. High-profile anecdotes of speakers being shouted down or clubs being rejected often dominate media coverage. However, this research suggests these incidents may be exceptions rather than the rule for the average student.
“While bias against political conservatives may take place in other forms in American higher education, I failed to uncover any evidence that conservative students have more difficulty than their liberal counterparts in seeking to establish new, politically-oriented registered student organizations or reserve campus space for guest speakers to discuss political issues,” Khan said.
The disconnect between the perception of bias and the reality of administrative neutrality is significant. It suggests that the crisis of trust in higher education may be fueled by exaggerated narratives rather than systemic administrative prejudice.
Future research is needed to explore other potential avenues of bias. This might include investigating faculty advising relationships or the allocation of funding to student groups. Understanding where the perception of bias originates is essential for restoring faith in academic institutions.
Khan also suggests that further work could examine the specific mechanisms that reduce bias. It is possible that anti-bias training or specific university policies play a role in ensuring equal treatment. Identifying these factors could help other institutions maintain equitable environments.
The study, “Political Bias in College Student Access To Campus Resources,” was authored by Jessica Khan.
