Universities are utterly dependent on outsiders—taxpayers and private philanthropists, who sometimes fund large endowments—for financial support, because tuition fees rarely cover most costs. Yet, until recently, those same outsiders exercised little meaningful oversight of the institutions they sustained.

Faculty who began their careers between roughly 1980 and 2005 operated in an environment of strong public support, rising enrollments, increasing salaries, and relatively light teaching loads under a “publish or perish” model. Their positions felt secure, often protected by tenure, and outside forces—governments, boards, donors—were largely supportive and non-interfering.

But this lack of supervision was abused.

College faculty and administrators were given wide latitude in how resources were used, contributing to the rise of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) bureaucracy funded in part by reallocating resources away from instruction.

As the abuse of funding by colleges and universities became more widely known—with the help of publications such as this one—Americans grew fed up with higher education institutions, particularly with radical left attempts to dominate campus life, including efforts to stymie debate and intellectual pluralism by shouting down speakers or snubbing conservative faculty applicants. University finances deteriorated along with enrollments, especially at many non-elite regional and local institutions, leading credit agencies like Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s to issue more pessimistic assessments.

In response, an anti-woke counterrevolution emerged, initiated largely by individuals outside the university: political leaders, prominent alumni, and major philanthropists concerned about the rise of a doctrine that portrays American culture as inherently racist, sexist, homophobic, and exploitative. Beginning even during the Biden administration, state legislatures started restricting DEI programs at public universities, and some lawmakers chartered the creation of civic institutes with the intention of bringing intellectual pluralism back to campuses nationwide. Major philanthropists also pulled their funding. But after the 2023 congressional hearings involving the presidents of elite eastern schools—which put on display those institutions’ embrace of anti-Semitism and outraged both politicians and the broader public—the reform movement intensified. The Trump administration, for example, has since exerted significant pressure on institutions to comply with civil rights laws, especially civil rights laws pertaining to campus anti-Semitism.

This supervision appears to have had measurable effects, at least when it comes to public opinion.

Gallup polling shows that after years of decline—from 57 percent of Americans expressing high confidence in higher education in 2015 to 36 percent in 2023—public confidence rebounded to 42 percent in 2024. Similarly, the share expressing little or no confidence rose from 10 percent in 2015 to 32 percent in 2023, before falling back to 23 percent in 2025. Moreover, enrollments at many institutions have rebounded since the pandemic—though they have still not matched their peak in 2010.

Even with such improvements that outside intervention has secured, serious challenges remain.

Demographic decline, uncertain international enrollments, and looming fiscal pressures tied to federal debt all threaten the long-term outlook for higher education. Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence may also reshape labor markets, potentially reducing the premium on some forms of collegiate training, even as skilled trades remain in demand. Unsurprisingly, with these pressures mounting, the average tenure of college presidents has declined. And as for leftist ideology, many institutions are simply trying to wait out the current administration, which is itself doing the reform movement no favors by ruling through executive orders that could easily be overturned by a future Democratic administration.

Overall, I am very happy with the outside pressure; the institutions needed it. But I am not so happy that I would encourage any bright young student to consider academia.