United States Secretary of Education Linda McMahon recently issued a “Call to Action” to American colleges, asking them to publish answers to specific questions on their websites. She framed this transparency as a necessary pathway to restoring public trust in the sector. “Higher education has drifted from the principles that built up so much public esteem,” McMahon wrote in the letter. She argued that campuses “need to chart a new course” to address these concerns.
The letter targets issues the administration views as critical, such as student protests, intellectual diversity, grade inflation, and “foreign influence.” It also touches on broader topics like affordability and workforce preparation. According to McMahon, “respond[ing] concretely to these questions” is the “essential first step toward rebuilding trust in the sector.”
Different Definitions of Trust
Whether this strategy works depends on how higher education leaders define trust and whose trust they are seeking. It is no secret that public confidence in US colleges has declined over the past decade. Polls from Gallup, Pew, and NORC consistently show fewer Americans expressing confidence in higher education or viewing the sector positively.
However, a recent report from the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) suggests a disconnect. The administration’s criticisms do not necessarily align with what the general public is worried about. While constructive engagement with the government is beneficial, earning the trust of the public requires a different approach.
John K Wilson notes that “trust is not an academic value.” If trust means asking the public to place blind faith in academic “experts,” that is not the goal. Instead, the focus should be on relational trust. This involves building strong interpersonal connections and acting in trustworthy ways. It requires consistent actions that promote the public good, ensuring that promises made are promises kept.
The Bass Fisherman and the Sailboat
Consider an interview political scientist Katherine Cramer conducted in 2007 with a man from rural Wisconsin. At the time, few politicians were publicly criticizing universities. While at a remote fishing hole, the man encountered a team of University of Wisconsin researchers studying whether bass spawned in the same place annually. They could have “just saved [themselves] a whole bunch of trouble,” the man recalled, had they simply asked anyone who lived in the area.
“People from universities ‘don’t want anything to do with you,’” the man said. “They think they’re smarter than you.” This sentiment highlights a barrier for institutions that appear self-satisfied, extractive, and remote. To reach people with these views, colleges must emulate practices already used by institutions with strong local ties.
A December 2024 Data for Progress poll indicates that community colleges and regional public universities are the most popular with the public. Each of these types enrolls around 40% of America’s college students. In contrast, Ivy League institutions are by far the least popular category. When it comes to public trust, the lesson should not come from the most prestigious campuses, but from those with the strongest social contract with their communities.
This tension mirrors historical friction between centralized federal policy and localized community needs. Often, top-down mandates fail to resonate with local populations who have different daily realities and immediate concerns than national leadership. The gap between policy directives and lived experience creates a friction that mere transparency cannot easily resolve. This disconnect is not unique to higher education but is a recurring theme in many sectors where federal authority meets local autonomy.
Learning from Trusted Institutions
Research involving staff, students, and the president at Bunker Hill Community College in Boston offers a model for this approach. An administrator there stated that “it’s our responsibility to be student ready, not for the student to be college ready.” This mindset shifts the burden from the individual to the institution.
Pam Eddinger, the college president, described a multigenerational commitment to the community. She emphasized a flexible approach to meeting local needs. “Community colleges are of the moment, of the living,” she said. “It’s going to take [research institutions] a thousand years to turn around that Titanic. But we’re in a sailboat.”
Trusted colleges generally welcome most applicants and are relatively inexpensive to attend. They are nimble and adaptable. These institutions act as anchor institutions, embedded deeply in their communities. They are authentically committed to meeting community needs through a relentless focus on access and completion.
This focus includes wraparound supports such as tutoring, advising, career preparation, and peer mentorship. Programs also provide food and housing assistance to help students succeed. AAC&U is working with campus teams to adapt these strategies for use across the country and globally. In a recent statement, the organization noted that public trust grows when institutions listen as well as lead.
Trust also develops when institutions engage employers, civic organisations, alumni, and local governments. It is demonstrated through sustained partnerships that show how teaching, research, and public engagement improve people’s lives. The Secretary’s “Call to Action” aims to reset the historic relationship between American higher education and the government.
However, government trust and public trust are not the same thing. No deal with the government will automatically bring the trust of ordinary people. Such an agreement will not secure their support the next time the government and the higher education sector find themselves at odds. If the goal is to earn the trust of people from all walks of life, the focus must shift.
Leaders need to look elsewhere. They should examine the trusted and trustworthy relationships already being built on campuses and in communities. The path forward lies in these local connections, not just in compliance with federal priorities.
Leave a Reply