Higher education leaders sometimes transgress norms of political involvement. Despite some norm-violating behaviors, legal consequences are sparse. Some argue that this is based on concerns over taxpayers impugning regulators’ motives as partisan. Public skepticism is warranted, especially as university officials engage in unlawful forms of political activism that can go unenforced. What explains citizens’ tolerance for norm-violating political activities within higher education institutions? Furthermore, what drives citizens to blame some leaders for engaging in legally precarious political behaviors while providing more latitude for others who act similarly? Drawing from research on citizen accountability as well as partisan cue-led attitudes, authors argue that tolerance for political involvement in higher education contexts is explained by an institutional leader’s partisanship and sectoral type, that is, private versus public institution. To test these claims, authors fielded a survey experiment drawing on a Lucid panel. Findings show evidence that a leader’s partisanship and the institution’s sectoral type influence individuals’ acceptance or rejection of a university president’s endorsement of a political candidate, dependent upon the respondent’s partisan characteristics. Findings also confirm the emerging politicization of higher educational spaces, highlighting the implications for understanding public perceptions of higher education leaders’ political involvement and the impact on the sector.
Read full abstract