When the phrase “ten troubling social” meets “U.S. colleges,” the mind often drifts to classic college‑age mischief like binge drinking, hazing rituals, and the occasional HPV scare. Yet the landscape of higher education is now peppered with a host of newer, more insidious habits that could have far‑reaching consequences far beyond a hangover or a bruised ego.
Ten Troubling Social Overview
10 Segregation
In a move that many describe as either a bold stride forward or a puzzling step backward, Western Washington University recently launched a Black‑only residence hall. Situated roughly 90 miles south of Seattle, the liberal‑arts college set aside the fourth floor of one of its largest dorms for a program dubbed the “Black Affinity Program.”
The program’s website claims its mission is to “explore and celebrate the diversity of Black and African American people and culture, with historical and contemporary context.” Curiously, the same page also states that “Black Affinity Housing residents represent all diverse identities,” a claim that appears contradictory given the very definition of a Black‑only space. The goal, according to the site, is to foster “a sense of belonging for all residents by creating a safe environment for open, honest, and sometimes challenging dialogue.” How a “safe environment” simultaneously encourages “challenging dialogue” remains a point of contention.
Self‑segregation is no longer a rarity on American campuses. The National Association of Scholars recently unveiled an initiative titled “Separate But Equal, Again: Neo‑Segregation in American Higher Education.” Their survey of 173 universities revealed that 42 % of schools offer segregated housing, 46 % run segregated orientation programs, and a staggering 72 % host segregated graduation ceremonies.
Historically, many colleges have been dominated by white (and increasingly Asian‑American) student bodies, leaving Black students to grapple with a sense of cultural isolation during a pivotal period of self‑discovery. Critics argue that this surge in self‑segregation runs counter to the ideals championed by civil‑rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., prompting heated debate across campuses.
9 Anti‑Meritocracy
In October 2021, Dorian Abbott, an Associate Professor of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago, was abruptly uninvited by MIT for a guest lecture he had been slated to deliver. One might assume he was set to espouse fringe views—perhaps flat‑earth theories or climate denial—but that was far from the truth.
The presentation, titled “Climate and the Potential for Life on Other Planets,” examined how planetary climate models influence assessments of a world’s habitability. Abbott also highlighted emerging climatic regimes that differ from any currently observed on Earth, making the talk a legitimate scientific discussion rather than a provocation.
Speculation ran wild that Abbott might have been expelled for extremist behavior—white supremacy, sexual misconduct, or overt anti‑LGBTQ sentiment. In reality, his only perceived offense stemmed from an op‑ed he penned for Newsweek, where he critiqued contemporary diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) standards, labeling them anti‑meritocratic.
Abbott proposed a fresh framework called “Merit, Fairness, and Equality,” arguing that students should be evaluated as individuals based on rigorous, unbiased criteria. After MIT’s decision, Princeton University stepped in, inviting Abbott to present his lecture. The session was so well‑received that it quickly outgrew its Zoom capacity, necessitating a cyber‑conference expansion.
8 Treating Moderates Like Radicals
Disinviting conservative speakers from campus stages is nothing new, a fact documented extensively by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). While overt bans peaked around 2016 and have modestly declined since, a subtler form of gate‑keeping has taken root.
Recent analyses suggest that left‑leaning student groups now dominate speaker‑selection committees, effectively sidelining moderate voices. In January 2021, the National Review reported that the right‑leaning faction of Princeton’s historic American Whig‑Cliosophic Society faced a double‑standard: the left‑leaning party’s speaker list sailed through with ease, while the conservative side saw two of its nominees rejected as “too controversial.”
One of the rejected nominees was George Will, a Pulitzer‑winning columnist and Washington Post contributor who also happens to be a Princeton alumnus. His reputation for measured, reasoned commentary makes his dismissal all the more puzzling.
The episode underscores a growing discomfort with moderate conservative voices, suggesting that campuses may be treating even well‑established, balanced perspectives as ideological threats.
7 Banning Conservative Student Organizations
Even more alarming than speaker bans is the outright prohibition of conservative student groups. In 2017, Santa Clara University’s student senate voted down a proposal to establish a Turning Point USA chapter—a group dedicated to promoting fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government among students.
The vote tally read 10 in favor, 16 against. Student senate chair Neil Datar defended the outcome as the product of a “rigorous, fair, and democratic process,” highlighting how democracy can paradoxically enable undemocratic outcomes. Ahmer Israr, a senator who voted for the club, lamented that his peers “trampled upon the rights of an intellectual minority group on campus by engaging in a tyranny of the majority.”
Supporters argued that the organization represented mainstream conservative thought, yet opponents painted it as a potential extremist threat—a narrative that equated any vaguely conservative stance with Nazism or white supremacy.
This episode illustrates how even mainstream political viewpoints can be marginalized under the banner of protecting campus inclusivity.
6 Illiberal Liberalism
The suppression of conservative voices is not the only trend; left‑leaning scholars who fail to meet an ever‑rising progressive litmus test are also being sidelined. Portland State University’s tenured philosophy professor Peter Boghossian, a self‑described classical liberal who has never voted Republican, found himself at the center of such a controversy.
Boghossian’s teaching philosophy emphasized exposing students to a wide spectrum of ideas, often inviting speakers whose viewpoints he personally disagreed with. He explained, “I invited those speakers not because I agreed with their worldviews, but primarily because I didn’t.” He argued that grappling with uncomfortable perspectives cultivates critical thinking, respectful debate, and even the possibility of changing minds.
University administrators, however, accused him of turning the campus into a “Social Justice factory” that prioritized race, gender, and victimhood over rigorous inquiry. He contended that the institution had abandoned its core mission of truth‑seeking, fostering instead a climate where dissenting opinions are silenced and students are trained to echo ideological certainties.
Boghossian’s resignation letter, posted on Bari Weiss’s Substack, paints a stark picture of progressive groupthink that tolerates no deviation, even from scholars who share left‑leaning values but refuse to toe the line.
5 Abdicating Their Primary Purpose: Education
The resignation letter also highlights a broader crisis: universities appear to be abandoning their foundational role of fostering intellectual curiosity. Boghossian argues that faculty and administrators have swapped the pursuit of truth for an intolerance of divergent beliefs, effectively muting open discourse.
He cites examples where questions challenging “approved narratives” during diversity trainings were instantly dismissed, and any demand for evidence to support new policies was labeled a microaggression. Professors faced accusations of bigotry simply for assigning canonical texts authored by European, male philosophers.
Even the act of showing critically acclaimed films can trigger institutional backlash. This climate of virtue‑signaling and thought policing mirrors the dynamics of social media, where any deviation from the prevailing orthodoxy is swiftly censored.
In such an environment, higher education risks turning students into compliant followers rather than independent shepherds, stifling the very creativity and critical analysis that colleges are meant to nurture.
4 Deciding What’s Funny (and What Isn’t)
Political correctness has turned many college campuses into no‑go zones for comedians who simply want to make people laugh. The issue isn’t confined to conservative comics; it spans the entire comedic spectrum.
Even liberal figures like Bill Maher have steered clear of campuses after UC Berkeley activists opposed his 2014 commencement address due to past jokes about Muslims. Iconic, apolitical performers such as Jerry Seinfeld avoid college venues because of perceived hypersensitivity among student audiences.
Edgier comedians—Louis C.K., Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, Pete Davidson—also forgo college gigs, insisting that comedy should push boundaries and provoke thought. Historically, pioneers like Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Joan Rivers, and Lenny Bruce would likely have faced similar bans.
The growing aversion to humor on campuses signals a troubling shift: an environment where the very act of making people laugh is viewed with suspicion, stifling a vital form of cultural expression.
3 Denying Due Process
The push for robust mechanisms to protect survivors of sexual misconduct has been a long‑overdue victory. Yet, in many institutions, the drive to safeguard victims has inadvertently stripped accused students—often men—of basic due‑process protections.
In a 2017 Atlantic article, Emily Yoffe detailed how a single accusation could derail a student’s entire academic career. She highlighted cases where mutual encounters, later deemed “uncomfortable” by one party, led to formal complaints that resulted in suspensions, housing bans, and severe stress‑related health issues.
One illustrative scenario involved a woman who performed oral sex on a fully clothed man, after which she later claimed she “realized I’d been sexually assaulted.” The ensuing investigation led to the man’s suspension and loss of housing, ultimately forcing him to drop two classes.
Yoffe argues that such outcomes, while well‑intentioned, risk undermining the legitimacy of anti‑sexual‑violence efforts by denying accused students a fair hearing, thereby eroding confidence in campus disciplinary processes.
2 A Growing Gender Imbalance
The era when women were catching up to men in higher education has flipped, and now women constitute a clear majority. For the 2021‑22 academic year, women made up nearly 60 % of college enrollees—a gap that has steadily widened over decades.
Historically, enrollment figures were roughly balanced, but recent data shows a decline of about one million students overall, with men accounting for more than 70 % of that drop. Experts point to several factors: boys are more likely to be held back, drop out, or struggle with reading proficiency in K‑12, while many young men gravitate toward immediate employment in fields such as construction or law enforcement, which traditionally do not require a college degree.
The ramifications are significant. College graduates earn, on average, 56 % more than high‑school graduates—a difference translating into over a million dollars in lifetime earnings. Moreover, graduates tend to experience lower unemployment during recessions, enjoy better health outcomes, and report higher levels of happiness and marital stability.
Understanding and addressing this gender disparity will be crucial for policymakers and educators aiming to maintain a balanced, thriving higher‑education ecosystem.
1 Prompting a “Radical Centrist” Education Backlash
Ironically, the very last entry on this list may turn out to be a hopeful sign—if only it had to exist. A growing cohort of moderates from across the political spectrum has decided to forge their own institution, citing the need for a truly open‑minded academic environment.
In November 2021, a coalition of current and former Harvard faculty announced plans for the University of Austin, a Texas‑based liberal‑arts college designed to counter what its founders perceive as pervasive censorship in higher education.
Among the founders are notable figures such as former New York Times columnist Bari Weiss, ex‑Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers, Kennedy School professor Arthur C. Brooks, cognitive psychologist Steven A. Pinker, and Brown University economist Glenn C. Loury. Their collective vision emphasizes a return to rigorous, evidence‑based discourse free from ideological constraints.
Pinker warned that many universities have become trapped in a rut characterized by soaring tuition, bloated bureaucracy, bizarre admissions criteria, and a homogenized political climate that silences dissent. Co‑founder Panayiotis Kanelos echoed this sentiment, questioning whether the storied motto “Veritas” still holds true in institutions where the pursuit of truth appears to have been sidelined.
The emergence of the University of Austin underscores a broader backlash: a yearning for campuses that prioritize intellectual diversity, merit, and open dialogue over conformity.