Navigating Academic Freedom and Student Concerns in Doctoral Education at Hispanic-Serving Institutions: A Faculty Perspective

Abstract

This short communication examines the intersection of academic freedom concerns and doctoral student experiences at Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) during a period of increasing legislative restrictions on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Drawing from faculty observations during doctoral residency weeks at one HSI educational leadership program, this piece explores how doctoral students navigate dissertation topic selection in an environment where diversity-related research may be perceived as entering legal or political “gray areas.” The communication contextualizes these observations within the broader landscape of academic freedom challenges facing higher education, particularly at institutions serving predominantly minoritized populations. Recent data reveals that 91% of faculty across the United States believe academic freedom is under threat, with particularly acute challenges facing institutions designated as Hispanic-Serving Institutions. These observations reveal a fundamental disconnect between educational practitioners pursuing doctoral degrees and policymakers, where research-based inclusive practices designed to benefit all students are misperceived as politically controversial. These observations suggest that doctoral students at HSIs face unique pressures as they balance their commitment to addressing educational equity issues with concerns about professional and academic risks in an increasingly restrictive policy environment.

1. Introduction

Higher education institutions across the United States are experiencing unprecedented challenges to academic freedom, particularly regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives (American Association of University Professors, 2024; Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, 2024). Recent surveys reveal that 91% of U.S. faculty agree that academic freedom is under threat across higher education, with 35% reporting they tone down their written work to avoid controversy, creating a complex environment for doctoral education where students must navigate between their scholarly interests and emerging policy constraints (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, 2024; Inside Higher Ed, 2024). This situation is particularly pronounced at Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), which serve 66% of all Latinx students in the country and play a critical role in developing diverse educational leaders (García et al., 2019).

The challenges facing HSIs have intensified significantly in 2025. The Trump administration announced it will not defend a decades-old grant program for colleges with large numbers of Hispanic students, declaring the government believes the funding is unconstitutional (CNN Politics, 2025). This development, combined with broader attacks on DEI initiatives, creates an environment of heightened uncertainty for doctoral programs at these institutions, particularly those focused on educational leadership.

Educational leadership doctoral programs represent a distinct form of professional doctorate designed specifically for practicing educators. Unlike traditional academic doctorates that prepare researchers for faculty careers, these programs serve superintendents, principals, curriculum directors, and other school administrators who seek to address real-world problems in their current professional roles. Students typically remain employed in their educational positions while completing coursework focused on applied research, organizational leadership, policy analysis, and educational improvement strategies. The doctorate (Ed.D.) culminates in a dissertation that addresses a specific problem of practice within the student’s professional context, making these programs inherently focused on improving educational outcomes for the populations these practitioners serve. This practitioner-scholar identity creates particular tensions in the current political environment, where research that addresses educational equity may be perceived as politically controversial despite being grounded in established educational theory and practice.

Since 2023, 18 states (AL, AR, FL, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, MS, NC, ND, OH, OK, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY) have passed legislation that restricts DEI initiatives in public higher education institutions (Best Colleges, 2025; MOST Policy Initiative, 2024). These legislative developments have intensified concerns about academic freedom in higher education, with recent proposals aimed at restricting ideas on campus now more likely to become law or policy under the current federal administration (PEN America, 2025; Chronicle of Higher Education, 2025). Specifically, higher restrictions have been placed on academic freedom in Iowa in August 2025, sparked by a professor’s discussion of DEI work and policies at the University of Iowa (Iowa Capital Dispatch, 2025a, 2025b).

The situation is especially complex at HSIs, where doctoral students often come from practitioner backgrounds in underserved districts and schools, pursuing research that addresses real-world challenges affecting student achievement. A critical disconnect exists between educational professionals and policymakers regarding the nature and purpose of educational equity research. Educational practitioners understand that inclusive practices such as Universal Design for Learning, culturally responsive pedagogy, and differentiated instruction are evidence-based approaches that benefit all students by addressing diverse learning needs (Kieran & Anderson, 2019; A. Meyer et al., 2018). However, policymakers often misconstrue these universal approaches as targeting specific demographic groups rather than recognizing their inclusive design principles.

Educational leadership doctoral programs serve a distinctive population that reveals fundamental tensions between research, policy, and practice. Doctoral students in educational leadership are predominantly practitioners, teachers, principals, superintendents, and other educational administrators, who pursue advanced degrees to address authentic problems they encounter in their professional practice (Kean University, 2025; Clemson University, 2025). This practitioner identity creates unique challenges in the current political environment.

The disconnect between educational professionals and policymakers has been extensively documented in educational research literature, with studies showing fundamental differences in priorities, timelines, and understandings of what constitutes useful research (Scott & Jabbar, 2014; Kirst, 2000; Nutley et al., 2007). As one Miami University researcher noted, “the main problem with educational policy, if it can be summarized quickly, is that far too many people outside of education, who are themselves not educators, are making consequential decisions about education” (Wronowski, 2018). This disconnection is particularly problematic because it leads to misunderstanding about the nature and purpose of educational equity research.

Research indicates that policymakers and practitioners often have different priorities and perceptions about what constitutes useful and valid research, the role of theory, data quality and research methods, and project outcomes (Orland, 2009; Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010). Educational practitioners live in “different worlds with differing languages, values and professional rewards” from policymakers, creating fundamental communication barriers (Kirst, 2000; Wronowski, 2018).

For doctoral students who are practicing educators, this disconnect creates a professional identity crisis. They understand from direct experience that inclusive educational practices such as culturally responsive teaching, Universal Design for Learning, and differentiated instruction benefit all students by addressing diverse learning needs and preferences (Bass & Lawrence-Riddell, 2021; A. Meyer et al., 2018). These approaches are not designed to exclude or disadvantage any students; rather, they are explicitly designed to ensure that all students can access content and demonstrate mastery regardless of their individual learning patterns, cultural backgrounds, or abilities.

However, the current political environment often mischaracterizes these evidence-based practices as ideologically driven or as targeting specific demographic groups. As educational practitioners pursuing doctoral research, students face the dilemma of whether to pursue studies that address the real problems they encounter in their professional practice, knowing that policymakers may misinterpret their inclusive approaches as politically problematic.

It is vital to recognize that this gap has and will continue to manifest in several ways, if not widely recognized and addressed. Policymakers often prioritize political considerations and short-term outcomes over long-term educational research, while educators focus on classroom-level implementation and student-centered approaches. Policymakers also may lack understanding of educational research methodologies and evidence standards, while educators may not fully appreciate the political constraints and stakeholder pressures that shape policy decisions. This disconnect becomes particularly problematic when evidence-based educational practices are mischaracterized as politically motivated, creating barriers between research, policy, and effective practice. For doctoral students who are practicing educators, this disconnect creates tension as they pursue research that addresses real educational problems but may be perceived as politically controversial by policymakers unfamiliar with educational evidence.

2. Theoretical Framework

This communication draws on García et al.’s (2019) multidimensional conceptual framework for understanding “servingness” in Hispanic-Serving Institutions, supplemented by research on the disconnect between educational research, policy, and practice. García et al.’s framework identifies four interconnected dimensions: (1) outcomes focus on measurable student success indicators; (2) experiences examine the quality of student interactions within the institution; (3) internal organizational dimensions address institutional structures, policies, and practices that support servingness; and (4) external influences consider how broader policy environments affect institutional capacity to serve students. These dimensions work synergistically, external policy pressures directly impact internal organizational capacity, which in turn affects student experiences and ultimately outcomes.

The concept of “servingness” is multidimensional and centers on institutional structures that shape the institutional context for student success while affirming students’ cultural backgrounds (García et al., 2019). For doctoral programs at HSIs, this framework helps illuminate how institutions must balance their commitment to developing diverse educational leaders with the constraints imposed by legislative restrictions.

This communication integrates multiple theoretical perspectives. García et al.’s (2019) servingness framework provides the primary lens for understanding HSI mission and challenges. This is supplemented by organizational theory regarding institutional responses to external pressures (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), research on academic freedom and institutional autonomy (American Association of University Professors, 2024; American Political Science Association, 2025), policy implementation theory addressing the disconnect between policy intentions and educational practice (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973), and sociological perspectives on professional identity development under constraints (Goffman, 1963). These theoretical perspectives work together to illuminate how doctoral students at HSIs navigate the intersection of personal mission, institutional constraints, and external political pressures. The framework is further enhanced by perspectives from education policy research on the research-policy-practice disconnect (Nutley et al., 2007), higher education law regarding institutional autonomy (American Association of University Professors, 2024), and sociological understandings of how external pressures affect institutional culture and student experiences (J. W. Meyer & Rowan, 1977).

2.1. The Paradox of Universal Design

The current environment creates a paradox where research-based practices designed to improve educational outcomes for all students are being characterized as ideologically driven rather than empirically supported. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, differentiated instruction, and culturally responsive pedagogy are established methodologies supported by decades of research, yet students expressed concern about pursuing dissertation research in these areas.

Recent research confirms that UDL is not currently taught regularly or consistently as part of initial teacher training programs, and when trainee teachers do encounter UDL concepts, only 24.1% are able to implement the pedagogical practices effectively (Vitelli, 2015). This suggests that the current political restrictions may further limit educators’ access to evidence-based practices that could benefit all students.

Similarly, research on integrating universal design with culturally sustaining pedagogy demonstrates that these approaches create more inclusive undergraduate classrooms that benefit students across demographic groups by addressing diverse learning needs and cultural backgrounds (Kieran & Anderson, 2019). The characterization of these inclusive approaches as politically problematic represents a fundamental misunderstanding of their universal design principles.

2.2. Observational Approach

This communication draws from a descriptive observational approach based on experiences conducted during two intensive doctoral residency weeks at a Hispanic-Serving Institution in the eastern United States. The regularly scheduled residencies occurred during summer 2025, involving approximately 35 doctoral students in an educational leadership program. The author served as faculty observer during structured curriculum sessions, informal student discussions, and dissertation planning workshops. All students participated in the curriculum sessions where research discussions occurred, though the specific quotes and concerns presented in this communication represent approximately 12–15 students who raised explicit questions about dissertation topic selection and political climate concerns during group discussions and informal conversations. Observations were recorded through detailed field notes taken during and immediately following each session.

The observational protocol focused on naturally occurring student discourse about research interests, dissertation topic selection, and concerns about current political climate impacts on their scholarly work. Thematic reflection on observations employed an inductive thematic approach, with initial codes developed through line-by-line analysis of field notes. Recurring patterns were identified through iterative review, with particular attention to themes related to academic freedom concerns, self-censorship behaviors, and institutional navigation strategies.

While this approach does not constitute formal human subjects research requiring institutional review board approval, it provides valuable documentation of student experiences during a critical historical moment in higher education. The observational nature of this work, combined with the anonymous presentation of student concerns, allows for insight into doctoral student experiences while maintaining ethical standards for informal educational observation. All students who participated in the doctoral residency weeks that informed these observations were subsequently notified of this manuscript’s submission and content focus. Notification included information about how residency discussions contributed to the faculty observations presented herein, with assurance that all individual contributions remain anonymous and non-identifiable.

2.3. Author Positionality

The observations presented in this commentary emerge from the author’s role as faculty member within the educational leadership doctoral program at the HSI where these residencies occurred. The author holds a position in educational leadership and serves on doctoral committees, creating both access to student conversations and potential power dynamics that may have influenced student disclosure. The author’s research background in educational equity and multicultural education likely made students more comfortable sharing concerns about diversity-related research topics, though it may also have led to confirmation bias in observation focus. This positionality creates both advantages and limitations for the observations presented. The author’s insider status provided access to genuine student concerns but may have influenced which students chose to share concerns and how they framed their statements. The power differential inherent in faculty-student relationships must be acknowledged as potentially affecting the nature and content of student disclosures

3. Current Context

Research indicates that effective educational improvement requires collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and practitioners, but that these groups often operate in separate worlds with different goals, timelines, and incentives (OECD Education and Skills Today, 2023; Scott & Jabbar, 2014). The current political environment has exacerbated these disconnections, creating particular challenges for practitioner-scholars who must navigate between their professional knowledge and political pressures.

3.1. Federal-Level Developments

Recent developments include proposed changes to accreditation oversight that could affect institutional autonomy and mission-driven programming (PEN America, 2025). The landscape for academic freedom has shifted dramatically with the implementation of policies outlined in Project 2025. The administration could move to eliminate public student loan forgiveness, impose federal regulations on the accreditation process, and require federally funded research to be aligned with the administration’s priorities (Weingarten, 2025). These changes directly affect doctoral students, particularly those at HSIs who may be pursuing research on topics now considered politically sensitive.

At a minimum, they will likely pursue efforts to ban accreditors from having or enforcing DEI standards, a restriction called for in Project 2025 and one that may not require legislative changes in order to take effect (PEN America, 2025). This development is particularly concerning for HSIs, as it could affect their accreditation status based on their fundamental mission to serve Hispanic and Latino populations. Additional fallout could include the current administration moving to eliminate public student loan forgiveness, impose federal regulations on the accreditation process, and require federally funded research to be aligned with the administration’s priorities, even when such research topics are politically sensitive despite being supported by extensive research evidence (Weingarten, 2025).

3.2. State-Level Restrictions and Their Impact on Research

The state-level restrictions have created a patchwork of policies that directly affect doctoral education. DEI restrictions make faculty less likely to engage with work that focuses on DEI issues, and, as an example of this in action, a faculty survey examining the impact of DEI restrictions found that 74% of LGBTQ+ faculty have experienced negative effects to their mental health (Goldberg, 2024; MOST Policy Initiative, 2024).

A study involving 32 faculty members from two public universities found that proposed legislation targeting DEI and race-focused curricula led to faculty self-censoring their teaching and research, with faculty fearing repercussions even though their work was protected under academic freedom (Pedota et al., 2025). This self-censorship likely extends to doctoral students, who must consider not only their academic interests but also the potential professional consequences of pursuing certain research topics.

Faculty who identify as Black, Latino/a, Indigenous or Asian report changing course content, limiting research agendas, canceling courses, or leaving their institutions. In a 2024 study of academics in AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, and VA, 30% mentioned tenure protections and DEI as a primary factor in seeking employment outside of their current state (MOST Policy Initiative, 2024).

3.3. Chilling Effects on Educational Innovation

The self-censorship described by doctoral students suggests broader implications for educational innovation. Educational research, policy making, and classroom practice all share a common goal of improving student learning, but this overarching goal may become lost as other forces come into play (OECD Education and Skills Today, 2023). When emerging educational leaders avoid researching proven strategies for addressing achievement gaps, this could limit the development and dissemination of effective practices in schools and districts serving diverse populations.

Recent surveys by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (2024) show that over 90% of faculty believe academic freedom is under threat, with particularly high rates of self-censorship reported across multiple institutional types. This international and domestic perspective suggests that the challenges facing U.S. higher education are part of a broader global pattern, but the specific targeting of DEI initiatives creates unique challenges for institutions with mission-driven commitments to serving diverse populations.

4. Student Experiences

4.1. The Practitioner-Scholar Identity Crisis

Multiple students described feeling caught between their professional commitment to addressing achievement gaps and their concerns about potential professional consequences. This tension is particularly acute for educational leadership doctoral students because they are practicing administrators who must return to their professional roles while completing their doctoral studies. One student, a Title I elementary principal, explained her reluctance to pursue research on culturally responsive pedagogy, stating, “I know this work makes a difference for my kids, but I’m worried about how it might be perceived by the school board or state officials.”

This concern reflects a fundamental misunderstanding that has been fostered by the current political environment. Culturally responsive pedagogy, Universal Design for Learning, and differentiated instruction are not approaches designed to advantage some students over others. Rather, they are inclusive frameworks specifically designed to ensure that all students can access content and demonstrate mastery regardless of their individual learning patterns, cultural backgrounds, or abilities (Kieran & Anderson, 2019; A. Meyer et al., 2018). Additionally, multiple students specifically noted concerns about how their research might affect their institution’s HSI designation and federal funding, with one student stating, “I worry that if my research is seen as too focused on Latino students, it might somehow hurt the institution’s ability to get federal grants.”

As one administrator-student noted, “I became an educator to serve all kids, but now I feel like I have to pretend that equity-minded practices are somehow radical instead of just good teaching.” This sentiment reflects the disconnect between educational practitioners, who understand that inclusive practices benefit everyone, and policymakers, who may misinterpret these approaches as politically controversial.

4.2. The Misperception of Universal Approaches

A critical insight from these observations is that students’ concerns often centered on practices that are explicitly designed to be universal and inclusive. For example, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is an educational framework based on neuroscience research that provides multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression to support all learners (A. Meyer et al., 2018). UDL principles benefit students with and without disabilities, English language learners and native speakers, and students from all cultural backgrounds because they address the natural variation in how people learn.

Similarly, culturally responsive teaching is not about advantaging students from specific cultural groups, but about recognizing that all students bring cultural knowledge and experiences that can be leveraged for learning. When implemented effectively, culturally responsive approaches create more inclusive learning environments that benefit all students by making content more accessible and relevant (Gay, 2018).

Students expressed frustration that these evidence-based, inclusive practices are being characterized as divisive or as targeting specific groups. As one doctoral student noted, “When I differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all my students, whether they’re English learners, have disabilities, or come from different cultural backgrounds, I’m not taking anything away from other students. I’m making sure everyone can succeed.”

5. Institutional Implications

Students discussed various strategies for pursuing equity-focused research while minimizing perceived risks. The most commonly mentioned approach involved reframing language, with students reporting they would use terms like “student success,” “academic achievement,” or “closing achievement gaps” instead of “equity,” “social justice,” or “DEI.” Students noted that this linguistic reframing often felt disingenuous but was seen as necessary for institutional and professional safety. Many students also described emphasizing universal benefits as a protective strategy, highlighting how inclusive practices benefit all students rather than focusing on specific demographic groups. This approach was seen as politically safer but potentially less precise in addressing the specific challenges faced by marginalized populations.

Several students discussed selecting methodologies as a form of strategic adaptation, choosing quantitative over qualitative approaches to appear more “objective” and less likely to be perceived as advocating for particular groups. Students noted that this methodological shift might limit their ability to capture the nuanced experiences of the populations they hoped to study, but felt it provided greater protection from political scrutiny. Geographic considerations also emerged as a significant factor, with some students discussing modifying their research focus to avoid conducting studies in states with particularly restrictive legislation, even though this meant moving away from their home communities and the contexts they knew best. These students expressed particular concern about conducting research in their home communities, which are predominantly Hispanic/Latino, noting that this geographic and demographic focus might be perceived as politically motivated rather than addressing genuine educational needs in their professional contexts. This geographic displacement represented a significant personal and professional sacrifice for students who had originally hoped to contribute to improving educational outcomes in their own communities.

5.1. Serving Diverse Populations in a Restrictive Environment

The concerns expressed by doctoral students highlight a fundamental challenge for HSIs in maintaining their “servingness” while navigating external pressures. HSIs serve a significant number of students from low-income backgrounds, with students enrolled at HSIs accounting for approximately 30 percent of all Pell Grant recipients, even though these colleges and universities make up only 13 percent of all postsecondary degree-granting institutions (The White House, 2024). For HSIs, this challenge is complicated by their dependence on federal funding that is now under direct attack. The strategic response must balance multiple considerations: maintaining institutional mission, protecting students and faculty, preserving accreditation status, and securing necessary funding. This complex balancing act requires institutions to be more sophisticated in their approach to academic freedom than ever before.

This demographic reality makes the current restrictions particularly problematic, as they may prevent future educational leaders from developing expertise in serving the very populations that HSIs are federally designated to support. When doctoral students feel compelled to avoid research topics central to their professional practice and cultural communities, the fundamental servingness of these institutions is compromised.

5.2. Educational Leadership Pipeline

The hesitancy of educational practitioners to pursue equity-focused research has potential implications for the educational leadership pipeline. Educational leadership programs are specifically designed to prepare superintendents, principals, and other educational leaders who can address challenges in diverse educational settings (Loyola Marymount University, 2025; University of Hartford, 2025). If future educational leaders are discouraged from developing expertise in evidence-based practices for serving diverse populations, this could impact educational outcomes in districts that serve predominantly minoritized students.

The long-term implications extend beyond individual career choices. HSIs can play a critical role in fostering diversity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, with 69 percent of doctoral students in HSIs enrolled in science- and engineering-related degrees (The White House, 2024). The current restrictions on research and institutional mission may significantly impact the nation’s ability to develop diverse leadership in these critical fields.

5.3. Constitutional and Funding Challenges

HSIs face existential uncertainty regarding their federal designation. The Justice Department’s decision not to defend grants for Hispanic-serving colleges, declaring them unconstitutional, creates fundamental challenges for these institutions (CNN Politics, 2025). Congress appropriated about $350 million for the HSI program in 2024, representing crucial funding that supports the infrastructure and programming that enables these institutions to serve their students effectively.

Despite the fact that HSIs represent a large and fast-growing segment of the Nation’s colleges and universities, per-student Federal funding at HSIs is 25 percent less than at other degree-granting institutions (The White House, 2024). The potential loss of HSI-specific funding would exacerbate these already significant resource disparities, further constraining these institutions’ ability to support doctoral programs and research.

6. Recommendations

The complex challenges facing HSIs require coordinated responses from multiple stakeholders within and beyond these institutions. The following recommendations address the specific needs of different constituencies while recognizing their interconnected roles in supporting doctoral education and maintaining institutional mission.

HSI administrators must take a multifaceted approach to protecting their institutions and students. Developing comprehensive academic freedom policies that explicitly protect scholarly inquiry into educational practices is essential, particularly policies that provide clear guidance on the boundaries of protected research while affirming the institution’s commitment to its mission. For HSIs specifically, administrators must navigate the additional challenge of maintaining federal HSI designation while supporting equity-focused research, requiring specialized legal guidance on how research activities might affect institutional status and federal funding eligibility.

These administrators should also create robust institutional support networks for doctoral students pursuing equity-focused research, incorporating legal consultation, professional development opportunities, and mentorship programs that help students navigate sensitive research topics. Equally important is establishing clear communication strategies that help students and faculty articulate the educational benefits of their research using language that emphasizes universal benefits and evidence-based outcomes rather than identity-focused frameworks that may be misinterpreted. Given the uncertain funding environment, HSI administrators must develop contingency planning for potential loss of federal funding, including diversification of revenue sources and strategic partnerships with other institutions and organizations committed to educational equity. Finally, these leaders should actively build bridges with policymakers through educational initiatives that help policymakers understand the evidence-based nature of inclusive educational practices and their universal benefits for all students.

In regard to faculty advisors, they play a crucial role in preparing doctoral students for the current challenging environment. They must provide enhanced methodological training that helps students design rigorous research regardless of topic sensitivity, with particular emphasis on mixed-methods approaches that can provide both quantitative evidence and qualitative insights. Faculty should develop expertise in strategic communication that helps students articulate their research goals in multiple frameworks, allowing them to present their work to different audiences effectively without compromising scholarly integrity. Creating professional networks that connect students with scholars and practitioners working on similar issues is essential, providing support and career guidance that extends beyond the local institutional context. Additionally, faculty advisors should implement proactive career counseling that helps students understand the potential professional implications of their research choices and develop strategies for building resilient academic careers. fostering interdisciplinary collaboration that connects educational leadership students with researchers in related fields can create opportunities for broader scholarly engagement and support.

As far as doctoral students themselves, they must develop sophisticated approaches to their scholarly work and professional development. This includes developing sophisticated research frameworks that ground equity-focused research in established theoretical foundations while emphasizing empirical rigor and measurable outcomes that demonstrate benefits for all students. Students should build diverse skill sets that include both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, allowing for flexible approaches to research questions that can be adapted to different political contexts without compromising scholarly quality. Cultivating strategic communication skills that enable articulation of research goals and insights to multiple audiences, including those who may be skeptical of equity-focused work, is increasingly important. Engaging in professional networking that extends beyond the immediate institutional context and building relationships with scholars and practitioners who can provide long-term career support and collaboration opportunities will serve students well throughout their careers. Finally, developing resilience strategies that help maintain commitment to improving educational outcomes for all students while navigating political and professional challenges is essential for long-term success.

The broader higher education community must work collectively to address systemic challenges. This involves developing collaborative responses that allow institutions to share resources and strategies for protecting academic freedom while maintaining institutional missions. Creating alternative funding mechanisms that can support equity-focused research when traditional sources become unavailable or politically compromised is increasingly urgent. The community should build public communication strategies that help the broader community understand the importance of educational research and the risks associated with limiting scholarly inquiry. Engaging in policy advocacy that protects the fundamental principles of academic freedom while acknowledging legitimate concerns about institutional accountability and effectiveness requires sustained collective effort. Finally, fostering cross-sector partnerships that connect higher education institutions with K-12 schools, community organizations, and other stakeholders committed to educational improvement can strengthen the overall ecosystem supporting educational equity and excellence.

HSIs have a particular responsibility to support doctoral students pursuing research that addresses the needs of the populations they serve. This may require developing clear guidelines about academic freedom protections while also providing support for students navigating the current policy environment. College and university leaders have the capacity to defend themselves, their students, and their faculty against many of these threats, but doing so will require enormous effort, political savvy, and a willingness to put internal differences aside (PEN America, 2025).

Moving forward, HSIs must find ways to maintain their essential mission of developing diverse educational leaders while adapting to a changing policy landscape. This will require ongoing dialog between faculty, administrators, and students about how to pursue equity-focused research with both scholarly rigor and strategic awareness of current challenges. The success of this effort will have implications not only for the institutions themselves but for the millions of students they serve and the broader goal of educational equity in American society.

7. Conclusions

The observations from these doctoral residency weeks highlight the complex challenges facing HSIs as they work to maintain their commitment to serving diverse populations while navigating an increasingly restrictive policy environment. The concerns expressed by doctoral students reflect broader threats to academic freedom that extend beyond higher education into K-12 settings where these future leaders will work.

Most significantly, these observations reveal a fundamental disconnect between educational practitioners and policymakers regarding the nature and purpose of educational equity research. Doctoral students in educational leadership programs, who are predominantly practicing educators, understand from direct experience that inclusive practices such as Universal Design for Learning, culturally responsive teaching, and differentiated instruction are evidence-based approaches designed to benefit all students. However, the current political environment has created misperceptions that characterize these universal approaches as ideologically driven or as targeting specific demographic groups.

The tension between HSI servingness and external pressures requires thoughtful institutional responses that protect both academic freedom and student success. As García et al. (2019) note, true servingness involves creating conditions where students can pursue both academic excellence and cultural identity development. In the current environment, this requires HSIs to be particularly intentional about supporting doctoral students whose research addresses the needs of diverse educational communities.

The stakes of this challenge extend far beyond individual institutions or programs. HSIs serve over 4.7 million students annually and play a critical role in developing diverse leadership across multiple fields, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The current restrictions on research and institutional mission may significantly impact the nation’s ability to develop the diverse, culturally responsive educational leaders needed to serve an increasingly diverse student population.

The current moment represents both a crisis and an opportunity. While the challenges are significant, they also provide an occasion for HSIs to reaffirm their commitments, strengthen their research programs, and develop more sophisticated approaches to achieving their missions. The doctoral students whose concerns prompted this communication represent the future of educational leadership. Their success in navigating these challenges while maintaining their commitment to serving all students will ultimately determine the long-term impact of current political restrictions on educational equity and excellence.