In modern higher education, students hold unprecedented power over faculty and university governance. This influence, shaped by the combined forces of cancel culture, student consumerism, and administrative bloat, has shifted the traditional power dynamics, leading to significant consequences for how universities function and how faculty engage with students. Although student empowerment can sometimes drive positive change, the current level of influence has become oppressive, hindering the academic freedom, autonomy, and intellectual rigor that higher education seeks to uphold.
The Weaponization of Student Voice
Cancel culture has made it possible for students to amplify grievances or objections to give them a type of veto power over faculty. Recording of classes posted on social media can lead to intense and immediate backlash, often for things taken out of context or at the whim of an emotional reaction. In many cases, faculty who attempt to introduce controversial ideas, engage in difficult discussions, or simply express an unpopular opinion may find themselves targeted, with students mobilizing to demand their removal, disciplinary action, or public apology. This climate has forced many faculty members to censor their teaching, avoid contentious topics, and minimize challenging coursework, all to avoid the potential repercussions of offending students. The power students hold in this dynamic can be oppressive, leaving professors with limited control over their curriculum and pedagogical approach, weakening the educational value of open inquiry and debate.
Student Consumerism: The “Customer is Always Right” Mentality
As higher education costs rise, students and their families increasingly view college as a consumer transaction. This “student as customer” mentality gives students a sense of entitlement over their educational experience, fostering the belief that they should have significant influence over faculty, curriculum, grading, and campus policies.
Such students expect universities and faculty to cater to their demands, even when these demands conflict with academic standards or intellectual rigor. For instance, students may pressure professors for higher grades or more lenient deadlines, viewing any refusal as a poor “customer service” experience. This approach has led to a shift in the classroom dynamic, where students can feel empowered to evaluate and influence professors’ decisions, sometimes demanding curriculum changes or relaxed grading to match their preferences.
This consumer mindset undermines faculty autonomy and compromises academic standards, as professors feel pressure to appease students to avoid negative evaluations or complaints that might impact their careers. In essence, faculty are forced into the role of service providers, which reduces their authority and shifts power to students in a way that may compromise the depth and rigor of education.
Administrative Bloat: The Bureaucratic Cushion for Student Grievances
Administrative bloat has increased the number of non-academic staff in universities, often in roles designed to cater to student needs, experiences, and complaints. While some of these roles serve legitimate purposes—such as ensuring student safety, compliance with regulations, and supporting diverse student populations—this growth has created an extensive support network that can empower students to challenge faculty more directly and frequently.
With more administrators available to field student grievances, students find it easier to report issues, file complaints, and demand change within university structures. Administrative staff often feel pressured to respond quickly and decisively to these complaints to maintain student satisfaction and prevent potential public relations issues. This can create an institutional bias in favor of student concerns, even when they conflict with faculty perspectives or academic freedom. Administrators may side with students in disputes to avoid controversy or backlash, reinforcing student authority over faculty. With administrative structures expanding in this way, students gain leverage to challenge faculty decisions on grading, content, or classroom management, effectively placing themselves above faculty judgment.
An Imbalanced Power Dynamic in Higher Education
The intersection of cancel culture, student consumerism, and administrative bloat has created a system where students hold more sway over university operations and faculty conduct than ever before, contributing to the decline in higher education. It has led to the suppression of academic freedom, where faculty report avoiding teaching certain topics or being barred from doing so because of backlash, complaints and administrative interference. Rather than fostering a challenging intellectual environment, academic rigor, critical thinking and openness are sacrificed in favor of the feelings of the most sensitive or the least capable.
This is further reinforced by the pressure to reduce expectations in the classroom under the guise of inclusivity. Faculty are increasingly encouraged to adjust their expectations, reducing reading requirements and workloads to meet students where they are instead of expecting students to rise to the challenge and grow. Reducing standards is not about fairness; rather, fairness is used as a bludgeon to compromise academic integrity so those who struggle will bear no consequence for their lack of preparation or ability.
There is an erosion of faculty authority in the classroom, as lived experience and opinion rather than disciplinary expertise become the lenses through which evaluation should take place. Faculty autonomy is undermined by accountability to student demands and satisfaction surveys couched as “evaluations.” Navigating threats of cancellation, complaints, and lack of administrative support places a large burden on faculty mental health. Many faculty report feeling anxious, unsupported, and undervalued, driving those dedicated to the integrity of higher education away from the profession.
How to Rebalance the Power in Higher Education
Addressing this imbalance requires universities to reevaluate their approach to governance, student relations, and administrative structure. It must first start with reinforcing academic freedom and support for faculty. Universities must explicitly protect faculty members’ right to academic freedom and provide them with institutional support when they engage in challenging or controversial teaching. Clear policies that protect professors’ ability to engage in intellectual discourse are essential.
A mindset shift is also important. Educational institutions should actively promote a culture where students see themselves as active participants in learning rather than as customers. This could involve orientation programs, campaigns, or statements from leadership that emphasize the role of education in personal growth and critical thinking, not simply as a commodity.
For example, when one pays for a personal trainer to improve their fitness, there is an understanding that the money will be wasted without listening to the trainer and putting in the hard work. In the same way, universities can reinforce for students that what they are paying for is not a piece of paper that qualifies them for a job but the opportunity to be trained by those who are intellectually advanced and for access to experiences designed to help them grow. Attending university should be marketed as a transformative experience that prepares students for the challenges they will face once they graduate. This cannot happen when they fail to recognize their role as learners who will be pushed and instead come in feeling empowered to curate a path to graduation where any challenge is removed by a simple complaint to the administrators ready to coddle.
Promote Growth, Not Weakness
The combined effects of cancel culture, student consumerism, and administrative bloat have given students considerable power in higher education, but this empowerment has come with detriments to faculty autonomy, academic standards, and intellectual rigor, all of which undermine the ability of educators to create a transformative experience for students. While developing a voice is part of what higher education can help students cultivate, the current system gives them a voice unearned and creates an imbalanced system that stifles free inquiry, overburdens faculty, and compromises educational quality. By restoring a healthy balance of power, universities can better support their mission to foster critical thinking, protect academic freedom, and provide a meaningful, rigorous education.
Image by zhu difeng — Adobe Stock — Asset ID#: 76344126
This article was originally published at www.mindingthecampus.org
