Toward the end of the Fall ’25 semester, The Phoenix expanded its public opinion infrastructure, launching an inaugural faculty poll to complement the semesterly student body survey begun in Spring ’25. Both polls asked respondents to indicate whether they approved, strongly approved, disapproved, strongly disapproved, felt neutral, or didn’t know of several campus institutions. The polls also asked about pressing faculty and student-specific issues, as well as some topics that concern both groups.
The polls allow for a broad understanding of how Swarthmore’s campus considers these issues, but the large amount of data collected might somewhat obscure the complexities of the results, especially when examining each poll’s numbers in isolation. By putting these recent polls in conversation with each other and with the Spring ’25 student survey results, however, some important takeaways emerge.
- Nearly all campus institutions saw higher approval among students in Fall ’25 than Spring ’25.
In a 2013 campus-wide email, former Swarthmore President Rebecca Chopp famously referred to the spring semester of that year as “the spring of our discontent” due to tensions regarding the administration’s handling of sexual assaults among the student body, a controversial commencement speaker, and widespread protests against fossil fuel investments. The phrase, along with the idea that spring semesters generally foster more campus discontent than those in the fall, has lived on in Swarthmore discourse.
The Phoenix’s polling did produce almost uniformly higher approval ratings for the institutions it asked about in Fall ’25 than those of Spring ’25. Of the fourteen institutions asked about in both, only the Office of Student Engagement, the Honors Program, and the Athletics Department saw their approval ratings drop.
Many factors could be behind this increase in approval. One may be as simple as morale. Having returned from a shorter break than the summer recess, students are less well-rested going into the spring semester; the semester itself is also one week longer than the fall. Additionally, the student body (a quarter of whom have just arrived on campus for the first time) may have a generally more optimistic and uncritical view of the college and campus institutions in the fall versus the spring.
More important, though, might have been the fact that the Spring ’25 semester saw an escalation of pro-Palestinian protests and a rapid administrative crackdown, raising tensions on campus that had largely dissipated by the fall.
Finally, the increased student approval of campus institutions could be a reflection of a more ominous world beyond campus lines: as President Trump (who most students clearly oppose, based on the results of several poll questions) realized his agenda to a fuller extent over the course of the year, students might have grown more favorable to the way things are done at Swarthmore.
Notably, intentional rebranding efforts may also have been effective. Two of the institutions with the largest jumps in approval were Public Safety and the Student Government Organization (SGO), both of which underwent notable changes. Public Safety pursued modifications in their department with the goal of emphasizing approachability, while the spring’s SGO elections saw massively increased turnout as focus turned to a group of candidates running together on “The People’s Slate” with ideas to democratize Swarthmore.
2. Faculty, despite some internal disagreement, are more confident than students in the college’s ability to weather the Trump administration’s attacks on higher education.
Nearly 70% of students answered that the college’s response to the federal government’s recent attacks on higher education was too passive, whereas only 47% of the faculty did. And, while similar portions of the faculty and student body (49% vs. 47%, respectively) were at all worried about Swarthmore’s ability to fulfill its mission in the face of federal government actions, a far greater portion of the faculty than the student body (44% vs. 28%) were at all confident in this ability, in part because far fewer faculty members were “neutral” on this statement.
3. Faculty and students have notably different views on the college’s policies on grade inflation, standardized testing requirements, and artificial intelligence (AI).
Faculty seem more concerned about some recent developments affecting the classroom than students do. A strong majority (73%) of faculty respondents said they believed that there has been grade inflation at Swarthmore in recent years, and of those who believed as such, 70% were concerned. In recent semesters, the question of grade inflation has been an increasingly important and divisive issue among Swarthmore faculty, as highlighted in a recent edition of The Phoenix’s regular column “Office Hours.”
The concerns reflected in the faculty poll don’t seem to have spread to the student body, however. Only 20% of students responded that they believed there has been grade inflation at Swarthmore in recent years, and a large chunk of student respondents (45%) said that, if such inflation were happening, they wouldn’t be at all concerned. On a related note, students were generally content with current faculty grading standards, with a majority (57%) saying these standards were “just right.” Other elite colleges and universities have recently faced questions about heightened grade inflation; as such, students at Swarthmore may be less worried about inflation in Swarthmore grading standards if they perceive it as part of a broader trend. Some of the discrepancy between students and faculty may also have been due to students being unfamiliar with the concept or feeling themselves unqualified to answer the question, as 49% said they were unsure whether grade inflation had occurred.
A plurality of faculty felt that the college should reinstate its testing requirements for prospective students (44%, +20% net support). Last semester, the Office of Admissions decided to remain test-optional for the coming years, citing what Vice President and Dean of Admissions Jim Bock ’90 called “not worrisome” differences in the success between matriculated students who submitted their scores and those who didn’t. Associate Professor of Political Science Sam Handlin ’00 wrote a Letter to the Editor in opposition to the college’s policy, connecting the ubiquity of generative AI in K-12 education to the need to reinstate testing requirements. Student respondents, however, overwhelmingly rejected (-40% net support) the idea that Swarthmore reinstate test requirements.
A plurality of faculty respondents also voiced that there should be a college-wide policy regarding the usage of generative AI (43%, +10% net support). When asked how frequently they used generative AI as a tool for anything related to academics, a majority of students reported that they rarely (at most monthly) used it, while 28% said they used AI weekly, 8% said daily, and 7% said “multiple times per day.”
There was a significant disparity between the views of humanities faculty and those of social and natural sciences faculty regarding standardized testing requirements and grade inflation. Overall, respondents in the humanities division were much more likely than faculty members of the other two divisions to have perspectives similar to the student body. For instance, only 28% of humanities faculty said that Swarthmore should require standardized tests for applicants, compared with more than 50% of respondents in social and natural sciences. Also, nearly 50% of humanities respondents reported being “not at all concerned” about the prospect of grade inflation, while fewer than 21% of respondents in both the social and natural sciences felt this way.
4. Institutions of the administration enjoyed much higher approval among faculty than students.
While using net approval ratings can obfuscate the many respondents who voiced opinions different from the majority’s, faculty respondents generally felt far more positive about the institutions that make up Swarthmore’s administration than students did. President Val Smith’s Office received approval from 47% of the faculty, a strong plurality, with a net approval rating of +22%. The Provost’s Office, which has seen quite a bit of turnover in recent years but is now led by Computer Science Professor Rich Wicentowski, received 53% approval and a +36% net approval. Faculty more moderately supported the college’s practices regarding the hiring and retention of faculty (+9% net approval), a subject of recent contention, and were neutral on Swarthmore Forward (+0% net approval), the strategic plan currently being implemented.
For their perception of the administration, students were only asked for their approval of President Val Smith and Swarthmore’s administration at large. In contrast to the faculty, they voiced widespread disapproval of Smith (only 17% approval, with -26% net approval) and the administration overall (20% approval, -29% net approval).
These numbers emerged toward the end of 2025, a year that included both the aforementioned administrative crackdowns on spring protests as well as the implementation of President Trump’s agenda against higher education. The lingering effects of Swarthmore’s administrative response could have left students feeling disillusioned with the college administration, as faculty felt aligned with the college’s response to Trump.
5. Faculty flag low and declining levels of community and shared governance over the college.
While faculty were more positive about the administrative institutions of the college, they were not without concerns. 60% of faculty respondents voiced that the current level of collaboration and sense of community among the faculty was somewhat or very weak, as opposed to only 25% who said it was at all strong. And, similar portions (62%) said this level of collaboration and sense of community was at all worse than it had been in the past, with only 3% saying it was better.
Similarly, a plurality (44%) of the faculty responses described the current amount of faculty governance in the college’s decision-making process as very or somewhat small, as opposed to only 21% who felt it was at all large and 36% who were neutral. Again, 50% said this amount of faculty governance was less than it had been in the past, while only 1% said it was at all more, and 17% said it was the same, challenging Smith’s claim in a recent interview with The Phoenix that implied there was equal concern and confidence in current faculty governance.
Importantly, though, large portions of faculty respondents said they weren’t sure how the current sense of community and level of collaboration compared to those of the past (29%), or how the current amount of faculty governance did either (32%). This might reflect the significant portion of instructors who have recently been hired and therefore don’t have the institutional memory of longtime faculty members.
6. Tenured professors are more dissatisfied with the sense of community and amount of faculty governance than non-tenured faculty.
Notably, faculty displeasure with the levels of community and shared governance at the college was strongest among tenured professors. 81% of full professors and 67% of associate professors viewed the collaboration and sense of community among faculty as weak, and 67% of respondents from both faculty roles said it is worse than in the past. Tenured professors also tended to view the amount of faculty governance in college decision-making as smaller than did non-tenured professors.
This outsized dissatisfaction with the current state of faculty community and governance among tenured professors may be informed by their longer-term perspective on the campus community than non-tenured faculty. Notably, around 65% of both full and associate professors said that the amount of faculty governance is less than it has been in the past, while no other faculty role (assistant professor, visiting professor, lecturer) had more than 50% respond as such.
7. Faculty and students are aligned in their disapproval of the Board of Managers and legacy consideration in admissions.
The Phoenix asked both faculty and students for their approval of six institutions, two of which received net disapproval from both groups (Swarthmore’s Board of Managers and the consideration of legacy in college acceptance decisions). While the faculty disapproved of the Board less than the students (-5% net approval vs. -38%), these numbers do highlight another commonality between faculty and student respondents: when considering the two institutions that hold influence over all college operations, President Smith’s Office is more favorable than the Board of Managers (moderately so for the students, significantly so for the faculty).
One reason for this discrepancy might be that while both President Smith and the Board of Managers make decisions that govern the whole campus, Smith’s position is situated on campus, more directly interacting with the Swarthmore community, while the Board is composed mostly of alumni in the private sector from all over the country. Similarly, faculty might feel far more favorable toward Smith both because of the understanding her career as an academic might have allowed for and/or because they attribute the more frustrating campus decisions (those to do with funding and resources) to the Board. In the fall, during the weekend when the Board met for its quarterly meeting at the Swarthmore Inn, Swarthmore Students for Justice in Palestine distributed pamphlets calling for the Board’s divestment from companies linked to Israel. Also, that weekend, the Inn was vandalized with graffiti that read “Board of Butchers.”
The college’s other unpopular institution, legacy consideration in admissions, has been a contentious issue for several years. Opponents, including past Phoenix Editorial Boards and contributors, have objected to the continuation of the practice on the basis of equity concerns. Proponents, including Vice President and Dean of Admissions Jim Bock ’90, have pointed to the prevalence of the college’s sibling legacy policy, which allows some first-generation students to take advantage of the preference. This past fall, legacy admissions had a -43% net approval rate among faculty members, and -30% net approval among students.
8. Faculty and students are both concerned about ideological diversity
This isn’t where the shared perspectives end, however. Students and faculty also agreed on the importance of ideological diversity on campus, another contentious issue within higher education, as many leaders continue to highlight what they perceive as a liberal capture of colleges and universities. Despite many of these complaints coming from the right, 78% students on this campus, often perceived as overwhelmingly liberal, felt that ideological diversity was important among the students, and 71% felt it was important among the faculty. 60% of faculty also considered ideological diversity among the faculty to be important.
With that being said, students feel the situation regarding ideological diversity is less urgent at Swarthmore than faculty do: 38% of students were overall satisfied with ideological diversity among the faculty, compared to only 18% who were dissatisfied, whereas 27% of faculty respondents were satisfied with the ideological diversity amongst their colleagues as opposed to 30% of faculty who were dissatisfied.
While both faculty and student respondents considered “ideological diversity” important, several respondents used an open response box at the end of the polls to note that the question was potentially ambiguous. Its results could be reflective of a desire among some for more conservative voices on campus, while a desire among others for new perspectives from the left. While these motivations are quite different, the question cannot capture such nuances, and thus, the meaning of the desire for ideological diversity among faculty is not certain.
9. Both faculty and students feel that the college’s response to pro-Palestinian protests was too harsh.
Another point of agreement between the majority of faculty respondents and the majority of student respondents was a belief that the college’s response to pro-Palestinian student activism over the last three years has generally been too harsh. While a smaller majority (53%) of the faculty than students (77%) felt this way, there was significant net belief in that perspective among both groups (+30% net belief in the response being too harsh among faculty, +66% among students).
While Fall 2025 was a quieter semester in terms of campus activism, this point of commonality between faculty and students could have been in reaction to Smith’s decision at the very end of the Spring 2025 semester to call local law enforcement and dismantle a pro-Palestine encampment. Faculty may have felt her decision was part of a broader, increasingly punitive approach to pro-Palestine protests, given the administration’s increased disciplinary actions in response to student activism in recent years.
