Universities are often recognized as beacons of tolerance and critical thought, even as campuses grapple with rising instances of antisemitism (anti-Jewish bias) and Islamophobia. Faculty are expected to lead conversations on complex and sensitive issues like these, make difficult ideas accessible, challenge prejudice and foster learning environments where all students feel respected and heard.
However, recent data highlight a subtle yet significant gap. Non-religious faculty, a growing national demographic, and a large percentage of faculty represented in this study appear to exhibit lower levels of confidence and engagement in addressing these issues. This does not necessarily indicate disinterest but may signal a call to action for more comprehensive support and training for educators on topics related to and across the academic spectrum.
We, as part of the InFORM project, surveyed nearly 1,000 faculty members about their opinions on various aspects of university life, including religion, antisemitism (anti-Jewish bias) and Islamophobia on campus.
Of the 977 usable responses, 30.71% of faculty identified as “Not Religious, Agnostic, Atheist, Secular or Humanist.” Most respondents identified as Male (52.3%) or Female (44.7%), with a small percentage (1.3%) identifying with another gender. By race, respondents were predominantly White (71.7%). The top three primary academic areas were “Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics” (27.7%), “Social Science” (22.7%) and “Arts and Humanities” (19.7%), while “Business” and “Education” each accounted for 14.7% of the respondents’
disciplines. Tenure status was 49.7% tenured, 35.0% non-tenure-track and 14.7% tenure-track but not yet tenured.
The most common political leaning was “Liberal” (36.7%), followed closely by “Very Liberal” (35.7%). “Moderates” accounted for 16.7%. Significantly fewer respondents identified as “Conservative” (3.7%) or “Very Conservative” (0.0%).
Data were weighted to represent national norms across various factors, including region and institutional control. Analyses identified statistically significant differences between faculty identifying as Not Religious, Agnostic, Atheist, Secular or Humanist and all other respondents. In simpler terms, these adjustments ensure the results reflect a balanced national picture rather than an isolated sample. The findings reveal meaningful contrasts in how non-religious and religious faculty approach issues of faith, discrimination and campus inclusion—insights that underscore the need for broader institutional support and training.
The data reveal a consistent trend. When compared to All Other Respondents, those identifying as “Not Religious, Agnostic, Atheist, Secular or Humanist” consistently report lower mean scores across statements related to religious prejudice. Most notably, non-religious faculty show significantly less confidence in addressing issues of antisemitism and the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict within the classroom. While this might appear as apathy, it likely reflects a lack of specific training, concern about missteps or the perception that these issues are primarily the responsibility of religious studies departments or personally invested faculty. Regardless, this lack of confidence may result in important conversations being sidestepped, compromising student learning.
Also striking is the statistically significant difference in perception regarding campus climate. Non-religious faculty are less likely to view their campus or department as a welcoming place for Muslims than all other faculty.
This critical assessment, although potentially accurate, highlights a disconnect that warrants attention. Educators recognize their campus as less welcoming for Muslims, but are less likely to engage in learning about Islam or to discuss Islamophobia with students.
Furthermore, the data suggest a knowledge gap between non-religious and religious faculty regarding Judaism and Islam. Non-religious faculty reported spending less time learning about Judaism and Islam, which may contribute to lower confidence in navigating sensitive topics effectively.
It is crucial to interpret these findings not as an indictment of non-religious faculty but as an opportunity for growth and improved inclusivity. The responsibility to combat antisemitism (anti-Jewish bias) and Islamophobia, like all forms of prejudice, extends to everyone in the academic community, irrespective of their personal beliefs.
Ultimately, a secular approach to education includes fostering an environment where all students feel safe and represented and where sensitive topics are handled with knowledge and care. To bridge this gap, universities must invest in inclusive, comprehensive professional development. They must equip faculty with tools to address religious discrimination confidently.
This includes understanding historical and contemporary manifestations of antisemitism (anti-Jewish bias) and Islamophobia and developing strategies for facilitating difficult classroom dialogues. Programs that encourage deeper understanding of diverse religious traditions—without advocating for any belief system—can enhance faculty readiness.
By empowering all educators to confront prejudice, campuses can embody their ideals of intellectual rigor and genuine inclusivity.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
