Encouraging education as a political pathway prepares students for civic involvement. Higher education has long existed within a relationship between institutional autonomy and government influence, reflecting broader social structures that shape how individuals understand citizenship and opportunity.
From a young age, we are told the almost prophetic story of the American dream: that personal effort, education and hard work can lead to economic security and social mobility. When citizens believe that opportunities are accessible, trust in democratic solutions can develop alongside a sense of personal responsibility. Communities who still hold faith in the American dream are found to be civically engaged, but systematic barriers or economic stagnation can trigger political alienation.
Higher education therefore occupies an important position within our connection to politics, as college can provide not only a pathway toward employment and economic independence, but also the knowledge and confidence necessary to participate in government. Yet, the relationship between higher education and civic participation has become increasingly complicated by federal policy.
Under Trump’s administration, he has reshaped federal higher education policy, including limiting the use of federal work study funds for political activities and directing the Department of Education to investigate the use of student voting data. This alone demonstrates how federal education policy can directly influence the ways universities support, or are restricted from supporting, student’s voting engagement.
The core connection of higher education surrounds ideal pillars of political knowledge and civic engagement: critical thinking, communication and public affairs. With these ideas instilled within the curriculum, it is often expected that they will translate practically as newly independent and active members of society. Yet, this is rejected in the modern political sphere. Since the late 20th and early 21st centuries, declining public investment and shifting political landscapes have entangled universities directly in broader societal culture wars and polarization. Such controversies serve as a strong detriment to the political process and a deterrent to those meant to partake.
According to Bass Connections at Duke University, young voters have historically lacked political participation in terms of voter turnout. In the context of recent elections, we find young voters losing faith in the political system. Gen Z grew up in a period of political progress, notably the legalization of gay marriage and Obama’s inauguration welcoming the first Black president of the United States. For many, especially those currently enrolled in university, their first opportunity of election participation was under Trump, a striking turn of political regression. Suddenly, the promise of positive political efficacy seemingly vanished. No longer were we living in a time of true participatory importance; we had now entered a realm of harsh polarization. Demographic concerns address the cost of living, emphasized by housing and inflation as a true crisis, with low faith in government leadership and elections on local and national levels. A Harvard poll ahead of Trump’s first midterm election showed a defining shift among young Americans in a loss of perceived agency. To put it simply, there is a growing belief that what they do now will not determine the outcome of what’s next.
Overall, it’s clear to say there is a strong disconnect amongst young voters, demonstrating a paradox of disillusionment and division. Gen Z (aged 14–29) constitutes 21% of California’s eligible electorate, yet they comparatively possess disproportionately low turnout. Among young California voters who said they were unlikely to vote in the 2026 primary, 47% said they did not feel sufficiently informed about the issues and candidates, compared with 38% of all unlikely voters. Additionally, 31% of young voters said they were too busy to vote, compared with 19% of all unlikely voters. These numbers are important because they show that low participation is not necessarily the result of indifference. Some young people are identifying practical barriers: lack of information, lack of time and uncertainty about candidates, but can be addressed through stronger civic education and institutional support. Increasing Gen Z voter participation therefore requires more than simply telling young people that voting is important; it requires creating conditions in which voting feels accessible, understandable and meaningful.
This is where the responsibility of higher education becomes especially important. If universities are spaces designed to cultivate critical thinking, communication, scholarship and service, they must also help students understand that civic participation is a continuation of that education. The role of a university should not be to tell students what to believe or how to vote, but to provide the knowledge, resources and confidence necessary to participate meaningfully in their communities. When young voters feel uninformed, too busy, or powerless to influence political outcomes, universities have an opportunity to address those barriers through accessible voter education and civic engagement. Universities can connect with students on what kind of voter support they need and emphasize voter education efforts by highlighting rules, laws, and options and what those mean for them. College students are more likely to become lifelong voters if they have a good voting experience. In this sense, providing resources for voting is not simply political participation; it is an extension of the university’s responsibility to care for the whole person.
Ultimately, cura personalis asks universities to recognize that students are more than their academic performance. They are future workers, neighbors, voters, leaders and members of communities that depend on their participation. If higher education is truly committed to nurturing the whole person, then civic engagement must be included within that responsibility. University resources should therefore be used not to promote a particular political ideology, but to make participation more accessible and informed. In a political environment increasingly defined by polarization, skepticism and disillusionment, encouraging that sense of agency may be one of the most meaningful ways a university can practice cura personalis.
