Sally Moore

Scholars routinely appeal to trust as a signifier of successful interventions and markers of healthy classrooms. Teaching that fosters trust is celebrated, and teachers whom students trust, cherished. Despite the optimistic view of what trust can achieve in and for education, little has been said about what trust truly is, what it requires, how it operates, or what it takes to be considered trustworthy. One might argue that there does not need to be direct scholarship on trust in education, as it is straightforward and easily understood. While it may be true that trust is a common term, far from being deemed academic jargon, overlooking the insightful questions that arise when one begins to contemplate trust and its role in education would be a mistake. This encyclopedia entry covers considerable philosophical ground within the study of trust and connects the scholarship to concerns in educational studies. It provides a historical overview of trust by first referencing appeals within prominent philosophical texts, then by exploring feminist philosophy and care ethics in the 1980s, and finally by showcasing several philosophers of education who have addressed the topic. The second section walks through a technical philosophical definition of trust, considering conflicting accounts of who is involved in trusting relationships and how to describe the act of trusting. In the third section, the entry examines a specific type of trust, namely interpersonal trust, and how this type of trust functions both vertically and horizontally in traditional educational settings. The fourth section outlines the requirements for being a trustworthy teacher and the consequences for students when teachers fail to meet these requirements. Ultimately, this entry serves as a starting point for those interested in what (primarily Western, analytic) philosophers have to say about the role of trust in education.

When controversies arise, colleges and universities often find themselves in the crossfire of heated debates over institutional neutrality. Some institutions claim neutrality to distance themselves from controversy and defuse tensions surrounding sensitive issues. However, when institutions choose not to engage— whether through nonresponse or by stating they will make no response—they may inadvertently suggest that their current position is neutral, a premise many dispute (A. Ford, 2024). How should higher education institutions (HEIs) navigate the various demands they face to either act or maintain neutrality? Moreover, once institutional leaders understand these competing pressures, how should they respond? This paper has two main aims: to analyze the dynamics surrounding calls for institutional neutrality and to guide HEI decision-makers in crafting appropriate responses. In Part I, we examine HEIs amid recent campus controversies and renewed debates over institutional neutrality. Using the Spring 2024 campus encampments and protests over institutional involvement in the Israel/Gaza conflict as our primary example, we develop a framework for understanding the crossfire—situations where decision-makers face competing demands for institutional response during controversies. This framework is an analytical tool for HEI leaders and others interested in debates about institutional neutrality in higher education. Part II explores a key implication from our framework: Pluralism is most challenging during controversy. Before presenting our recommendations for responding to the crossfire, we first motivate the importance of recognizing and attending to pluralism during controversy through appeals to political liberalism and organizational theory. We then conclude by recommending a two-pronged response strategy: education and dialogue facilitation.

Little is known about the aims and impact of university-based ethics centers. Less is known about how centers leverage their unique campus positions to engage undergraduates in transformative ethics education. This article provides a foundation for future research on university-based ethics centers. First, this article addresses the history of ethics education in higher education, the rise of university ethics centers, and the factors necessary for successful ethics programs. Next, this piece shows the geographic distribution of ethics centers and which centers provide undergraduate-focused ethics education. Finally, this article enables future research on effective ethics center structure, leadership, and outreach.