Institutional Betrayal and Courage In Social Work Education: National Patterns and Instructional Consequences

Background and Purpose
In recent years, social work educators have faced rising political scrutiny, anti-ADEI initiatives, and institution-driven risk management. These pressures affect classroom practice, faculty discretion, and program governance in a profession whose standards require explicit attention to anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. When institutions do not support teaching on these topics, the effects extend beyond individual faculty to the profession’s ability to prepare practitioners for democratic participation and justice-oriented practice. This study provides the first national descriptive analysis of social work faculty perceptions of institutional betrayal (IB), institutional courage (IC), and moral injury (MI) in the current policy climate. The purpose was to estimate prevalence, describe institutional patterns, and examine how institutional response relates to instructional climate and educator sustainability.

Methods
This cross-sectional national survey launched in January 2026 and recruited faculty from CSWE-accredited programs using a sampling frame from the CSWE Directory of Accredited Programs. Eligible participants included full-time, adjunct, and administrative social work faculty teaching in the United States. Using adapted IB, IC, and MI measures, the survey also assessed trust in the institution before and after recent experiences, instructional modification, public scholarship modification, and contextual variables including role, institution type, and state policy climate. Analyses included descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, composite indices for IB and IC, and bivariate associations among institutional response and moral injury indicators.

Results
Preliminary descriptive analyses show substantial exposure to institutional betrayal. Among respondents completing the institutional betrayal items (N = 747), 72.2% endorsed at least one betrayal indicator and 41.5% endorsed four or more (M = 3.43, SD = 3.44; range 0–15). The most frequently endorsed experiences were institutions creating conditions in which harassment, targeting, or reputational harm were plausible concerns (46.2%), responding inadequately to concerns about actual or potential student targeting (44.6%), and making preemptive program or curricular changes to avoid oversight or complaint without meaningful faculty input (43.5%). Institutional courage responses also varied (N = 638; M = 4.77, SD = 3.14; range 0–17). The most frequently endorsed experiences were coworkers sharing strategies to avoid public targeting (70.4%), no changes to the IRB process (59.9%), and institutional support and funding for research in these areas (59.6%). IB was negatively associated with IC (r = -.279, p < .001) and positively associated with MI (r = .624, p < .001). IC was negatively associated with MI (r = -.274, p < .001).

Conclusions and Implications
This study provides the first national benchmarks for IB and IC in social work education and show how institutional response shapes the instructional climate in which social workers are trained. When educators perceive inadequate institutional protection, conditions for open inquiry, equity-focused teaching, and democratic dialogue may weaken. These results can inform faculty climate assessment, governance attention, and leadership decision-making in social work education.