������ýapp�ٷ�

What is the state of free speech on college campuses? More students now support shouting down speakers. Several institutions faced external pressure from government entities to punish constitutionally protected speech. And the number of “red light” institutions — those with policies that significantly restrict free speech — rose for the second year in a row, reversing a 15-year trend of decreasing percentages of red light schools, according to FIREresearch.

These are just a few of the concerns shared by ������ýapp�ٷ�’s Lead Counsel for Government Affairs Tyler Coward, who joined lawmakers, alumni groups, students, and stakeholders last week in a discussion on the importance of improving freedom of expression on campus.

Rep. Greg Murphy led , along with Rep. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and Rep. Burgess Owens. 

But the picture on campus isn't all bad news. Tyler highlighted some positive developments, including: an increase in “green light” institutions — schools with written policies that do not seriously threaten student expression — along with commitments to institutional neutrality, and “more and more institutions are voluntarily abandoning their requirements that faculty and students submit so-called DEI statements for admission, application, promotion, and tenure review.”

Tyler noted the passage of the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act in the House. The bill requires public institutions of higher education to “ensure their free speech policies align with Supreme Court precedent that protects students’ rights — regardless of their ideology or viewpoint.” Furthermore, crucial Title IX litigation has resulted in the Biden rules being enjoined in 26 states due to concerns over due process and free speech.

Lastly, Tyler highlighted areas of concern drawn from ������ýapp�ٷ�’s surveys of students and faculty on campus, including the impact of student encampment protests on free expression on college campuses.

View video

FIRE across the political spectrum are facing backlash or threats of censorship for voicing their opinions. Jasmyn Jordan, an undergraduate student at University of Iowa and the National Chairwoman of Young Americans for Freedom, shared personal experiences of censorship YAF members have faced on campus due to their political beliefs. Gabby Dankanich, also from YAF, provided additional examples, including the Clovis Community College case. At Clovis, the administration ordered the removal of flyers YAF students posted citing a policy against “inappropriate or offensive language or themes.” (FIREhelped secure a permanent injunction on behalf of the students. Additionally, Clovis’s community college district will have to pay the students a total of $330,000 in damages and attorney’s fees.)  

VICTORY: California college that censored conservative students must pay $330,000, adopt new speech-protective policy, and train staff

Press Release

Federal court orders Clovis and three other community colleges to stop discriminating against student-group speech based on viewpoint.

Read More

Conservative students aren’t the only ones facing challenges in expressing their ideas on campus. Kenny Xu, executive director of Davidsonians for Free Speech and Discourse, emphasized that free speech is not a partisan issue. Citing ������ýapp�ٷ� data, he noted that 70% of students feel at least somewhat uncomfortable publicly disagreeing with a professor in class. “I can assure you that 70% of students are not conservatives,” he remarked. Kyle Beltramini from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, reinforced this point. Sharing findings from ACTA’s own research, he emphasized that “this is not a problem faced by a single group of students but rather an experience shared across the ideological spectrum.”

The roundtable identified faculty as a critical part of the solution, though they acknowledged faculty members often fear speaking up. ������ýapp�ٷ�’s recent survey of over 6,000 faculty across 55 U.S. colleges and universities supports this claim. According to the results, “35% of faculty say they recently toned down their writing for fear of controversy, compared to 9% who said the same during the McCarthy era.”

While this data underscores the challenges faculty face, it also points to a broader issue within higher education. Institutions, Tyler said, have a dual obligation to “ensure that speech rights are protected” and that “students remain free from harassment based on a protected characteristic.” Institutions did not get this balance right this year. But, ACTA’s Kyle Beltramini noted the positive development that these longstanding issues have finally migrated into the public consciousness: “By and large, policy makers and the public have been unaware of the vast censorial machines that colleges and universities have been building up to police free speech, enforce censorship, and maintain ideological hegemony in the name of protecting and supporting their students,” he stated. This moment presents an opportunity to provide constructive feedback to institutions to hopefully address these shortcomings.

FIRE thanks Rep. Murphy for the opportunity to contribute to this vital conversation. We remain committed to working with legislators who share our dedication to fostering a society that values free inquiry and expression.

Alumni are also speaking up, and at the roundtable they shared their perspectives on promoting free speech and intellectual diversity in higher education. Among them was Tom Neale, UVA alumnus and president of The Jefferson Council and the Alumni Free Speech Alliance, who highlighted the importance of connecting with alumni from institutions like Cornell, Davidson, and Princeton, since they’re “all united by their common goal to restore true intellectual diversity and civil discourse in American higher-ed.”

Other participants at the roundtable included members of Speech First, and Princetonians for Free Speech. 

So what can be done? Participants proposed several solutions, including passing legislation that prohibits the use of political litmus tests in college admissions, hiring, and promotion decisions. They also suggested integrating First Amendment education into student orientation programs to ensure incoming undergraduates understand their rights and responsibilities on campus. Additionally, they emphasized the importance of developing programs that teach students how to engage constructively in disagreements — rather than resorting to censorship — and to promote curiosity, dissent, talking across lines of difference, and an overall culture of free expression on campus. 

FIRE thanks Rep. Murphy for the opportunity to contribute to this vital conversation. We remain committed to working with legislators who share our dedication to fostering a society that values free inquiry and expression.

You can watch the roundtable on Rep. Murphy’s .