������ýapp�ٷ�

A of 10,445 students conducted this past fall on every campus in the University of Wisconsin system reveals a systemwide chilling effect that encourages students to self-censor their views on controversial issues both in and outside of the classroom (i.e., on campus or on social media). 

FIRE feel discouraged from exercising their First Amendment rights on campus, lest they face institutional or social consequences. 

Concerning levels of self-censorship 

Roughly three-in-five UW students (57%) wanted to express their views on a controversial topic but decided not to, and among these students who have self-censored, one-third say they do this “very” or “extremely” often. The reasons for student self-censorship vary, but are mostly about facing negative consequences.

Of the 57% of UW students who self-censor, over half do so because they feel they do not know enough about the topic (60%) or because they generally do not express their views regardless of the topic being discussed (55%).

10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech: 2023

News

Each year, FIREbestows a special dishonor upon a select group of American colleges that go above and beyond in their efforts to trample expressive freedom.

Read More

FIRE also self-censored because they were afraid of negative consequences. About three-in-five UW students who self-censor said they are concerned that other students would disagree with them (61%) or dismiss their views as offensive (58%). Further, 46% said they are concerned that the professor would dismiss their views as offensive, 41% said they are concerned that they would receive a lower grade, and 31% said they are worried that someone would file a complaint about their views.

Additionally, about half of self-censoring students said they do not want to share anything about their identity or experiences; and another 38% said they self-censor because their class does not encourage discussion.

Thus, UW students primarily self-censor in classroom discussions about controversial topics for two reasons: indifference and fear. Indifference involves a lack of interest in the topic or a general disposition to not discuss one’s views publicly. Fear involves the concern about having one’s views dismissed as offensive by peers or the professor, receiving a lower grade, or being targeted with a complaint filed with the university. 

Fears of negative consequences are justified

The concerns of the self-censoring UW students are justified not only in the classroom, but outside of it as well.

Roughly three-in-five UW students (59%) say they have expressed their views on a controversial topic to other students on campus but outside the classroom. Among these students, 18% experienced a negative social consequence (e.g., reputational damage or loss of a friend, for expressing one’s views) and 3% say they experienced a negative institutional consequence (e.g., a warning, probation, suspension, or expulsion, for expressing one’s views). This difference between negative social consequences and negative institutional ones is even more pronounced for expressing views on a controversial topic on social media. Among the 35% of UW students who did so, 30% experienced negative social consequences compared to 4% who experienced negative institutional consequences.

Only about a third of UW students think that a student distributing pro-hate group leaflets on a street corner near the campus, or a group of students telling another student in a face-to-face interaction that their views are not welcome on campus, are protected by the First Amendment . . . even though both forms of expression are.

When it came to exercising First Amendment rights on campus, the portion of students who expressed political, social, or religious views — either by assembling or protesting with others on campus or in public writing (e.g., flyers, letters to the editor, markerboards) — was fairly small. Yet, a larger portion of these students experienced negative institutional consequences. 

Overall, 10% of UW students say they have expressed their political, social, or religious views by assembling or protesting with others on campus. Among these students, 10% have experienced negative institutional consequences and 17% have experienced negative social consequences. When it comes to the 8% of UW students who expressed political, social, or religious views in writing, 16% experienced negative institutional consequences and 28% experienced negative social consequences. 

In other words, only a small portion of UW students exercise their First Amendment rights on campus. Those who do risk facing negative institutional consequences and — even more likely — negative social consequences.

Pro-censorship attitudes among students are associated with less knowledge about the First Amendment

UW students’ First Amendment knowledge was assessed by asking them to imagine specific events happening to a fellow UW student and to indicate whether the scenario constituted a violation of First Amendment rights. In 8-of-12 scenarios presented, a majority of students (percentages range from 58% to 89%) correctly identified whether the expression in question is protected by the First Amendment. 

The eight scenarios that a majority of students correctly answered focus on issues of: 

• limiting private expression (e.g., “Campus housing limits which movies students can watch in the privacy of their dorm room”); 
• public criticism of politicians (“An instructor criticizes an elected official on their personal Twitter account”) or university administrators (“A student accuses a university administrator of taking bribes on Instagram when the student knows the accusation is false”); 
• students exercising their First Amendment rights (e.g., “A university policy bans student protestors from blocking access to buildings on campus”); 
• or harassment, intimidation, or threats of violence (e.g., “Does the First Amendment allow your university to ban threats, intimidation, or harassment on campus?”).

In contrast, the four scenarios about which most students answered incorrectly all involve some form of controversial speech, usually “hate speech.” Only about a third of UW students think that a student distributing pro-hate group leaflets on a street corner near the campus, or a group of students telling another student in a face-to-face interaction that their views are not welcome on campus, are protected by the First Amendment (37% and 35%, respectively), even though both forms of expression are. In contrast, 41% of students incorrectly believe that these forms of expression are not protected. When asked, “Does the First Amendment allow your university to ban hate speech on campus?” only 26% said it does not, while 32% incorrectly said that it does. Another 28% of UW students said it is a First Amendment violation for TikTok to suspend a student account because the student posted an anti-vaccine video, while over half (54%) said this was a violation of the First Amendment.

That UW students who have learned something about the First Amendment are more knowledgeable about it than those who have not learned anything suggests that boosting First Amendment knowledge may help lift the pall of self-censorship sweeping across the UW system.

A notable portion of UW students also favor censoring on-campus expression. For instance, when asked, “If some students feel a speaker’s message is offensive, how much do you think that university administrators should disinvite the speaker?” 31% of UW students said “quite a bit” or “a great deal.” A notable portion of UW students also support the administration banning from campus views that some students consider harmful to certain groups of people: When asked if administrators should ban the expression of such views, 21% said “quite a bit” or “a great deal.” When asked if administrators should allow such expression on campus, 46% said “not at all” or “a little.” 

Appealing to the administration, or other authority figures, to discipline peers and faculty is also popular among a notable portion of UW students. When asked how strongly they feel students should report one of their peers to the administration for saying something some people feel causes harm to certain groups of people, 30% of UW students said “quite a bit” or “a great deal.” A greater percentage of UW students (43%) said this about their professors. Lastly, when asked how strongly they think the instructor should stop a student from talking in class if they say something some people feel causes harm to certain groups of people, one-third of UW students say “quite a bit” or “a great deal.”

Finally, these pro-censorship attitudes among UW students are negatively correlated with knowledge about the First Amendment, as measured by the number of correct answers given to the 12 scenarios. This means that those students who are more in favor of censoring various kinds of speech on campus are also less knowledgeable about what the First Amendment does and does not protect.

Conclusions and recommendations

Although there are some encouraging data points in UW’s system-wide survey — students were more likely to agree than to disagree that faculty members create an atmosphere supportive of free expression, for example — the findings overall indicate that a number of UW students perceive a chilling effect hanging over the entire UW system. Notable portions of UW students support censoring speech on campus or even banning it. These attitudes are associated with less knowledge about the First Amendment, which about one-third of UW students (32%) have been taught something about in one of their classes.

Do Americans know their rights? Survey says: No.

News

FIREsurvey reveals that most can’t name more than one enumerated First Amendment right.

Read More

That UW students who have learned something about the First Amendment are more knowledgeable about it than those who have not learned anything suggests that boosting First Amendment knowledge may help lift the pall of self-censorship sweeping across the UW system.

FIRE can help equip faculty and administrators with the tools to do this. We provide college orientation materials and maintain a syllabus database of courses that focus on freedom of expression. We also offer on the First Amendment. As noted in a previous article, the First Amendment knowledge of the American general public leaves much to be desired, and when people are ignorant of their rights they cannot protect, preserve, and exercise them. If our college students cannot improve on this troubling situation, we risk further eroding these rights that provide much of the foundation of our civic life, shared institutions, and democracy.

And, if you’re a faculty member interested in discussing these survey findings with the report authors, please for ������ýapp�ٷ�’s Faculty Network webinar, “Forbidden Findings Ft. Tim Shiell, April Bleske-Rechek, and Eric Giordano,” taking place on Thursday, March 2, at 1 p.m. PST/4 p.m. EST.

Disclosure: The author was a member of the survey’s advisory board and assisted the lead researchers on the survey’s methodology.