��֭����

This article in the Washington Examiner on Sept. 26, 2023.

There has always been illiberalism on campus — at least, that’s what critics looking to hand-wave away concerns about cancel culture in higher education claim. But the insight that illiberalism predates  is as useful as saying that fire predates gasoline: It is both correct and astonishingly naive.

At the ��֭����, we collect a great deal of data about the higher  system, and our findings should alarm everyone.

FIRE’s research includes our annual Campus Free Speech Rankings , which surveyed more than 55,000 college students, as well as a survey of more than 1,700 faculty nationwide, a database of more than 480 school policies that we rate for accordance with free expression, and a database of scholars targeted for their speech or research.

Three throughlines emerge in this data. The first and most egregious is a vacuum of leadership on speech issues. About a third of faculty (and more than one in five students) are unsure about their institutions’ position on freedom of expression. That uncertainty is fed by both policy and practice. At nearly nine out of 10 of the institutions we studied, there was at least one policy that was vague or, worse, outright hostile to free speech. For example, consider Georgetown University’s  , which prohibits “engaging in behavior, either through language or actions, which disrespects another individual.” It’s not hard to picture the terrible ways this can be interpreted.

A second through-line coming from our research is intense polarization, which reduces tolerance for opposing ideas. More than a quarter of students think using violence to stop a campus speech is acceptable to some degree, up from one in five just last year. Two in five think blocking access to a speech is acceptable to some degree. And on a range of controversial topics, anywhere from 28% to 71% of students opposed allowing speakers on campus to address these issues.

Contrary to what hand-wavers may want to believe, there is a real problem on campus. We have the data to recognize and diagnose the problem. All we need now is the will to solve it.

Because of this climate, nearly half of the students questioned in the survey indicated that discussing abortion openly and honestly on campus, for example, is challenging. More than six out of 10 indicated that gun control, racial inequality, and transgender rights are also tough topics to talk about. And, of course, these are difficult topics to discuss, but they are important, and we won’t get anywhere unless we learn to discuss them. College campuses should facilitate these conversations rather than chill them.

This leads to the third throughline: the silent epidemic of self-censorship. In an environment with uncertain administrative support and student responses that are frequently hostile, it is perhaps unsurprising that more than a quarter of students and more than a third of faculty admit to censoring their opinions in some contexts. Most faculty are worried about losing their jobs or reputations because someone misunderstands something they have said or done. And 57% of conservative faculty, regardless of tenure status, self-censor on campus, compared to one-third of moderate faculty and one-fifth of liberal faculty.

What happens when America's future leaders reject the liberty on which it was founded?

News

A survey conducted this year by FIREfound that almost one-third of respondents could not name a single right protected by the First Amendment.

Read More

The clear ideological filter there is especially troubling because it presents a special risk of groupthink. Such behavior arises when the desire for conformity within a cohort causes its members to shirk individual responsibility and ignore evidence contrary to the consensus. As the range of acceptable opinions narrows, the risk of groupthink increases.

This all seems bleak, but none of it is inevitable. The first step to turning things around is clear: leadership. College administrators should reform policies that do not clearly and explicitly protect freedom of expression, and they should notify the campus of these reforms while emphasizing the centrality of freedom of expression to their educational mission.

FIRE, alumni, and donors can also encourage diversity of thought across ideological divides. We can do that through speaking events, publishing, and a commitment to fostering open discourse on campus.

Contrary to what hand-wavers may want to believe, there is a real problem on campus. We have the data to recognize and diagnose the problem. All we need now is the will to solve it.

Adam Goldstein is vice president of research at the FIRE.