January 31, 2024 - 7:00am
An overwhelming majority of American universities impose regulations on students’ free speech, a new report has found.
Among 489 American universities surveyed, 85% have policies in place that restrict speech, according to analysis from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). About two-thirds restrict speech through vague regulations on student expression, while 20% have policies on the books that “clearly and substantially” limit free speech.
Another eight schools, most of which are religious colleges or military academies, do not promise free speech at all. Only 63 colleges, or 12.9%, received green-light rankings, meaning they do not have policies that seriously restrict student speech.
Hard restrictions on free speech, which earn a red-light label from FIRE, have seen a slight uptick over the past three years following a 40% decrease over the previous decade. Meanwhile, yellow-light restrictions – vague limits on expression – have followed the opposite pattern, rising 35% since 2012 and dipping slightly over the past two years.
The rankings are based on schools’ written speech policies and do not take into account school actions that restrict speech beyond those rules. Most campus speech policies are aimed at combatting bullying, harassment and bias, promoting civility, and controlling protests and demonstrations. Schools also restrict students’ expression on social media and in the content of materials distributed on campus.
Professors have been affected as well as students. Previous FIRE research revealed that the number of college and university academics subjected to attempted punishment between 2020 and 2022 (509) almost matched the corresponding number for the 20 years prior to 2020 (571).
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWas having a conversation with my daughter recently, who has navigated the woke icebergs of a once-prestigious university and is finishing her final year of a Law degree.
We agree that for most disciplines, the time and resources put into university would be better spent in the labour market. To wit, her friend who did Film Studies – had he taken the money used on that degree, gone to LA and worked as a cable runner for a studio, he would be further in his career, with more knowledge of film, than he is now.
In fairness, that would have probably been true regardless.
Your daughter did well to study Law, rather than (say) ‘Law Studies’.
There is a theory developing* that any course like ‘Film Studies’, or anything with ‘….Studies’ in its title is not worth the time or expense.
(*At least this is so in UK. It has actually been around for a long time, but seems to have been getting more prominence recently, along with the idea that Tony Blair’s notion that 50% of kids should go to university was maybe not entirely sound or thought-through.)
Very good point: Gender Studies, Film Studies, Social Studies….
And coming soon to a university near you:
Studies Studies!
Blair’s policy to shove 50% of school leavers through the higher education system has been a disaster.
Many (if not most) UK universities offer low quality degrees in the humanities (e.g. Media Studies, Gender Studies, etc.) which has devalued the quality and desirability of university education and the degrees awarded to students. Entrance standards are very low in many instances and there is huge pressure on academics not to fail students, no matter how sub-standard their work may be (certainly the case at one of the ‘better’ universities where I lectured full-time for nearly a decade). In my experience I would say that two-thirds of the students in each of my cohorts were unable to write English properly, advance cogent arguments or cite sources to substantiate their assertions. An even higher percentage demonstrated a lack of interest in and commitment to their studies.
The consequence of such a misguided policy has been to produce masses of graduates unqualified for real-world jobs; who consider themselves entitled and ‘above’ more technical/junior jobs; and are substantially unemployed (and frankly unemployable). As external examiner to several business schools I was horrified by the rote woke content of student work, in which only orthodox woke perspectives were permitted by their teachers, ruthlessly committed to converting their young, impressionable charges. Having been processed through the gigantic woke brainwashing machine of higher education, it is hardly surprising that this generation of disconnected graduates is the vanguard of the mindless Woke army, driven by an Establishment elite that grasped every lever of power, authority and influence within the spectrum of UK public and private endeavour.
Similar in the UK. My son did an apprenticeship and ended up with his name on the credits of a couple of documentaries. He needed an assistant on one job and someone with a degree and masters in “Film Studies” came in for no pay, just experience. This chap couldn’t cope with being the “assistant” to a 20yo who knew what he was doing and didn’t bother turning up for the third days work.
David Mamet, right here on UnHerd, said no one learns anything in film school. My son’s buddy went to film school in LA, took out huge loans to attend, got nowhere, and moved back East to live with his parents.
As for your daughter’s friend, Hollywood isn’t even hiring key grips if they’re white and male.
Surprise, surprise!
Universities limiting free speech are like medical doctors breaking the Hippocratic Oath, or companies selling adulterated products. They should suffer similar consequences.
Of course, they do. If anything, the recent hearings with the three college presidents confirmed that much. But don’t limit this to the college campus. Students eventually graduate and their ideas start to infect the labor force. The US business scene is full of idiotic moments that are rooted in campus culture.
The Captive Mind by Czeslaw Milosz springs to mind (whilst hoping it has not been sent to the pyre of verboten books). Will “The West” now adopt precisely the models of suppression that the Cold War sought to end? The foci and methods may be different – but the direction is eerily similar.
I have enormous regard for FIRE, enough to modestly donate to it each year. I trust the fairness of its categories. But the above numbers are puzzling.
100 colleges and universities signed the Chicago Statement. Yet 63 managed a green. At a minimum, 37 were that were either virtue signalling or didn’t understand its pledge.
Also puzzling are state universities, funded by the state residents and by constitutional law, required to uphold the constitutional rights of its students, faculty, and administrators on campus (there are judicial noted limitations to free speech in the classroom). All such state institutions, should be earning green by FIRE. They are not. And state institutions are the vast majority of higher ed institutions. We need trustees with backbone, who insist top level administrators are committed to free speech, particularly for those whose views don’t conform to the prevailing views. Sadly there is a lot of work to do.