The organization founded by Charlie Kirk is returning to the Utah campus where the conservative commentator was killed to hold a memorial on the first anniversary of his death.
Utah Valley University has also decided to shut down its public campus in Orem that day — Thursday, Sept. 10 — to “provide time and space time for reflection” for students, staff and faculty to use in the way that works best for them. No classes will be held, according to a message to the community. Some students have pushed back on the closure and the administration’s decision to “hand over our campus” to Turning Point USA for the Kirk memorial event.
Two weeks after introducing a policy that allowed administrators to secretly record faculty members during class, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill chancellor Lee Roberts told faculty he would nix the rule.
“The whole idea was to create clarity and reassurance,” Roberts said during a Faculty Senate meeting Friday. “That policy clearly has not achieved that aim.” Faculty members applauded at the news. During a Q&A, Roberts confirmed that no faculty members will be surreptitiously recorded until—and if—a new policy is put in place. Administrators will continue to evaluate whether the university needs such a policy, he said.
The Manhattan Institute offers a simple proposal: state legislatures should expand oversight of their public universities. With powers clarified by lawmakers and a new mandate to exercise their existing powers, university board members can act as a counterweight to the excesses of university faculty and administrators—specifically, through greater involvement in the hiring of administrators, the approval of faculty lines, and the creation of core curricula.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon and her legal team have dropped their appeal of a federal court ruling that blocked the department from requiring colleges to eradicate all race-based curriculum, financial aid and student services or lose federal funding.
The motion to dismiss was jointly approved by both parties in the case Wednesday, ending a nearly yearlong court battle over the department’s Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter that declared race-based programming and policies illegal. If institutions didn’t comply within two weeks, department officials threatened to open investigations and rescind federal funding.
Garrett Gravley
FIRE
Imagine wearing an “I Voted” sticker to class and having the school investigate you for it. Or handing out pocket editions of the Constitution on campus for Constitution Day, only for your school to deem this disruptive.
On Nov. 7, individuals identifying with Students and Faculty for Justice in Palestine left chalkboard messages around campus while classes were out of session. These messages read, “Trinity is suppressing freedom of assembly,” “Disclose Divest Protest,” “Trinity Invests in Genocide,” “You are on stolen land,” and “Free Palestine.” That evening, Trinity President Daniel Lugo emailed the campus community, announcing an investigation of the messages for disruption, intimidation, and harassment.
Foundation for Individual Rights in Expression
Excerpt: If America’s colleges could earn report cards for free speech friendliness, most would deserve an “F”— and conservative students are increasingly joining their liberal peers in supporting censorship.
Len Gutkin
Chronicle of Higher Education
Excerpt: Princeton’s president, Christopher L. Eisgruber, has fiercely defended DEI initiatives in the face of pressure to disavow them from the Trump administration. But in his forthcoming book, Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right, he recommends that colleges jettison at least one such initiative, namely “politically loaded practices like mandatory diversity statements for job candidates.”
Given that Eisgruber has accused other college leaders, as The Atlantic’s Rose Horowitch put it, “of carrying water for the Trump administration,” his concession on diversity statements matters. If even the Ivy League’s biggest defender of the status quo ante Trump has turned against diversity statements, it seems likely that they’re on the way out.
Robert Manzer
AEI
Excerpt: Whatever their political persuasion, most observers of American higher education now agree that the real or apparent politicization of universities has become a major problem. Accreditors, the member most responsible for academic quality in the higher education regulatory triad, should be at the forefront, helping universities confront this problem.
Accreditation can most effectively address universities’ politicization by strengthening faculty governance. Faculty play a central role in shaping academic life, and their authority over curricula and standards is well established by tradition and regulation.
Nathan Honeycutt
FIRE
Excerpt: Supporters claim that requiring diversity, equity, and inclusion statements in job applications can help foster those values. But critics say it does just the opposite. Findings from a new study I conducted supports the latter position, and they come just as schools are backing away from DEI.
The University of California said last week it will stop requiring standalone DEI statements in faculty hiring. The Chronicle of Higher Education has tracked the dismantling of DEI efforts at colleges, including the 10 states passing legislation to restrict the use of DEI statements on campuses.
Vimal Patel
New York Times
Excerpt: The University of California said on Wednesday that it would stop requiring the use of diversity statements in hiring, a practice praised by some who said it made campuses more inclusive but criticized by others who said it did the opposite.
The Editorial Board
Wall Street Journal
Excerpt: Justice Clarence Thomas filed a peppy dissent, but the Supreme Court was otherwise silent and cryptic on Monday in declining to hear a challenge to Indiana University’s “bias response team.” As a result, the circuit courts will stay split, since lower judges are divided on whether such campus bodies chill student expression. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said no in Speech First v. Whitten.
Craig Trainor, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
United States Department of Education
Excerpt: Discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin is illegal and morally reprehensible. Accordingly, I write to clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Education (Department). This letter explains and reiterates existing legal requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and other relevant authorities.
FIRE
Excerpt: Cornell got a jump on its New Year’s resolutions this winter, unveiling an updated version of its proposed Expressive Activity Policy just before the holiday season. On Dec. 18, the Cornell Committee on Expressive Activity released a much-improved revision of the proposed policy. This comes after FIRE and nearly 500 other organizations and individuals weighed in on an earlier draft from Oct. 30. The final say belongs to university leadership, but this update marks a significant step in the right direction.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk generated a wave of censorship at America's colleges over the past year, further contributing to a climate in which too many students fear expressing themselves on campus.
Encouragingly, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s seventh annual College Free Speech Rankings found the percentage of students who said it was acceptable to shout down a speaker, block entry to a campus speech, or use violence to stop a campus speech declined slightly from last year’s record highs.
Julie Bonette
Princeton Alumni Weekly
Fifteen academics convened by Princeton’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions are going beyond the well-known “Chicago Principles” in protecting free speech on college campuses by creating their own “Princeton Principles.”
By Tal Fortgang ‘17
With students returning to campus for the start of the new academic year, and demonstrations from radical groups sure to crop up on quads once again, one question universities face is how to balance robust academic freedom with universities’ competing interests. Schools cannot live on academic freedom alone; the functioning of a university requires standards, rules, and regulations to allow students and faculty to flourish. Yet university leadership, especially at elite schools where abstract thinking is prized and questions are regularly left unanswered as matters of mere intellectual exercise, has not even begun to articulate a principled way of weighing these matters. They can begin to do so by considering an unlikely – and unwitting – source of wisdom: Princeton professor Lorgia García Peña’s recent address to the Socialism 2025 conference, on using one’s academic perch to dismantle the academy.
Robert Pondiscio
American Enterprise Institute
Excerpt: The conservative education watchdog group Defending Education has done important and often brave work exposing ideological overreach in K–12 schools. I’ve cited their reports and findings many times and consider them friends and compatriots, so I don’t say this lightly: they’ve badly misfired with their new report, Consultants in the Classroom: Making Big Money in K–12 Schools. So badly, in fact, that they should withdraw the report and issue a correction and apology.
by Princetonians for Free Speech
On April 4, we published a Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) editorial entitled “Princeton in the Crosshairs,” in which we discussed the multiple attacks on universities being launched by the Trump Administration and listed reasons why Princeton was now likely to become a major target, much like Columbia and Harvard have been. In the few weeks since we published that editorial, there have been very important developments, involving universities in general and Princeton specifically. The bottom line is that Princeton is noweven more in the crosshairs, with investigations and lawsuits coming from several directions. Yet Princeton still does not admit it has problems and will not take the most basic steps to address them, steps that other universities are increasingly taking.
By Edward Yingling and Stuart Taylor Jr
In July 2020, a Princeton University professor, Joshua Katz, wrote an article containing provocative language that generated controversy on campus. While voicing strong disagreement with that language, Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber clearly and publicly stated a few days later that it was protected by Princeton’s university-wide rule on free speech. But since then, through other Princeton officials, the university has for over a year viciously attacked Professor Katz as a racist on its website and elsewhere for the exact same language. These attacks have clearly violated the Princeton free speech rule, as well as other Princeton rules.
Two years after protests over the Israel-Hamas war roiled college campuses, resulting in the arrests of more than 3,000 students and faculty, a new study finds that students generally oppose punishing “objectionable speech,” unless they consider it “highly harmful.”
The study, conducted by researchers from the Universities of Pennsylvania and Colorado and Stanford and Columbia Universities and published in April in Science Advances, also found that students’ views of objectionable speech depend largely on whom it is targeted at.
Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a measure into law Monday that gives him along with other Florida leaders the ability to label groups as domestic or foreign terrorist organizations and expel state university students who support them.
The law, criticized by free speech advocates, allows a top official at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to designate a group as a domestic or foreign terrorist organization, with the governor and three other members of the Florida Cabinet approving or rejecting the designation.
The plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden have won and received a court order vindicating their free speech rights. The dire predictions after the Supreme Court found insufficient standing to support a preliminary injunction in Murthy v. Missouri have failed to materialize. On March 25, the district court in Louisiana signed a consent decree in Missouri v. Biden admitting that the government wrongfully squelched Americans’ speech for years by strong-arming social media companies to eliminate disfavored speech. The decree allows New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) plaintiffs Jill Hines and Aaron Kheriaty, along with Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit and the Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general, to obtain sanctions should the surgeon general, CDC, or CISA attempt to do this again.
The Report, and the follow-up disciplinary reports now being issued, raise uncomfortable questions for professors and for university leaders alike. Are there limits to professors’ freedom to conduct research and teach courses however they think best? Do university leaders dare intervene if scholarship becomes excessively politicized?
The declaration is a statement of purpose for the research university—a reaffirmation of pathbreaking research, transformative education, and the covenant between universities and the society they serve, grounded in academic freedom, merit and excellence.
Speaking at the American Whig-Cliosophic Society on Feb. 5, J Street founder Jeremy Ben-Ami acknowledged that many people who come to his events are already “his people” — they agree with him and are excited to hear their position reaffirmed. J Street is a nonprofit and lobby that self-describes as “pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy.” Although Ben-Ami took questions from students who, in turn, considered his positions too supportive of Israel or not supportive enough, Ben-Ami is correct that, in general, political speakers preach to their own choirs.
This phenomenon does not stop at FitzRandolph Gate, and it undermines the value of inviting acclaimed speakers to Princeton.
In his new book Terms of Respect, How Colleges Get Free Speech Right, Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber argues that all is well with America’s universities when it comes to free speech and academic freedom. He takes issue with the view that over the last few decades America’s colleges and universities have lost their way – chilling free speech and undermining viewpoint diversity and academic freedom – as they have drifted towards activism and political orthodoxy. Eisgruber’s view, which he has stated in numerous forums in recent months, stands in sharp contrast to the widespread critique of current college campus culture.
Excerpt: Imagine walking into your first day of class and finding out that your beliefs have been officially condemned by the academic department offering the course. Pick the hot-button topic: abortion, affirmative action, marriage and sexual morality, transgender identity, Israel—university authorities have publicly decreed that your particular viewpoint is incompatible with the department's values.
Isaac Barsoum
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Leftists at Princeton cheer the assassination of Charlie Kirk — at least, that’s what you would think if you’ve been reading the Opinion section of this newspaper lately. On Sept. 17, Tigers for Israel President Maximillian Meyer ’27 declared that Princeton’s progressives exhibit “a willingness to cheer violence itself.” Princeton Tory Publisher Zach Gardner ’26 didn’t go quite so far, but did say that students “treat bloodshed flippantly,” at least in the context of Kirk’s assassination.
Here’s one problem: large portions of both their arguments rest on evidence drawn from Fizz. For the uninitiated, Fizz is a campus social media app where any Princeton student can say anything at all, true or false, behind the veil of anonymity. It is remarkable that I have to say this: Fizz is not real life.
