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.
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.
In our letter to The Daily Princetonian, PFS objects to the paper’s October 14 headline saying we “retracted” our faculty donations study, explaining that we issued a routine correction that didn’t change the core finding: only 2.16% of Princeton faculty political contributions went to Republicans. The letter also says the article tried to undermine the study by focusing on a few people outside its criteria and by using a rarely used FEC data file, while Princeton, unlike Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and other peer schools, has yet to acknowledge its lack of faculty viewpoint diversity.
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.
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.
An immigration judge has rejected the Trump administration's efforts to deport Tufts University PhD student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was arrested last year as part of its targeting of pro-Palestinian campus activists, her lawyers said on Monday.
Lawyers for the Turkish student detailed the immigration judge's decision in a filing
with the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had been reviewing a ruling that led to her release from immigration custody in May.
The months since Charlie Kirk’s murder on Utah Valley University’s campus in September have seen a deluge of firings and suspensions of teachers, faculty, and staff across the country for celebrating the assassination, or just for being insufficiently mournful. As the dust settles and court cases proceed, more details are emerging about the political pressures universities faced to punish protected political expression.
In Iowa, lawmakers were so incensed by one Iowa State University staff member’s speech about the shooting that they outright dismissed the possibility of a lawsuit.
Angel Eduardo
FIRE
Excerpt: In August, FIRE sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio for violating the First Amendment. Since March, Rubio and the Trump administration had been detaining and attempting to deport legally present noncitizens for protected speech — including writing op-eds and attending protests — because they disliked that speech.
This, as FIRE has argued, is unconstitutional. Noncitizens in the United States have First Amendment rights, and Rubio’s use of these provisions not only violates those rights, but also showcases why the two provisions are unconstitutional and must be struck down to the extent they allow adverse immigration action based on protected speech.
Claire Murphy and Brock Read
Chronicle of Higher Education
Excerpt: Nine universities are currently weighing whether to adopt the Trump administration’s proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which would require them to make a wide-ranging series of commitments to uphold admissions and hiring practices, foster “viewpoint diversity,” and cap international enrollment, among other items.
The letter set an October 20 deadline for “limited, targeted feedback” on the compact, leaving university leaders scrambling to evaluate its terms. The Chronicle is documenting official university responses to the document, along with faculty statements, as they are made public.
FIRE
Excerpt: FIRE is suing Secretary of State Marco Rubio to challenge two federal immigration law provisions that give him unchecked power to revoke legal immigrants’ visas and deport them just for speech protected by the First Amendment.
One of our plaintiffs is the student-run paper The Stanford Daily, where writers on student visas are turning down assignments related to the war in Gaza because they fear reporting on it could endanger their immigration status. We are also representing two legal noncitizens who engaged in pro-Palestinian speech and now fear being deported.
Ryan Quinn
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: The Trump administration announced last week it was freezing federal grants for another prestigious research university. But this time, it wasn’t a private institution.
It was the University of California, Los Angeles, and if the UC system doesn’t make a deal with the federal government, campuses across one of the nation’s largest public higher education systems might incur the administration’s further punishment. State leaders condemned the funding freeze, and faculty at UCLA are urging university administrators to fight. But the university has said little about how it plans to respond to the administration.
Rose Horowitch
The Atlantic
Excerpt: To do the same thing over and over and expect a different result is one definition of insanity. According to Robert Shibley, a special counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), it’s also Columbia University’s approach to addressing anti-Semitism on campus.
On Tuesday, Claire Shipman, Columbia’s acting president, announced in an email to the community that the university would take several steps to quell anti-Semitism on campus. Columbia will appoint Title VI and Title VII coordinators to review allegations of discrimination. It will launch new programming around anti-Jewish discrimination, send out regular messages affirming its zero-tolerance policy on hate, and use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism for certain disciplinary proceedings.
Thomas Chatterton Williams
The Atlantic
Excerpt: President Donald Trump’s assault on what he broadly calls DEI has been slapdash and sadistic. That doesn’t mean the system under attack should be maintained. Racial preferencing in university admissions as well as in employment and government contracting—more commonly understood as affirmative action—might once have been necessary, but long ago became glaringly unfair in practice.
Affirmative action in college admissions continues—despite being banned by the Supreme Court in 2023—through the use of personal essays, interviews, and other proxy mechanisms. It continues in businesses’ hirings and promotions. It’s possible to believe two truths simultaneously: Judging individuals by race instead of merit has to end, in no small part because it hurts the very people it is supposed to uplift; and Trump’s approach to ending it is harmful.
Keith Whittington, Cass Sunstein
Academic Freedom Podcast, Academic Freedom Alliance
Excerpt: Keith Whittington interviews Cass Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School, whose scholarly interests include free speech, constitutional law, and administrative law. He recently authored a paper, “Our Money or Your Life!’ Higher Education and the First Amendment,” available here, which explores the First Amendment constraints of federal funding to American universities. Sunstein helps unpack the legal and constitutional questions raised by the Trump administration's strategy of withholding federal grants from schools like Columbia and Harvard to force internal policy reforms.
Spencer S. Hsu and Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff
Washington Post
Excerpt: Interim D.C. U.S. Attorney Ed Martin demanded that the dean of Georgetown Law School end all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts at the school, asserting in a letter that his office will not consider hiring anyone affiliated with a university that utilizes DEI.
Cathy Young
The Bulwark
Excerpt: Among the avalanche of executive orders that Donald Trump loosed upon his return to power are several related to high-profile culture-war issues. Foremost among these is a pair of executive orders relating to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI, sometimes known as DEIA for “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility”). One bans DEI programs in the federal workforce and corporations with federal contracts. The other directs the government to investigate “DEI discrimination and preferences” across the private sector, including large academic institutions.
Many critiques of identity politics have been valid and necessary. But DEI opponents should be wary of linking their cause to the Trump administration, which is all but certain to use colorblind fairness as a smokescreen for anti-woke identity politics—and which has started its first week with a spree of presidential lawlessness.
Aaron Sibarium
Washington Free Beacon
Excerpt: Amy Wax, the tenured law professor who was sanctioned for her controversial remarks about racial issues, sued the University of Pennsylvania on Thursday for breach of contract and race discrimination, putting a dispute over tenure and academic freedom that has dragged on for almost three years into the hands of a federal court. The complaint comes after Wax was suspended for a year at half-pay and stripped of her named chair, penalties the lawsuit says are "illegal multiple times over."
Jonathan Feingold
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: Trump is coming for higher education. His congressional allies are already armed with measures like HR 6848, which would ban universities from inviting statements that document a professor’s “past or planned contributions to efforts involving diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
Outlawing DEI statements makes sense for a president who loves to vilify America’s universities and discredit their democratic commitments. What might be less obvious is that bills like HR 6848, because they curtail university autonomy and undermine DEI initiatives, threaten one of higher education’s most sacred values: academic freedom.
Curtis Bunn
MSNBC
Excerpt: One by one, diversity, equity and inclusion programs at some of the country’s biggest companies fell apart in 2024, with signs that efforts to reverse DEI initiatives will only ramp up in 2025.
This year saw the rise in prominent figures like Elon Musk and Lululemon founder Chip Wilson, among others, who vocally pushed against DEI initiatives. Major companies, including Walmart, Lowe’s, Ford and Toyota, heeded the calls and dialed back their DEI programs, particularly after social media-driven campaigns by influencers like Robby Starbuck.
