The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) regularly assesses the state of free speech across university campuses. Their annual surveys highlight longstanding trends in institutions with over 2,500 four-year degree programs across the U.S.
Those who observe these institutions closely are aware of the larger, troubling narrative that has emerged over the last 25 years. This year’s FIRE report stands out, reflecting a pattern depicting an increasingly intolerant America. It’s concerning when younger generations, who should be the most open-minded, seem increasingly fragile and resistant to diverse viewpoints.
On the day the report was made public, there was a significant incident where Charlie Kirk was attacked on a college campus for expressing his views. One of the most alarming findings? About 34% of university students think that using violence to shut down speakers can be justified under certain circumstances.
If the timing had been different—if Kirk’s incident hadn’t overshadowed it—this finding might have gained more attention. Now, politics seem to revolve around a fierce clash between left and right, each side blaming the other for rising political violence. Yet, this report reveals a troubling consensus: students across the political spectrum are increasingly open to various extreme tactics to silence dissenting voices.
Consider this—almost 75% of students believe it’s acceptable to shout down dissenters, a view held by majorities in both political camps. It’s particularly disconcerting that physical intimidation to silence others has seen a notable rise, accompanied by a disturbing form of bipartisan agreement.
Interestingly, a report from FIRE mentions that “strong Democrats” are one of the few groups not showing a significant rise in acceptance of violence against speakers, perhaps due to their already elevated starting point.
In fact, right-leaning students seem more receptive to violent means than their left-leaning peers, complicating the narrative that sees political violence as a one-sided problem.
A decade ago, left-leaning Americans were grappling with questions about moral courage—asking, for example, whether it was justifiable to “punch Nazis.” We seem to have shifted from hypothetical scenarios to real-life confrontations.
In their influential book “The Coddling of the American Mind,” authors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt highlight an issue that resonates across all ideologies. They contend that a growing sense of uniqueness leads individuals to devalue opposing viewpoints.
Alan Bloom had previously identified the erosion of standards in humanities education, replaced by subjective “values.” This shift toward a postmodern mindset means that many students today approach literature and philosophy not to engage with the text’s meaning, but rather to interpret it through personal feelings.
Fast forward thirty years, and Lukianoff points to a broader issue he terms “safetyism,” which fosters an environment where young people are regarded as fragile, nurturing a worldview that emphasizes self-protection against uncomfortable ideas.
When “The Coddling” hit the scene, it validated conservative concerns that today’s youth can often be characterized as “snowflakes,” overly sensitive to various topics. However, it’s clear that these dynamics are not confined to one political aisle. Research from FIRE indicates that both left and right students grow progressively intolerant, with cancel culture on the right rising to match its counterpart on the left.
Thomas Chatterton Williams has noted a sense of awakening among right-leaning individuals, who have developed their own codes of acceptable discourse and retribution against those who stray from their perspective on political correctness. This trend is underscored by the emergence of online mobs targeting speakers following Kirk’s incident, indicating that these issues extend far beyond mere campus controversies.
If this situation were simply about a political movement introducing harmful ideas into a stable society, it might be concerning but manageable. However, evidence suggests that deeply rooted societal tendencies shape reactions against ideas that trigger discomfort.
