Free Speech in American Universities: A Troubling Trend

It seems that colleges and universities in the U.S. are losing sight of their fundamental purpose. Increasingly, they appear to view the right to free speech as something contingent, something that can be granted or revoked by administrators.

The latest report on free speech from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression came out this week. To put it bluntly, there’s a glimmer of hope in that the situation hasn’t collapsed entirely, yet it’s concerning that our bar for what constitutes good news has fallen so low.

Perhaps there’s a shift among students. They might be starting to realize that simply listening to an argument isn’t equivalent to being harmed.

The 2027 College Free Speech Rankings from the foundation drew from nearly 63,000 student experiences at 261 institutions. Overall, universities continue to perform poorly in one of the key areas they were supposedly designed to promote: the ability to engage in open dialogue.

This is quite the puzzling achievement for an educational institution. Imagine a hospital where patients are hesitant to share their symptoms—wouldn’t that raise eyebrows? Similarly, a law school where students fear presenting their views wouldn’t be taken seriously. However, a university that fosters an environment of self-censorship remains in a position to issue press releases touting their commitment to fostering dialogue.

There’s a noticeable disconnect. Universities claim inclusivity while students often feel pressured to hold back their thoughts for fear of offending faculty who determine their grades.

From my own experience teaching at Arizona State University for over 20 years, I’ve gained some insights. Despite our motto of “inclusive excellence,” I’ve observed faculty members suppressing free speech while promoting certain ideologies, particularly around DEI and LGBTQ issues. I even maintain a Substack to document these instances.

It appears ASU’s standing in the FIRE rankings is slipping. This year, it sits at 29th out of 261 institutions, a drop from 23rd last year. While the numerical score edged up from 70 to 72, the overall grade remains at a disappointing C-.

You’d think there would be some limits to grade inflation.

A C- is not a commendable result, and one would think ASU’s administration would prioritize improvement, but instead, they hold events like “Queer Animacies.”

What’s especially telling is that ASU has landed among the lowest nationally for “openness,” which gauges whether students feel they can discuss controversial topics without restraint. Even more alarming, its ranking for “administrative support” fell by an astonishing 107 places in just one year.

This combination is concerning. Students should be at a university to learn how to think critically, yet a significant number see controversial discussions as taboo, and their confidence in administration’s support for free speech has markedly declined.

This highlights a deeper systemic issue—a fundamental misapprehension of the university’s role.

Socrates didn’t walk around Athens handing out approved answers; rather, he relentlessly questioned concepts, often irritating those in power. He challenged those who considered themselves wise, revealing that expertise in one area doesn’t grant ubiquity in all fields.

Fast forward twenty-five centuries, and we seem to have mastered that art.

The university is meant to promote intellectual growth by teaching students to distinguish between what is known and what is merely assumed. This can’t happen without dissent. It requires educators willing to have their perspectives questioned and students capable of articulating viewpoints without always seeking approval.

I was recently interviewed about my case involving the Arizona Supreme Court, which has drawn significant backlash from some ASU faculty who took to social media for personal attacks. This happened simply because I questioned the university’s DEI training program, which I contend violates state law—a claim ASU disputes, and the court is now deliberating whether I can proceed.

What many faculty seem to be teaching instead is how to discern the views approved by the professors.

This isn’t education by any stretch. It’s training students to conform and accept suppression.

The irony is pronounced when universities claim they are instilling “critical thinking.”

Critical thinking tends to be one of those buzzwords that populate mission statements with the same frequency as “excellence,” “inclusion,” and “innovation.” Who wouldn’t want it? But it’s seldom clearly defined.

Yet, true critical thinking can’t be about critiquing only the concepts deemed troubling by instructors.

When students are encouraged to question Christianity but not other ideologies, it indicates they haven’t grasped critical thinking; they’ve merely been given a selective list of doctrines.

Actual critical thinking is dangerous because it applies uniform standards across the board, regardless of identity or belief.

Can you clarify your terms? What evidence supports your claims? Does your conclusion logically follow? Are your assumptions accurate? What would it take to convince you otherwise?

Such inquiries don’t discriminate based on race, gender, political view, academic rank, or ideology.

Logic, unfortunately, rarely aligns with sensitivity.

This is precisely why free speech cannot be viewed merely as one value among others in higher education. It is intrinsic to the university’s existence. More importantly, it is an inherent right, not a privilege bestowed by progressive faculty or administrators.

A university exists because we are not born with an inherent knowledge of truth; learning is necessary.

This learning encompasses recognizing that some of our beliefs may be misguided, which necessitates the opportunity for others to tell us when we are wrong.

Once that possibility is eradicated, the university loses its identity, becoming only a shell of its intended purpose.

There is a slight beacon of hope in the latest national data: students show a marginal decline in the acceptance of silencing speakers, blocking access to events, and using violence against those they disagree with. Perhaps they are beginning to acknowledge something their institutions have overlooked: simply hearing a differing viewpoint isn’t harmful.

That is, indeed, progress.

However, universities shouldn’t pat themselves on the back merely for students becoming a bit less inclined to suppress dissent. The aspirations should be much grander.

Universities ought to be sanctuaries for unpopular inquiries.

Spaces where students can question professors, professors can push back against the establishment, and all voices—be they Christian, atheist, conservative, progressive, Marxist, or otherwise—face the same relentless scrutiny: How do you know?

Until universities regain that mission, Americans must candidly assess their worth.

And we’ll seek out ways to nurture our intrinsic freedom to ponder elsewhere.