In 11 states, at least half of colleges rated earn FIRE’s worst rating for “clearly and substantially” restricting free speech rights.
Almost 800,000 students at top U.S. colleges must find a “free speech zone” to exercise their expressive rights.
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 11, 2018 — The vast majority of students at America’s top colleges and universities surrender their free speech rights the moment they step onto campus, according to a new report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
Released today, Spotlight on Speech Codes 2019: The State of Free Speech on Our Nation’s Campuses analyzes the written policies at 466 of America’s top colleges and universities for their protection of free speech. The report finds that 89.7 percent of American colleges maintain policies that restrict — or too easily could restrict — student and faculty expression. All of the analyzed policies are accessible in FIRE’s Spotlight Database. FIRE rates schools as “red light,” “yellow light,” or “green light” based on how much, if any, speech protected by the First Amendment their policies restrict.
“Most colleges impose burdensome conditions on expression by maintaining policies that restrict students’ free speech rights,” said FIRE Senior Program Officer Laura Beltz, lead author of the study. “Colleges should be a place for open debate and intellectual inquiry, but today, almost all colleges silence expression through policies that are often illiberal and, at public institutions, unconstitutional.”
More than a quarter of institutions in the report (28.5 percent) received FIRE’s poorest, red light rating for maintaining speech codes that both “clearly and substantially” restrict freedom of speech.
Alarmingly, red light schools still make up at least half of FIRE-rated institutions in the District of Columbia and 11 states: Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming.
Only 9 percent of institutions (42 schools) do not maintain any policies that compromise student expression, earning FIRE’s highest, green light rating. This total is up from only 2 percent in 2009. Meanwhile, the number of institutions earning a yellow light rating is swelling: from 21 percent in 2009 to 61 percent today. While less restrictive than red light policies, yellow light policies still prohibit or have an impermissible chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.
“Many states have made incredible strides toward eliminating speech codes — whether that’s through collaboration with FIRE, legislative action, or nudging from peer institutions,” said Beltz. “In other states, too many students are left to fend for themselves to protect their rights against policies that — whether explicitly or covertly — erode student expression.”
Neither public nor private colleges have a monopoly on silencing students and faculty members. Just over 90 percent of public colleges maintain policies that don’t live up to their free speech obligations under the First Amendment.
Private institutions are generally not bound by the First Amendment but are responsible for living up to their institutional commitments to free speech. More than 88 percent of private institutions fall short of those promises. Only 6 percent live up to their pledged speech protections, earning a green light rating. Another 6 percent earn a “warning” rating for promoting other principles, such as religious values, over free speech.
Other findings:
Almost 800,000 college students attend an institution that maintains a “free speech zone” policy, through which student demonstrations and other expressive activities are quarantined to small or out-of-the-way areas of campus. Free speech zones have repeatedly been struck down by courts or voluntarily revised as part of lawsuit settlements.
For the first time, the percentage of private universities earning FIRE’s worst, red light rating dropped below 50 percent, coming in at 47 percent.
More than 50 administrations or faculty bodies have adopted statements in support of free speech modeled after the one adopted by the University of Chicago in January 2015. That’s up 15 from one year ago.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of students and faculty members at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of liberty.
Simultaneous removals of the alt-right media personality from online platforms raise questions about content regulation, censorship and who chooses what we can see.
This week, Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify removed posts, videos and podcasts from Alex Jones and his platform, Infowars. Many, across the political spectrum, breathed sighs of relief.
The removals shine a harsh light on the challenges tech companies face in applying their own content regulations.
Online platforms have been grappling for years with how to manage speech they–and many of their users–dislike. The New York Timeshas a good primer on how various platforms have approached regulating users’ content.
As private companies, these firms are free to take down whatever they want. They also serve as the largest global forums for the exchange of ideas–and presumably want to stay that way. But their guidelines surrounding offensive content remain vague, subjective and confusing. What happens when the gatekeepers dislike speech you agree with? Who decides what is offensive enough to ban? Who draws the line? Do you really trust them to do it well?
As Nadine Strossen writes, “Entrusting these powerful private-sector companies to decide what we can see, hear and discuss online is, simply put, a very bad idea.”
Where do we go from here?
Before we enthusiastically outsource control of the online public sphere to Big Tech, we need to consider the implications. There are other ways to confront the toxic conspiracy theories Infowars peddles in. We stand with our allies working in internet freedom, journalism and government transparency to defend free expression. As we deal with toxic online speech, we must remain true to our commitment to First Amendment principles.
Our democracy demands that we protect free expression.
We need your stories of internet censorship, thoughts on current methods of content regulation and what solutions you’d like to see. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!
Former Evergreen State College Professor Bret Weinstein describes himself as a “professor in exile.” The evolutionary biologist left Evergreen last September in the fallout from the controversy surrounding the school’s planned Day of Absence programming.
Weinstein’s objection to the programming led fifty students to disrupt his class and demand his resignation. The backlash became so intense that Evergreen’s chief of police told him she could not protect him from protesters. As a result, he had to hold his biology course in a public park.
On this episode of So to Speak, we speak with Weinstein about his experience and the state of free speech and inquiry in higher education and beyond.
Weeks ago I spoke on @TheFIREorg's So To Speak podcast about the sudden reemergence of the term "grifter".
With GQ now leveling that particular stigmatizing charge, it's worth considering why it is this term in particular. https://t.co/1mzmoUZQE3 via @TheFIREorg
The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience—the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE’s core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.
Florida State, University of West Florida, Florida Atlantic, and other schools must change speech policies
TALLAHASSEE, Mar. 12, 2018 — Yesterday, Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed into law SB 4, a broad higher education bill, which was amended to include free speech protections at the state’s public colleges and universities.
The new law prohibits Florida public colleges and universities from quarantining student expression into small, misleadingly labeled “free speech zones.” The campus free speech provisions are based on the CAFE Act model legislation from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
“Students at public colleges and universities in Florida should not have their free speech quarantined by overly restrictive policies,” said FIRE Legislative and Policy Director Joe Cohn. “Now that Florida’s Campus Free Expression Act is law, these egregious policies of censorship must be rescinded immediately.”
The bipartisan CAFE provision of the bill was sponsored by Reps. Chuck Clemons, Sr., Bob Rommel, and John Cortes, and Sen. Dennis Baxley, among others. SB 4 passed the Florida House of Representatives by a vote of 84-28 and the Florida Senate by a vote of 33-5. The law also provides a right to bring a lawsuit in state court against a public institution of higher education if the institution violates the expressive rights guaranteed by the bill.
Examples of Florida policies that must be revised now that the CAFE Act has been enacted include Florida State University’s policy that limits the distribution of literature to a small stretch of campus, Florida Atlantic University’s policy that requires students to submit materials to the Office of Student Development and Activities for approval before they can be displayed or distributed, and the University of West Florida’s policy that restricts speech to one area of campus and problematically declares, “The University does not contain any traditional public forum areas.”
“Thanks to this legislation, students at Florida’s colleges and universities can much more freely exercise their constitutional right to free speech,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley. “We’re hopeful that Congress will follow this example and act to uphold the First Amendment rights of America’s students.”
Other states with similar legislation:
Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Kentucky, Colorado, Utah, North Carolina and Tennessee have also passed legislation banning public colleges and universities from relegating student expression to free speech zones. In addition, last month, United States Sen. Orrin Hatch introduced the federal Free Right to Expression in Education Act, which would prohibit public colleges and universities across the country from maintaining those restrictive zones.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending liberty, freedom of speech, due process, academic freedom, legal equality, and freedom of conscience on America’s college campuses.
A new book authored by by First Amendment Expert Greg Lukianoff and Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt is set to be released July 17, 2018.
A timely investigation into the new “safety culture” on campus and the dangers it poses to free speech, mental health, education, and ultimately democracy
The generation now coming of age has been taught three Great Untruths: their feelings are always right; they should avoid pain and discomfort; and they should look for faults in others and not themselves. These three Great Untruths are part of a larger philosophy that sees young people as fragile creatures who must be protected and supervised by adults. But despite the good intentions of the adults who impart them, the Great Untruths are harming kids by teaching them the opposite of ancient wisdom and the opposite of modern psychological findings on grit, growth, and antifragility. The result is rising rates of depression and anxiety, along with endless stories of college campuses torn apart by moralistic divisions and mutual recriminations.
This is a book about how we got here. First Amendment expert Greg Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt take us on a tour of the social trends stretching back to the 1980s that have produced the confusion and conflict on campus today, including the loss of unsupervised play time and the birth of social media, all during a time of rising political polarization.
This is a book about how to fix the mess. The culture of “safety” and its intolerance of opposing viewpoints has left many young people anxious and unprepared for adult life, with devastating consequences for them, for their parents, for the companies that will soon hire them, and for a democracy that is already pushed to the brink of violence over its growing political divisions. Lukianoff and Haidt offer a comprehensive set of reforms that will strengthen young people and institutions, allowing us all to reap the benefits of diversity, including viewpoint diversity.
This is a book for anyone who is confused by what’s happening on college campuses today, or has children, or is concerned about the growing inability of Americans to live and work and cooperate across party lines.
Greg Lukianoff is an attorney and president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. His writings on campus free speech have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, in addition to dozens of other publications. A regular columnist for the Huffington Post, he is a frequent guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and has made numerous television appearances, including on the CBS Evening News and Stossel. He received the 2008 Playboy Foundation Freedom of Expression Award and the 2010 Ford Hall Forum’s Louis P. and Evelyn Smith First Amendment Award on behalf of FIRE. Lukianoff is a graduate of American University and Stanford Law School.
Jonathan Haidt is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business. He obtained his Ph.D. in social psychology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1992, and then taught at the University of Virginia for 16 years. He is the author of The Righteous Mind and The Happiness Hypothesis. He lives in New York City.
Livestream available on Dave Rubin’s Youtube Channel begins at 8 pm PST
Berkeley, Calif. — On Thursday, March 8, Heather Mac Donald, Dave Rubin and Steve Simpson will appear at the Hearst Field Annex at UC Berkeley to discuss this critical question. Journalists are encouraged to attend. https://www.facebook.com/events/1763255417040811/
Instances of students using force to silence non-conformist speakers have become commonplace on college campuses. In the last year there have been numerous violent disruptions of speakers’ appearances at universities, including Middlebury, Claremont McKenna and UC Berkeley itself, effectively stifling the public voicing of alternative viewpoints.
“The free speech crisis on college campuses threatens the very possibility of a peaceful, civil society,” says American political commentator, essayist, attorney and journalist Heather Mac Donald, “But that crisis is an outgrowth of an even more dangerous problem: the cultivation of a victim mentality in an ever-growing number of individuals and identity-based groups.”
Steve Simpson, director of Legal Studies at the Ayn Rand Institute, emphasizes that “the purpose of the right to free speech is to protect our right to think for ourselves and to communicate with others, which are two of the pillars of a modern, free society.”
This event, hosted by Berkeley College Republicans and the Ayn Rand Institute will be a lightning rod for those intolerant of politically incorrect voices and promises to be controversial.
Ayn Rand once said that “a gun is not an argument.” “The reverse is also true—” wrote Simpson recently in The Hill, “an argument is not a gun. If we forget the difference, we will end up with guns settling our disputes, rather than arguments.”
Steve Simpson is a constitutional lawyer and director of Legal Studies at the Ayn Rand Institute. He is the editor of Defending Free Speech (ARI Press, 2016).
Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Dave Rubin is an American political commentator, satirist, and talk show host. He is the creator and host of the political talk show The Rubin Report.
About ARI
The Ayn Rand Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that promotes the works and philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The Institute fosters a growing awareness, understanding and acceptance of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, to create a culture whose guiding principles are reason, rational self-interest, individualism and laissez-faire capitalism—a culture in which individuals are free to pursue their own happiness.
My nearly sold out Phoenix event has been moved to Friday, March 2nd.
Here’s why:
The company hired to run production has pulled out due to threats of violence, and the new company simply wants the time to properly ensure everyone’s safety.
There are absolutely no venue issues and this event WILL NOT be cancelled. All purchased tickets and upgrades will be honored. If you haven’t purchased your tickets yet – GET ON IT, because like all my other live events, this will sell out in advance!
To all our Left Side peeps in the Valley of the Heat Stroke and beyond, you all did it!!! MILO HAS BEEN FUCKING CANCELLED!!! THAT’S STRIKE THREE MILO, YOU FUCKING BIGOT!!! STAY THE FUCK OUT OF PHOENIX!!! #DirectActionGetsTheGoodspic.twitter.com/i8XmVB07PV
First off, do you know who Lawrence Krauss is? I’ve seen many comments with folks commenting that they’ve never even heard of him. His professional biography, published on Arizona State University’s website, may be found here:
Secondly, on February 22, 2018, Buzzfeed published an article by By Peter Aldhous (BuzzFeed News Reporter) Azeen Ghorayshi (BuzzFeed News Reporter) Virginia Hughes (BuzzFeed News Science Editor). The article is titled, “The Unbeliever” and subheaded with the following:
“He Became A Celebrity For Putting Science Before God. Now Lawrence Krauss Faces Allegations Of Sexual Misconduct.
Lawrence Krauss is a famous atheist and liberal crusader — and, in certain whisper networks, a well-known problem. With women coming forward alleging sexual harassment, will his “skeptic” fanbase believe the evidence?”
Third, is Buzzfeed a reliable source? I like to use Media Bias Fact Check when I look at a publication. The website says Buzzfeed is classified as having a left-center bias with a Mixed rating on factual reporting but is “generally trustworthy.”
From the Media Bias website:
LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Buzzfeed is an internet media company that focuses on entertainment, but does have content for breaking news and politics. Buzzfeed occasionally uses loaded words with a left bias in headlines/articles and has failed a fact check. Buzzfeed has also been known to rush stories that are not verified and then have to retract them. For the most part, Buzzfeed is factual and very well sourced. If not for a few minor blemishes Buzzfeed would be listed as High for factual reporting. Overall, Buzzfeed is a left leaning source that is almost always accurate in reporting, however our criteria dictates that a source that fails a fact check must be rated factually mixed. Buzzfeed is generally trustworthy, but it is recommended to check other sources to verify their stories. (6/30/2016) Updated (12/22/17)
Fourth, I found it odd that Buzzfeed put “skeptic” in quotation marks.
Let’s clarify the terms skeptic and skepticism:
Merriam Webster:
Definition of skeptic
1 : an adherent or advocate of skepticism
2 : a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles
Definition of skepticism
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)
Skepticism also has more than one branch.
Examples of major types:
Philosophical Skepticism—final truths are unknowable. I include Moral Skepticism under this heading, although others might view it as a separate area of study.
Religious Skepticism—questioning faith-based claims. A religious skeptic is not always an atheist. The two terms are commonly misused as interchangeable.
Scientific Skepticism-applying scientific inquiry and scientific method to prove knowledge. This would include debunkers such as Martin Gardner, the Amazing Randi, Penn & Teller or the popular “Mythbusters.” It also questions pseudoscience claims such as homeopathy.
So… that said, it appears that Buzzfeed uses the terms skeptic and atheist as the same thing, and that is simply incorrect.
So, back to dissecting the article:
Skeptics want evidence. Skeptics ask, “Is it true?”
Buzzfeed’s subhead quotes “whisper networks”: “Lawrence Krauss is a famous atheist and liberal crusader — and, in certain whisper networks, a well-known problem.”
Are “whisper networks” reliable evidence? Nope.
The next line in the subhead reads, “With women coming forward alleging sexual harassment, will his ‘skeptic’ fanbase believe the evidence?”
Huh? Why wouldn’t skeptics believe reliable evidence, whether part of Krauss’s fanbase or not? But it’s got to be more than the whisper network. There is no secret oath among skeptics to deny truth or cover it up if someone is accused of sexual misconduct.
Fortunately, the Buzzfeed authors go on to present the evidence beyond just whispers and innuendo.
First up is the account of Melody Hensley. The details are in the full story so I won’t rehash them here.
Hensley: “’It was definitely predatory,’ she said. ‘I didn’t want that to happen. It wasn’t consensual.’”
Krauss: “Krauss told BuzzFeed News that what happened with Hensley in the hotel room was consensual. In that room, ‘we mutually decided, in a polite discussion in fact, that taking it any further would not be appropriate,’ he told BuzzFeed News by email.”
Now what? In the classic sense of a “he said/she said” situation, the skeptic is going to look at this situation and say truth is unknowable. Dig deeper, please. (Hence, some skeptics, male and female, have been criticized for not fully embracing the #MeToo movement that asserts we must believe everyone, regardless of the evidence. The victim is always correct and truthful. No need to look under the hood.)
Ok, so that being said, things look a little more convincing when Buzzfeed claims the following: “In response to complaints, two institutions — Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario — have quietly restricted him from their campuses. Our reporting is based on official university documents, emails, and interviews with more than 50 people.”
That sounds like pretty damning evidence. The only documentation lacking would be independent verification by these institutions, which may happen, or a look at these documents and emails. But, clearly, this is moving in the direction of reliable evidence, which is all the skeptic wants to see. Buzzfeed fairly notes, “In lengthy emails to BuzzFeed News, Krauss denied all of the accusations against him, calling them ‘false and misleading defamatory allegations.’”
But then the article seems to take a weird turn, and it feels like an attack on the skeptic community in general:
First, it defines skeptics as rejecting all forms of faith:
“Although not a household name, Lawrence Krauss is a big shot among skeptics, a community that rejects all forms of faith — from religion and the supernatural, to unproven alternative medicines, to testimonials based on memory and anecdote — in favor of hard evidence, reason, and science.”
As illustrated above, this is not true. Case in point: Martin Gardner, considered by many to be the founder of the modern scientific skeptic movement, was a believer who wrote the essay, “Why I Am Not An Atheist.” Similarly, Carl Sagan disavowed atheism.
Next, Buzzfeed claims: “The skeptics draw heavily from traditionally male groups: scientists, philosophers, and libertarians, as well as geeky subcultures like gamers and sci-fi enthusiasts.” Traditionally male groups? Skepticism, questioning, inquiry, doubt—these are not the domains of males only. The suggestion that women can’t think critically with the best of them is insulting. Gamers and sci-fi enthusiasts? I don’t even know where that idea comes from. Skepticism has nothing to do with hobbies.
Then the article proceeds to pronounce the skeptic movement to be fracturing:
“But today the movement is fracturing, with some of its most prominent members now attacking identity politics and ‘social justice warriors’ in the name of free speech.”
Doesn’t fracturing mean falling apart? As a good skeptic, I return to Merriam-Webster:
Definition of fracture
1 : the result of fracturing : break
2 a : the act or process of breaking or the state of being broken; especially : the breaking of hard tissue (such as bone)
b : the rupture (as by tearing) of soft tissue kidney fracture
3 : the general appearance of a freshly broken surface of a mineral
Huh? So the skeptic movement is being broken apart by valuing and protecting free speech? The skeptic movement is broken for believing in discourse, debate and open-mindedness?
I’ll just leave you with this 20 minute talk on the value of free speech and free exchange of ideas by Christopher Hitchens. If you have time, it is wonderful.
Next, Buzzfeed goes with the anti-Muslim allegations so often leveled against religious skeptics. Oh brother. How many times does it have to be said. I’ll just quote Richard Dawkins here: “I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?”
Next, we get to a paragraph that levels so many accusations, I don’t know if I can handle them all in one sitting:
“Famous freethinkers have been criticized for anti-Muslim sentiment (addressed that with Dawkins), for cheering the alt-right media personality Milo Yiannopoulos (Milo does not identify as alt-right and yeah, free speech), and for lampooning feminism and gender theory (that’s the area of the evolutionary biologists and not all skeptics speak on this topic. It is extremely complex and academic in nature).”
Next: “Several women, after sharing personal accounts of misogyny and harassment by men in the skeptic community, have been subjected to Gamergate-style online attacks, including rape and death threats.” If that is true, it is not coming from decent human beings. Prominent faces in the skeptic community, male and female, black, brown and white, do not participate in name calling and certainly don’t threaten rape or death. Ridiculous. Look at Jordan Peterson’s Twitter. A British journalist recently claimed she was harassed after interviewing Peterson, and he absolutely denounced it.
And for the kicker: “As a result, some commentators have accused parts of the movement of sliding into the alt-right.” Bleh. This was recently addressed by Sam Harris, when folks who openly identified as alt-right co-opted Steven Pinker by clipping out some YouTube comment and making it seem like he was a Nazi or some other nonsense. The New York Times even ran an opinion piece called “Social Media is Making Us Dumber” about this silliness.
Clearly, sexual misconduct is everywhere, and coming from many sides. Smearing an entire community, though, is just plain—what’s the scientific word—goofy.
——
UPDATE: ASU has received no complaints from ASU students, faculty or staff related to Lawrence Krauss. The university has initiated a review in an attempt to discern the facts. We encourage anyone who has concerns about faculty, staff or students to report those concerns.
11:18 AM – 23 Feb 2018
Official statement from Lawrence Krauss published 3.7.18
Arizona State University has investigated a complaint regarding allegations that Krauss touched the breast of a woman attending a conference in Australia in 2016. ASU ruled the incident is a violation of the university’s sexual harrassment policy. On page 2 of the review, there is a note that the woman involved in the incident had not wanted to make a report and did not feel the incident merited losing one’s job. However, witnesses felt the incident was reportable. The full letter and review is here:
An update on my situation at ASU. I have chosen to retire from ASU in May, 2019, when I turn 65. Onward and hopefully upward to new and different challenges. Details below. Thanks for the support and encouragement from so many of you. pic.twitter.com/7PSh0i4NnU
Excerpted from University of Toronto debate “Freedom of Speech includes the Freedom to Hate” held November 2006.
“To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? Or determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the job of being the censor?”
PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 12, 2018 — Each year, colleges across the country find dubious ways to silence student and faculty expression. In the last year, administrators became embroiled in litigation for telling a student he couldn’t hand out Spanish-language copies of the U.S. Constitution outside a free speech zone, continued a years-long effort to ban a group from campus due to its political viewpoint, and even investigated a professor for a satirical tweet — eventually driving him to resign.
This year’s list includes the following institutions, in no particular order:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, N.Y.)
Drexel University (Philadelphia, Pa.)
Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.)
Los Angeles Community College District (Los Angeles, Calif.)
Fordham University (New York, N.Y.)
Evergreen State College (Olympia, Wash.)
Albion College (Albion, Mich.)
Northwestern University (Evanston, Ill.)
University of California, Berkeley (Berkeley, Calif.)
Texas State University (San Marcos, Texas)
The institutions on FIRE’s annual list of worst colleges include one university that threatened the funding and editorial process of its independent student newspaper, another that erected fences around campus to keep peaceful student demonstrators out of sight of donors, and yet another that put a student through a months-long investigation and a four-hour hearing for a joke. (That student is still waiting to learn his fate!)
“College administrators, and sometimes even students, are going to greater and greater lengths to justify muzzling expression on campus,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley. “This type of censorship makes for a sterile environment where lively debate and discussion can’t thrive. The public deserves to know which colleges will defend free expression — and which ones will go to seemingly any length to silence it.”
For the first time, FIRE also awarded a Lifetime Censorship Award to one university that threatens the free speech rights of its students and faculty so often that it deserves individual infamy: DePaul University.
DePaul earned the 2018 Lifetime Censorship Award in recognition of its decade-long rap sheet of suppressing speech at every turn. From denying recognition to a student organization criticizing marijuana laws, to forcing the DePaul Socialists, Young Americans for Freedom, and College Republicans to pay for security in order to host speakers at their meetings and events, to forbidding a group from using the slogan “Gay Lives Matter,” DePaul has staked out a leadership position in stifling campus expression.
FIRE’s 2018 list includes both public and private institutions. Public colleges and universities are bound by the First Amendment. Private colleges on this list are not required by the Constitution to respect student and faculty speech rights, but explicitly promise to do so.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending liberty, freedom of speech, due process, academic freedom, legal equality, and freedom of conscience on America’s college campuses.
