Other Free Speech News

Pope Leo XIV says that freedom of speech and conscience in Western democracies is increasingly constrained by what he described as “Orwellian-style” language and cultural pressure that sidelined dissenting voices. He framed these trends as a growing challenge to open debate and emphasized the importance of protecting diverse viewpoints as part of a healthy democratic society.

Civil discourse and structured debate have been sidelined in higher education, although students engaging across differences was long seen as central to a university’s mission. This article highlights emerging campus programs and national organizations focused on rebuilding civil dialogue.

Harvard President Alan Garber says faculty activism and professors injecting their personal views into teaching has chilled open debate and free speech on his university’s campus. He argued for greater neutrality and balance in the classroom and stressed restoring an environment where students feel comfortable engaging with diverse viewpoints.

The assasination of Charlie Kirk has had rippling effects on college campuses across the country. With Kirk’s killing ushering in national conversations surrounding free speech, the atmosphere of higher education will surely change. An extensive survey conducted by FIRE after Kirk’s murder shows that students are increasingly less comfortable expressing their views and are more concerned about political violence.

Heterodox Academy President John Tomasi argues that while many university leaders are promoting freedom of expression, they often fall short of embracing actual viewpoint diversity. This is evident, he argues, though the lack of range of perspectives among students, faculty, and administrators. Tomasi says true open inquiry requires not only protections for freedom of speech, but robust debate and a strong commitment to hosting diverse voices on campus.

FIRE President Greg Lukianoff and The New York Time’s Natalie Kitroeff discuss the current state of free speech in the United States. In a wide-ranging conversation, the pair discuss recent federal actions that some perceive as a threat to First Amendment protections and how freedom of speech can be undermined by leaders on both sides of the political spectrum. The podcast delves into the current state of free speech and how to protect it amid political and cultural pressures.

The Martin Center’s staff outlines a set of higher education reforms they hope will advance into the New Year. These reforms include drawing on the Founding Fathers’ vision of college having a civic purpose, introducing required argumentation courses to combat viewpoint intolerance, and continuing to improve policies surrounding accreditation, among other things.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression reports a record number of campus incidents involving any attempt to censor students in 2025. The organization has documented 273 efforts so far. The report outlines events from public and private institutions, as well as attempts by government officials to curb students’ free speech rights.

The University of Iowa has established the Center for Intellectual Freedom aimed at bringing a diversity of viewpoints to campus. Supporters argue it will enhance free speech on a campus where there had been a left-wing ideological dominance by much of the faculty. The center was created through the work of Governor Kim Reynolds and the state legislature.

A growing number of universities across the country have begun asking applicants to discuss a time they had a meaningful disagreement with someone whose beliefs differed from their own. This shift towards valuing the ability to respectfully disagree shows the realignment of higher education institutions and works to breed a generation of more mature, intellectually curious class of students.

Universities across the country have had to deal with the reality of campus protesters using disruption and intimidation to silence invited speakers. In order to avoid these types of situations, Kevin Wallsten argues, it would be wise to incorporate instruction on peaceful, non-disruptive protest into student training. This would create a campus environment more open to debate and inquiry.

Brandon Warmke argues universities need radical reform beyond superficial fixes. He praises universities' truth-seeking mission, but asserts most have drifted away from it through a lack of viewpoint diversity and debate. Warmke offers a slew of changes that universities can enact to battle these issues in order to rebuild a culture of pluralism and inquiry.

The Trump administration has made sweeping moves to revoke visas because of online posts, pressure private companies to censor critics, and threaten to send the Justice Department after “hate speech.” These acts mirror moves by governments in Europe and Asia to crackdown on freedom of expression. Collectively, this is a worrisome trend that represents a recession in global free speech.

After failing to protect academic viewpoint diversity and free speech, coupled with an abysmal record on antisemitism, Columbia University accepted a deal with the Trump administration. However, the Knight First Amendment Institute is warning the deal cedes academic autonomy. University officials herald the deal as pragmatic and one that ensures the workings of Columbia.

Earlier this month, the White House announced a “compact” under which universities would receive funding preferences in exchange for committing to basic educational goals. The compact represents the Trump administration’s most concrete plan yet for ensuring academic excellence and reversing the process of ideological capture in the universities.

In this Civitas Outlook symposium, Hadley Arkes presents a proposal for reforming the American university’s approach to free speech. Larry Aann, Mark Bauerlein, Justin Dyer, David Forte, Mark Helprin,Michael Poliakof, and Peter Wood respond.

Surveys by FIRE show that the general public is becoming less comfortable with common free speech-friendly idioms. These sayings such as “it’s a free country,” and “sticks and stones may break my bones” are increasingly out of fashion. This shift in attitude represents a movement toward “victimhood culture” and away from “dignity culture.” A revival of these phrases could bring about improving free speech norms.

Many American institutions of higher education are currently facing financial strain and cuts to programs. But this cannot entirely be blamed on President Trump’s education policies. Education is now looked at chiefly as a private good, rather than its historic role of educating students to be lifelong learners. This not only harms universities, but undermines the very mission of higher education.

Studies in both neuroscience and the social sciences show that when individuals are exposed to just one viewpoint, they are more prone to extremism. As such, a quality education should incorporate the ability to question, adapt, and tolerate disagreement. Hence, free speech is essential to that goal and viewpoint diversity is a societal necessity.

The California legislature has passed a bill that regulates speech on social media, giving prosecutors the authority to fine platforms that permit speech that could be perceived as offensive. Such regulation risks turning social media — the modern public square where First Amendment protections apply — into a tool of ideological enforcement, threatening the freedom of speech for California residents.

On Sept. 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was assassinated for the political sin of showing up on college campuses across our country and taking and answering questions. These queries came from students and guests whether they were allies or adversaries – or simply curious-minded Americans engaging in their unalienable birthright to engag in civics openly.

Former Tonight Show host Jay Leno has condemned the assasination of Charlie Kirk. In an interview with Tim Conway Jr., Leno discusses the history of lively debates at universities and the virtues of engaging in constructive conversation.

Last week an assassin silenced speech on a college campus. A family lost a father and a husband. As we have said without equivocation, political violence is never an acceptable response to free speech.

Charlie Kirk championed free speech as a fundamental American value. So, it’s sad—and ironic—that the murder of the 31-year-old conservative activist has triggered a fresh round of censorship, alarmingly aimed at teachers and other government employees. Educators in a dozen states have been fired or placed on leave for online statements that criticized Kirk or expressed approval of his death.

Charlie Kirk — the conservative activist who simply challenged students to “prove me wrong” in peaceful debates — was assassinated for voicing his opinion. Author and lawyer Jonathan Turley has said the event marks America moving into a new stage of its “age of rage.” This event comes after two failed assassination attempts against President Donald Trump and heightened rhetoric from the country’s political leaders.

The Honors College at the University of Tulsa gives students an education in classical Western texts and equips them to constructively debate controversial topics. However, these successes are being overshadowed by internal fighting between administrators. This sort of struggle is not rare and reflects wider tensions across higher education.

Across political divides, university students today are increasingly satisfied with preventing speech they disagree with on their campuses. A FIRE survey even goes so far to find that more than a third of college students believe, in at least some rare instances, that violence is acceptable to prevent speech on college campuses.

Almost a third of prospective students have removed a college from their list of potential institutions because of political reasons. The rise of technology and social media has made politics part of the modern teen’s identity and lifestyle, and made open dialogue about controversial political topics increasingly rare. The solution is for universities to foster intellectual diversity rather than ideological branding.

Civics education is having a serious resurgence. From the university level down to state-mandated curricula in grade schools, many students are receiving a real civics education. Today, with embracing foundational documents, fostering ideological balance, and blending classical and inclusive perspectives, America is seeing an unprecedented revival of civic education.

A University of Richmond professor details how his new class, which encourages students to discuss controversial topics, is thriving. Students want to read and talk about contentious matters, and many have sharpened their ability to do so. This is antithetical to the conventional wisdom which argues young people today are “snowflakes,” and is evidence for progress in higher education.

After the Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action, there still remains a question of whether schools are adhering to the ruling. Now, the Trump administration is demanding that schools provide accurate admissions data in order to ensure universities are following the order. If the law is not being adequately enforced, the federal government says it will withhold federal funding.

Researchers at Northwestern University and the University of Michigan have found that a vast majority of college students pretend to have more progressive views than in reality. This form of self-censorship is due to a fear of “ideological-fallout.” The full results of the study will be published in the fall.

George Mason University has officially rid the school of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. The vote by the Board of Visitors is a rebuke of University President Gregory Washington, who had championed such initiatives. Although Washington kept his job, the move is part of the wider national wave of schools axing DEI and the federal government using its authority to do away with social justice schemes.

Editorial Board | The New York Post

Universities have hit “rock bottom” after a series of missteps, including administrative bloat, ideological conformity, and vast DEI programs. But with pressure from donors and the Trump administration, universities have begun to shift policies and restore their once respectable reputations.

Shai Davidai | Tablet

Former Columbia Professor Shai Davidai reflects on his decision to leave the Ivy League school. With a deep-rooted antisemitism problem, the school has not adequately supported pro-Israel faculty and made hostile decisions toward viewpoint diversity. An investigation was even launched into Davidai after he condemned the Hamas terror group. Davidai maintains he will continue to protest antisemitism.

David E. Bernstein and David L. Bernstein | Jewish News Syndicate | July 8, 2025

Universities must walk a fine line between upholding the First Amendment and protecting Jewish students on college campuses. The authors argue the wave of anti-Israel sentiment is itself an attack on liberal values on college campuses and more needs to be done to counter this trend.

Zach Montague | The New York Times | July 7, 2025

A federal trial has begun over claims the Trump administration is deporting foreign students for anti-Israel speech. The plaintiffs argue that the deportations are unconstitutional and unfairly target a political agenda. The government argues that these deportations are necessary for national security. The case will have repercussions for college campuses across the country.

Adam Kissel | James G. Martin Center

With bans on affirmative action, restrictions on freedom of expression and the elimination of DEI across American universities, the best time for civil-rights audits is now. Problems still plague many college campuses and oversight is desperately needed to correct course. The article lists several examples of discriminatory scholarship and enrichment programs at UNC-Chapel Hill.

Dinah Megibow-Taylor | Fire Newsdesk | July 1, 2025

The 1967 Kalven report by the University of Chicago mostly discourages universities from releasing statements on political matters. This ensures institutional neutrality. The only real exception to this rule is when an institution is being directly attacked or threatened. Such is the reason Harvard and Columbia may have grounds to take official political stances as they are in negotiations and legal battles with the White House.

Maybe you're sick of hearing news about Harvard. We can't blame you.

But as free speech defenders, we go where the censorship is. The government picks the targets, not us. And — once again — the government is unconstitutionally targeting Harvard.

You don't have to like Harvard to oppose the government's recent demands of the university.

FIRE has plenty of problems with that "small school outside of Boston." It has been at the bottom of our College Free Speech Rankings for the last two years. We've defended students and faculty rights at the university since our founding in 1999, and we know better than anyone that there's plenty of work to do.

At one time, most Americans (and virtually all academics) would have agreed with the famous saying, often attributed to Voltaire, “While I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Over the last several decades, that has dramatically changed. Many academics now seem to embrace the opposite view—something like, “Since I disagree with what you say, I will do everything possible to silence you.”

Tom Neale | Alma Matters | May 15, 2025

Michigan State University Professor Marisol Quintanilla has been granted tenure after initially being denied, principally due to her objection to mandatory DEI statements. Letters were written in support of Dr. Quintanilla by the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, AFSA National, and UNC AFSA. Former UNC Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz, who currently serves as MSU President, affirmed the dean’s decision to promote Dr. Quintanilla with tenure.

FIRE staff | FIRE Newsdesk | May 15, 2025

A new report by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression found that there have been more than 600 instances of Universities violating the First Amendment rights of students over the past five years. Infringements occurred across the political spectrum, with Students for Justice in Palestine, Turning Point USA, and the College Republicans facing the most backlash. An increasing proportion of deplatforming cases have been perpetrated by campus administrators, rather than fellow students.

Liz Crampton and Kyle Cheney | Politico | May 9, 2025

A Tufts University student was released from jail after a federal judge ruled the government had provided no evidence for her imprisonment other than that she co-authored an anti-Israel op-ed. Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked the visa of the Turkish national, arguing she threatened American foreign policy interests. Judge William Sessions III stated that her detention in Louisiana violated her First Amendment rights. The case will continue in immigration court.

Frank Hill | North State Journal | April 24, 2025

UNC AFSA Board Member Frank Hill argues that private universities should be free to use non-public dollars as they wish, but that accepting taxpayer funds means answering to elected officials. He advocates a strict public-private funding divide, letting market-driven private universities like Harvard cater to specific ideologies and state universities align with local values, empowering families to choose the education that matches their priorities.

FIRE staff | FIRE Newsdesk | April 22, 2025

Harvard recently rejected Trump administration demands to conduct departmental audits, discontinue DEI, abandon ideological litmus tests, and to hire faculty and admit students to balance liberal and conservative viewpoints. FIRE discusses the process for and legality of pulling federal funding for universities, as well as the First Amendment concerns raised by the Trump administration’s demands.

Dr. Marisol Quintanilla, a nematologist at Michigan State University, faces tenure uncertainty despite her strong academic record. A MSU faculty committee voted to deny her reappointment with tenure, citing “poor collegiality”—a likely mask for viewpoint discrimination over her stances on identity politics. The Dean reversed the decision, but the Provost and Board of Trustees must now decide her fate. Her case demonstrates how DEI policies can stifle dissent rather than foster inclusion.

Key indicators of Americans' support for freedom of speech have decreased over the past four years, according to a survey conducted by Vanderbilt University. Overall, the United States ranked ninth in terms of citizens’ support for free speech based on tolerance for uncomfortable statements and government criticism. This decline is at odds with America’s identity as a top protector of free expression in the world.

Jonathan Turley critiques the World Forum in Berlin, where elites unveiled a “New World Order With European Values.” This EU-style transnational governance aims to curb populism and free speech through strict regulations and “content moderation.” Turley warns of an oligarchic drift, despite free speech victories on platforms like Twitter and Facebook, arguing it silences dissent under the guise of unity. 

In The Indispensable Right, Jonathan Turley critiques universities for trading open inquiry for censorship and proposes the "Athenian Circle"—a vision inspired by Plato and John Stuart Mill, where campuses become sanctuaries for free thought through protected individual autonomy. He suggests tying federal funding to rules that expel violent disruptors, eliminate "free speech zones," and focus discipline on actions, not speech, to rebuild a true marketplace of ideas.