Freedom of speech on university campuses has collapsed. Left-leaning college administrators, faculty, and students have been silencing conservative voices, and conservative students are increasingly adopting the Left’s errant ways. The Trump Administration has launched a strong counterattack that also seems poised to suppress speech.
The First Amendment’s free speech guarantees are at the core of our liberties. As Justice Louis Brandeis explained in Whitney v. California (1927), “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Though set out in a concurring opinion, Justice Brandeis’s counter-speech doctrine has become the bedrock of free speech jurisprudence. In the milestone First Amendment case of United States v. Alvarez (2012), Justice Anthony Kennedy cited Justice Brandeis, opining, “The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth.”
Many in Gen Z and younger Millennials would beg to differ. To many of these students and recent graduates, particularly—but not only—on the Left, offensive speech is violence that should be silenced—and with physical violence, if necessary.
For the last six years, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has surveyed tens of thousands of students at hundreds of American universities to evaluate the status of free speech on campuses. Its most recent survey, in collaboration with pollster College Pulse and RealClearEducation, included 68,510 students at 257 universities. The results are troubling. Together with other surveys, campus activism, and social media invective, a considerable decline in support for free speech is manifest, particularly among younger Americans on the Left.
FIRE’s scores are based on 12 components, including student perceptions of six factors, three areas of campus speech policies, and three types of speech controversies. FIRE generates a blended score on a 100-point scale, which it converts to letter grades. Claremont McKenna College (not affiliated with Claremont Institute) received the highest score, 79.86, and Columbia University’s Barnard College the lowest, 40.74. My alma mater, Columbia College, was next lowest at 42.89.
Just 11 of the 257 schools surveyed received a grade of “C” or higher; 14 received a C-; 63 ranged from D- to D+; and 168 institutions—nearly two-thirds—received an F. Of the top 10 schools, only Claremont McKenna did better than a “C,” scraping by with a “B-,” though FIRE observed that but for rounding scores, the college would have received a C+. Each of the other nine top-ranked schools received a “C.”
According to FIRE, the lowest-ranked schools are home to restrictive speech policies, threats to student press freedom, speaker cancellations, and the quashing of student protests. Only 36% of students said that their school’s administration protects free speech. To the contrary, the great majority of campuses are inhospitable to faculty and students who oppose DEI, observe religious tenets, are pro-life, favor Israel in its struggle with Hamas, or otherwise fall on the conservative side of the political spectrum (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
The most troubling result of FIRE’s survey and other recent studies is that educators in both K-12 and higher education are indoctrinating students in ideologies that are completely adverse to free speech.
FIRE warned that there has been a “steady erosion of free expression at colleges and universities,” adding that “the atmosphere isn’t just cautious—it’s hostile.” To stop speakers with whom they disagree, at least 71% of students surveyed (a high) support shouting; 54% (a high) endorse blocking other students from attending a speech on campus; and 34% (also a high) support the use of violence at least some of the time.
The FIRE survey found that 76% of students would stop someone from saying that BLM is a hate group; 74% would stop a speaker from saying that transgender people have a mental disorder; and 60% would not allow a speaker to say that abortion should be completely illegal. These numbers suggest almost universal support from left-leaning students to bar speakers with whom they disagree, and at least some support from conservatives. American liberals used to champion free speech, which was the message of those angered by Disney’s suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.
Smaller majorities, comprised chiefly of conservative students, would bar speakers from advocating that the Catholic Church is a pedophilic institution (62%), that the police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan (62%), or that children should be allowed to transition without parental consent (51%). While I disagree with these perspectives, it is not conservative doctrine to bar speakers who have bad ideas. Conservatives debate and debunk bad ideas—they don’t silence those with whom they disagree.
A more careful review of Claremont McKenna’s scores and the national data demonstrates the fervor of left-leaning students to suppress speech with which they disagree. Claremont McKenna ranked only 24th for tolerance of conservative speakers and 186th in the closely correlated category of tolerating differences. Overall, most campuses received higher marks for tolerating controversial liberal speakers than for tolerating controversial conservative speakers.
On a positive note, 79% of respondents thought their college protects free speech, and about half would feel comfortable disagreeing with their professors on controversial political topics. However, anecdotal evidence and surveys suggest that conservative students would feel less secure in speaking candidly than liberals.
A decline in support for free speech and an increase in support for violence to suppress opposing views go hand-in-hand in authoritarian regimes. According to a recent report from Vanderbilt University’s The Future of Free Speech project, over the past decade the number of countries limiting speech has far outnumbered those expanding it. Of the countries surveyed, the United States had the third-largest decline in support for free speech since the last study was published in 2021.
According to Jacob McHangama, executive director of The Future of Free Speech, the decline in the U.S. represents
fundamental shifts in values within a short period. While older Americans (ages 55 and over) have maintained relatively stable attitudes, showing only single-digit declines in most categories, the steep drops among younger cohorts raise profound questions about the future of free expression in America. College-educated Americans show another surprising shift. This group, traditionally associated with openness to diverse viewpoints, has markedly decreased its support for controversial speech since 2021.
The Free Speech study found that younger Americans are especially hesitant to defend speech that offends minority groups. Only 57% say such speech should be permitted, a result driven by those on the Left. Tolerance for religiously offensive speech declined from 71% in 2021 to 57% this year, a result driven by those on the Right.
In a recent YouGov poll, 25% of those who are very liberal agreed that violence is acceptable to achieve political goals, as did 17% of liberals, but only 6% of conservatives and 3% of those who are very conservative approved. Eleven percent of adults said that political violence can be justified, while 72% disagreed. By contrast, for those aged 18-29, 19% believe violence can be justified, and just 51% disagreed. Ironically, while 65% of all adults believe violence is justified for self-defense, just 60% of those aged 19-20 agree. Their views may be associated with sympathy for criminals as perceived victims of systemic oppression.
In April, the nonpartisan Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University issued a report based on its extensive polling that concluded “widespread justification for lethal violence—including assassination—among younger, highly online, and ideologically left-aligned users.” NCRI reported that these “attitudes are not fringe—they reflect an emergent assassination culture, grounded in far-left authoritarianism and increasingly normalized in digital discourse. Cyber-social platforms—particularly BlueSky—play a strong predictive role in amplifying this culture.”
More than 2,100 students were arrested during campus protests last year. Though demonstrations continue, they have been smaller in 2025 since the Trump Administration’s crackdown on universities that have enabled anti-Semitic demonstrations.
The administration is pressuring universities to end anti-Semitism and take down barriers to free speech by revoking visas for foreign students who have endorsed Hamas or used violence to support Palestinian causes, and by suspending funding for leading universities that fail to defend the rights of Jewish students and faculty, including Columbia, Harvard, Brown, UCLA, and the University of Pennsylvania. At least 60 colleges and universities are being investigated by the Department of Education under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for their handling of anti-Semitic discrimination.
The Washington Post recently reported that the Trump Administration is developing a plan that would give an advantage for research grants to schools that pledge to adhere to administration policies on DEI and combating anti-Semitism. According to the Post, universities could be asked to affirm that admissions and hiring decisions are based on merit, that specified factors are taken into account when considering foreign student applications, and that college costs are not out of line with the value students receive.
While a requirement that universities adhere to the law to receive funding is sound, a requirement that they adopt discretionary policies preferred by the administration, or avoid criticizing its objectives, is not. Much as I would likely support the administration’s policies, the time will come when Democrats reclaim the presidency. I don’t want them to impose a radical Left agenda on universities as a condition of funding. Particularly because Democrats would encounter a sympathetic audience, their effectiveness would be far greater than any benefits that the Trump Administration might achieve by suppressing dissent.
Numerous educators have been suspended or terminated for blaming Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Kirk or MAGA, or even openly endorsing Kirk’s murder. A Washington Post columnist was fired, Jimmy Kimmel was suspended for four nights, and investigations are proceeding against members of the military and federal agents who posted intemperate thoughts on X, Bluesky, and other social media channels.
I have written extensively on loyalty tests, cancelation culture, and radical Left bias at American universities, as well as the Biden Administration’s collaboration with, and coercion of, social media platforms to deplatform conservative views. I opposed those actions not because of my agreement with those who were censored, but because I support the First Amendment.
For many years, the rot on American campuses has spread as the radical Left has pummeled and marginalized conservative voices. Under intensive indoctrination about safe spaces, intersectionality, and oppressor ideology, too many Americans under 35 have lost track of American exceptionalism and the beauty and meaning of the Free Speech Clause.
Our free speech rights are under attack. The remedy for the excesses of the radical Left is to restore an understanding of why America is a beacon of liberty—not to adopt the Left’s worst impulses.