American University, my alma mater, sits at the top of Niche’s list of the “ Most Liberal Colleges in America .” As a conservative who just graduated this May, I can tell you: That checks out, and it caused some problems during my time in school. Chief among those was a homogenization of discourse that bred widespread intolerance of disagreement.

Despite this, unlike some of my heterodox peers, I was never afraid to speak my mind, respectfully and with purpose. For this reason, I became a villain to many, occasionally making some folks shriek and being negatively affected by the close-mindedness of at least one professor and an administrator.

Still, I also interacted with tons of curiosity-driven students and encouraging staff. I even met dozens of liberal students who disliked the lack of cross-ideological exchanges on campus and the “intolerance in the name of tolerance” pathogen sickening the student body.

And even at the overwhelmingly liberal American University, the culture limiting free speech affected my liberal peers too.

The following stories, compiled by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, should give American University students and university students writ large reason to worry, as the shutting down of speech not only threatens their constitutional rights but also hinders their ability to encounter diverse opinions on campus, a necessary component of a fruitful education.

One of these stories dates back to 2015. In the fall of that year, the university’s Office of University Center & Student Activities denied a request by supporters of presidential candidate Rand Paul. The university cited Students for Rand’s “national election campaign focus” as a reason to prohibit students from clipboarding on the university’s quad. The issue is that even if such a policy was applied without the discrimination of a specific group, partisan discourse does not disqualify the validity of speech. If that were the case, then shouldn’t both American University College Republicans and College Democrats be barred from campaign-related work?

More recently, in May of last year, the Washington College of Law’s Title IX office at the university formally investigated eight students for expressing pro-abortion opinions in a GroupMe chat. A group of students argued over the then-leaked Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision, angering an anti-abortion classmate who shielded himself with an allegation of religious discrimination.

The mere investigation was in itself an endangerment of free speech. And if this student was able to make the university investigate disagreeing classmates, how else could harassment charges be weaponized? I know for a fact that I could have leveled charges against many rude classmates, but even if I had, universities should know better. The line that distinguishes harassment from discomfort should not be erased.

That same year, administrators at the university told student journalists at the Eagle that to interview university employees, they had to fill out a form, prohibiting direct contact with employees. Following this, on Dec. 19, FIRE wrote to the university explaining how this policy went against the commitment to free speech held by the institution. In January 2023, American University reemphasized its position, refusing to drop the form requirement. After a follow-up, the university told FIRE that the form was optional.

There are many more stories like these, some covered by FIRE and others faced by lonely students, who all too often forget that the right to free speech is on their side. Some of these may involve the speech of individuals that most students dislike, even hate. The Free to Speak series , which I suggest you watch if you are interested in the value of free speech and the dangers it faces, demonstrates how these trends affect all students. When those students graduate, this will affect you, too.

Juan P. Villasmil is a Young Voices contributor and an ISI journalism fellow serving as an editorial assistant at the Spectator World.