Almost 40 Percent of College Students Feel Uncomfortable Sharing a Controversial Opinion in Class
A new survey from FIRE shows one-third of college students report it is “sometimes” or “always” acceptable to shout down a controversial campus speaker.

On Wednesday, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) released its annual College Free Speech Rankings. The rankings are derived from a survey of almost 45,000 college students at over 200 universities in the United States. The survey has been conducted since 2020, collecting a wide range of information about the campus political climate at a swath of universities.
"Schools that have an administration that's very strong on free expression issues…typically have done well in the rankings," FIRE Senior Research Fellow Sean Stevens tells Reason. "Interestingly, a number of these schools in the top five for sure, have some of the most ideologically diverse campuses."
The University of Chicago took the top spot this year, ranking first in the categories of Administrative Support (which "measures student perception of their college's support for free speech") and Tolerance for Speakers. Kansas State University took second place, followed by Purdue University, Mississippi State University, and Oklahoma State University. With the exception of the University of Chicago, the top five schools were generally very ideologically diverse, with neither liberals nor conservatives gaining more than a 2–1 ratio.
According to the survey results released by FIRE, both discomfort in expression and outright censoriousness of unpopular viewpoints continue to be common problems on American college campuses.
Sixty-four percent of students were worried a misunderstanding of something they say or do could damage their reputation. Forty-eight percent reported that they would be "very uncomfortable" or "somewhat uncomfortable" expressing their views on a controversial political topic to other students in a public space on campus. Thirty-eight percent expressed that they would be uncomfortable doing so during an in-class discussion. And rates of discomfort are comparable across racial categories: 32 percent of black respondents, 39 percent of white respondents, and 37 percent of Hispanic respondents felt that wariness about expressing themselves in class. More than 40 percent of Asian and American Indian students reported discomfort.
In contrast, FIRE found that rates of discomfort varied widely across different political identifications. Twenty-seven percent of students identifying as "strong democrats" reported being "somewhat" or "very" uncomfortable to share their opinion on a controversial political topic during in-class discussion, whereas 44 percent of "strong republicans" did. However, despite the partisan divide, discomfort about expressing opinions in class is present across the political spectrum, ranging from affecting slightly more than one in four "strong democrat" respondents to one in two "independent, lean republican" respondents.
Many students report a willingness to actively interfere with others' ability to see controversial campus speakers, with 32 percent finding it "sometimes" or "always" acceptable to shout down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus. Only a small percentage of students reported that the use of violence to prevent an unpopular speaking event would be acceptable, with 79 percent of students reporting that it would "never" be acceptable.
In fairness, it is difficult to know what proportion of college students would actually participate in violence to stop an unpopular speech or participate in a speaker shout-down even if they expressed conditional support for it in survey responses. However, such responses do give us a general idea of how likely some college students are to approve of such actions, even if they had no intention of participating themselves.
These new FIRE data provide yet more evidence that there is a two-pronged free speech problem on American college campuses. First, many college campuses—including public universities—still have strict speech codes that limit students' free expression. Many schools are also prone to caving to pressure to censor public events or punish students and faculty who make controversial statements. These policies and actions present a clear danger to the speech rights of thousands of American college students.
However, a more subtle element of this problem also deserves attention. Even at schools that boast robust protections for student speech, there is an increasing problem of students being too uncomfortable to actually operate under the protections they've been given. They still worry about expressing themselves on contentious topics and in common spaces.
A campus political climate unfriendly to the principles of free expression is a problem far greater than an uncomfortable social environment. It poses a direct threat to students' ability to learn how to think and how to form coherent opinions. How can we expect a young person to understand why they believe something if they can't hear the other side's perspective in good faith? The ability to consider a complex issue from multiple viewpoints is an incredibly important trait, but with the current environment on many college campuses, too many young people may have a difficult time developing it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Adherents to the Kirkland/Sqrlsy school of debate.
THANKS https://oto.4u-review.com/reachout-suite-oto/
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (anu-05) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/
Well...
https://fortune.com/2016/12/19/social-media-election/
Democrats are filled with hate and will unfriend you for being wrong politically.
There was a binge of leftists saying "If you don't believe like this, unfriend me now" in the mid 20teens. When someone said that, I'd unfriend them.
Also, if someone had the sorts of friends who were very hateful I would mute their feeds because I really didn't feel like being called a racist by random idiots because I wasn't a Hillary fan, or whatever their criteria was.
I ended up with so few contacts I just quit the facebook entirely.
So it goes.
Trust me you are better off without that font of idiocy.
Back when I used Zuck's site, a couple of people took exception to my referring to Willie Brown's whore as a whore, and I explained that 1) she was in fact a whore, compensated quite lavishly at taxpayer expense, and that 2) I don't advocate whoring per se being outlawed, but I don't want to pay for Willie Brown to get laid.
Went back and forth a few times with a couple of them, but they dropped it since I was clearly not going to back down. They tried calling me "racist" and "misogynistic", which I easily countered by pointing out that Willie Brown's Whore is and individual, not a group, and that lumping groups in with her was in fact a racist premise.
-jcr
Sixty-four percent of students were worried a misunderstanding of something they say or do could damage their reputation.
Get used to it ladies, because things are no different in the real world.
Any side effects incurred from the use of feminism are only temporary and should wear off within a couple of decades
Who would have thought people would be afraid to do a wrong-speak at the indoctrination center
They're trying hard to turn K-12 schools into similar "indoctrination centers." And when parents object, the U.S. Attorney General threatens to sick the FBI on them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland#School_board_memo
Sam Harris is brilliant and says some controversial things. Students - there is your model for free speech.
Totally. Remember when he said Hunter Biden could be a literal serial child murderer and he'd want the media to ignore it to protect his favored candidate?
Not surprising he's one of your intellectual heroes right up there with Bill Maher and Howard Stern. 🙂
#Defend(Both)Biden(s)AtAllCosts
That would be an easy one for Kant.
If Hunter Biden murdered a child and covering it up allowed his father to defeat another Hitler then it needs to be done.
Precisely. And Drumpf was, indeed, literally no different from Hitler.
BTW Mr. Buttplug, I'm sure you're aware of the upcoming one year anniversary of the 9 / 18 SECOND INSURRECTION BY RIGHTWING EXTREMISTS your intel sources told you about 5 days in advance. How do you plan to honor the memories of the innocent lives lost on that terrible day?
#9/18WasWorseThan9/11
Even if his father is following in footsteps of Mao?
Murder is ok with good intentions.
Thanks. I watched the guy debate a pulpit-thumping mystical bigot and thought he defended himself well. Yet the Aussie (libertarians not welcome) teevee hit piece on him was surprising. Then again... if anyone were good as responding to jabbers for "both" halves of the Kleptocracy, it's a safe bet that one'll be kept off teevee whatever the cost. Fully a third of eligible voters declined to have anything to do with latest shlinging match between Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche, and I'd bet fewer than one in ten of that lot has ever heard of spoiler vote clout.
A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate.
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836
Don't respond to SPB, just shun him.
#FillingInForOvert
No one ever banned me, you dumbass.
You utter fucking liar. Are you still trying to peddle the narrative that you merely "lost" the password to your SPB nick?
LOL!
"A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned"
"No one ever banned me"
Buttplug denies the ban but not the kiddie porn. A moment of honestly accidentally occurred with him for the first time, even if by accident.
Notice his objection isn't to the assertion that he posted child porn, it's that no one banned him for it.
You're a real grade A sack of shit.
"No one ever banned me, you dumbass."
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a TDS-addled steaming pile of lefty shit, a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
turd was banned for linking child pornography sites, period.
The sumbitch should be in jail.
Fuck off and die, turd.
"Sam Harris is brilliant and says some controversial things. Students - there is your model for free speech."
Oh yes. Super brilliant:
“But within the framework of his [bin Laden’s] odious beliefs, he demonstrated many virtues. He was a man who certainly seemed to be capable of real self-sacrifice and he was committed to ideals beyond his narrow self-interest. He was by all accounts personally quite courageous.
I don’t claim to know that much about him, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he was generally a person of real integrity and generosity and compassion in his dealings with his fellow Muslims.
None of these things can be said about Donald Trump."
More Sam Harris brilliance:
Harris: "At that point, Hunter Biden could have literally had the corpses of children in his basement, I would not have cared,"
"Whatever scope of Joe Biden's corruption is, if we can just go down that rabbit hole endlessly and understand that he's getting kickbacks from Hunter Biden's deals in Ukraine, or wherever else, or China, it is infinitesimal compared to the corruption we know Trump is involved in,"
"It's like a firefly to the sun,"
"It doesn't even stack up against Trump University, right? Trump University as a story is worse than anything that can be in Hunter Biden's laptop."
"Now, that doesn't answer the people who say it's still completely unfair to not have looked at the laptop in a timely way and to have shut down the New York Post's Twitter account, that's a left-wing conspiracy to deny the presidency to Donald Trump - absolutely it was, absolutely. But I think it was warranted,"
Konstantin Kisin: "You're saying you are content with a left-wing conspiracy to prevent somebody being democratically re-elected as president?"
Harris: "It's not left-wing. Liz Cheney is not left-wing,"
Konstantin Kisin: "You're content with a conspiracy to prevent somebody being democratically elected?"
Harris: "It was a conspiracy out in the open, but it doesn't matter what part is conspiracy, what part is out in the open,"
"We’re gonna get four more years of Trump if we actually give this a fair hearing" of Hunter's laptop and compared the work to prevent Trump from winning again to trying to stop "an asteroid hurdling toward earth."
Note that this is the perfect encapsulation of the left and media's attitude towards Trump.
He completely scrambled their brains, making them unable to think straight. After that it was full TDS, and any means necessary to get rid of him.
To hear Harris say it out loud and double down on it was pretty stark, but this is what's at the heart of the issue
This is how you know they fucked with the election.
So let’s flash back to election night, the foundation holding the 1/6 claims — which is the foundation holding the “MAGA extremist” claims. After four years of attacking Donald Trump — even promising to impeach him before he ever took office — the results are rolling in. And they’re not looking good.
Trump is blowing out expectations. It’s clear he’s going to roll to victory. Do we think that these people would just sit back and respect the votes of the people? What are you morally justified to do to stop LITERALLY HITLER from winning? Would you take advantage of the (illegally) recently created dropbox rules that prevent a real investigation to the ballot in the bottom of the box — even if it meant suspiciously stopping the vote counting just before Trump claims enough states to win? After all, lots of good money was spent to ensure dropboxes were there if they were needed.
Allowing Trump to win would ruin everything you’ve been working toward — so you ‘find’ exactly enough ballots in exactly the right places to swing exactly the right states, right when you need to find them.
And think about it. Sam Harris is at least a more rational lefty, even if he clearly has given into this stuff. He has some principles, and has the ability to be objective when his brain isnt broken.
You think some DNC operative, election official, green haired feminist, or guilt riddled wine-mom AWFL is going to think twice before approving of a rigged election?
I mean they have already said it was OK for the FBI to put their thumbs on the scale to hide a TRUE story from the public because they were pretty sure it would tip the election to Trump. Because he was an existential threat. Why would the same person care if instead of the govt doing what amounts to an in-kind campaign contribution to an establishment candidate, some people decided to tip the election in 'other' ways? I mean its a meteor headed towards earth, its an existential threat to democracy, its literally hitler. Wouldnt rigging the vote me the pragmatic thing to do?
Sam Harris is even more of a disappointment than Fauci. I naively admired Fauci early on because I am a science geek and I just naturally expected that a "scientist" would be driven by actual data. I never dreamed that he is just a squirmy bureaucrat. I guess my descent into cynicism is now complete. To hear Sam Harris so utterly consumed by TDS just drives the stake further through my heart.
I'll say it - I like fruitcake and I don't care who knows it or how ostracized I may be for sharing an unpopular opinion. Of course, I'm also old enough that I'm amused rather than frightened by college kids expecting anybody to give a shit what they think about anything. Get back to me once you've spent a decade or so in the real world, then I might give a shit.
Muted.
If you like fruitcakes, maybe we can introduce you to Tony.
That would be cruel.
No, just incredibly boring to the point of death.
Not muted. Fruitcake is ok. Sometimes. But I don't go out and buy or give it as a gift.
Hey Emma, guess which political opinions are not favorable to share in the classroom?
Gosh. I bet it's mean old conservatives silencing liberals.
with 32 percent finding it "sometimes" or "always" acceptable to shout down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus
Proof that Academia has failed as an institution, having been completely subverted by Marxist infiltrators. Any real student of history can recognize 'struggle sessions', and identify what ideology inspired the practice.
I think the story is less about the number, than how "controversial" is defined. Like, if controversial was something like "American deserve 9/11," it's okay to feel uncomfortable sharing that. But when controversial is defined as "I think mask mandates are a horrible policy," then we really do have a problem.
We have a problem.
I have to agree. Without knowing at least some kind of example or baseline this is entirely meaningless garbage. It would probably still be garbage anyway, but at least it would be measured garbage.
It would at least be interesting garbage to see what 'controversial' opinions are causing some dread. That I would love to read through in a morbidly curious kind of way.
As is I assume some amount of college students think the planet is flat or something, there's no way to be sure.
Speaking from experience, I can think of very few examples from my time in academia when it was even plausible that someone might have something to say that might really pass as "controversial." No one was talking about the systemic racism inherent in group theory, for instance.
There was the militant vegan teaching ethics, where any attempt to counter a utilitarian case for veganism would carry some risk to your grade.
There was the leftie poli sci professor who had to deal with the stupid, right-wing "objections" raised at length by the yokels making a rare appearance in class, for once.
And then there were the smattering of other professors with fairly established ideas about the "right" view on whatever field, who would not really tolerate any attempts to push at their established frames.
But for the most part, I would want people who want to say "controversial" things in my classes to feel a bit "uncomfortable" about it, just because so often those things were uncontroversially moronic.
"...There was the leftie poli sci professor who had to deal with the stupid, right-wing "objections" raised at length by the yokels making a rare appearance in class, for once..."
Here we have a stupid, lefty shit posting bullshit regarding claims absent any evidence at all.
Eat shit and die, asshole.
Simon it didn't come off as un-slanted expertly as you hoped it did.
I don't really expect to convince the incel mouth-breathers who occupy Reason's commenting boards that I'm an "expert" on the matters I choose to opine on, so I'm not bothered when I fail to do so.
You would fail to convince independents if they have a brain. You seem so tolerant to failure that one has to wonder if you are just very used to failing.
Except that in 2022, you can freely push lefty bullshit comfortably, which would indicate it is uncontroversial.
Your assessment works based on the assumption that university isn’t a heavily filtered environment, skewed in favor of a certain line of thought. However, only an out of touch idiot would assume that.
In reality, at a university, you would feel uncomfortable saying something that is common sense outside of a university.
Controversial: A woman is somebody born with a vagina.
Because, of course, when we encounter a person on the street, we do not really know whether they are a "woman" unless we know whether they were born with a vagina.
Do we have to play the "featherless biped" game every time, on this topic? It's stupid to think you can define "woman" by reference to anatomical features that are usually hidden from view. That's not how you or I know whether a person is a "woman." When you actually examine how we know, you realize that there is a social dimension to the definition.
"...When you actually examine how we know, you realize that there is a social dimension to the definition."
Which, as a steaming pile of lefty shit, you deserve nothing other than:
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Do we have to play the "featherless biped" game every time, on this topic?
No one except you is playing this game that you made up to oppress women.
I'm sure women much prefer to be "defined" by their reproductive organs. Really advancing the cause, conservatives are.
Many actually are. Advancing what cause? You are so grounded in the opinions of your idiot camp that your interactions turn out comical at this point.
There are benefits to be defined by biological realities. It can open doors in health care:
Doctor: “Mister SimonP, if you cant stop coughing and faint randomly, maybe it would help if you just stopped IDENTIFYING as a cancer patient? What do you mean that’s bullshit?! Sally, can you please show this man the door?! I think he is just not ready to live in a progressive society”.
Edit benefits to being defined
Lmao idiot ????
I put a tarp on a rock, and tell you it is either obsidian or diamond. I ask you what it is. Now, only a true, coddled, out of touch, evolutionarily obsolete leftist would be moronic enough to respond with: “The answer to this question has a social dimension”.
Lmfaaaaao
That ???? was meant to be an emoji, but reason is really not equipped for that higher level of communication
Woo Hoo!!!! My school made the Top 5!
Negative flip side, 60+% know they hold the socially desirable position, feel threatened that there exists even 1% opposition.
Major political fail.
After decades of control, only 40% are properly conditioned?
There should be 75% or more afraid to speak out on anything.
By now the subjects should know to pay the bug bucks, sit quietly, and vote democrat.
my entire college experience was mouthing off at authority
also KSU es segunda on the list. bamo Gatos!
Minority opinions are wrong.
Wrong opinions should not be shared in the classroom.
If you have good opinions then you have nothing to fear when sharing them.
"...with 32 percent finding it "sometimes" or "always" acceptable to shout down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus."
Barely a third? There is clearly so much more work to be done.
This goes beyond "controversial opinions."
Try FACTS.
Most people are under the FALSE impression that:
1) Federal government revenue in real per capita terms declined during the Reagan administration.
2) Real wages declined between the Civil War and World War 1.
3) Real pre-tax wage stagnation in the US began in the 1980s, not in 1973 (two years after Nixon closed the gold window).
4) Most working class voters in American cities (e.g., NYC) voted for William Jennings Bryan in 1896.
What's really disappointing is how few understand the true origins of the war between Bolivia and Paraguay in 1932-1935. Damn near everyone talks for hours about it over their after-dinner drinks, and they're completely wrong.
'A new survey from FIRE shows one-third of college students report it is “sometimes” or “always” acceptable to shout down a controversial campus speaker.'
Just like born-again Baptists at a tent revival.
Only 40%? Wow.
I can't speak to the other institutions, but part of the reason that the University of Chicago is able to cultivate an atmosphere of open inquiry of diverse viewpoints is that the people there are not messing around. Conservative, liberal, libertarian - the people there marshal evidence, make cogent arguments, can defend their positions. You might want to disagree with someone, but if you do, you better be prepared for an intellectual challenge.
It's a far cry from any of the bullshit you can read on this stupid website, where most of the content is written by surly, contrarian J-school failures.
You steaming pile of lefty shit, you couldn't recognize an honest argument if it was handed to you gift-wrapped.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
I'm sorry, was this an honest argument? I'm afraid I can't tell.
As a steaming pile of lefty shit, incompetent to engage in an honest argument, you got more than that you deserved, asshole.
Fuck off and die, shit pile.
Nobody will be mean to you in the libertarian treehouse. Safe spaces for everyone!
Fuck off and die asshole.
I like how you waited to see if I'd muted you before leaving the same, tiresomely repetitive responses to my other comments in the thread. You're so transparent, Sevo.
I like how you assume you have enough value for someone to guess regarding your worthless activities; didn't wait for anything, steaming pile of lefty shit; eat shit and die.
You get more than you deserve by me recognizing your sorry existence.
'A new survey from FIRE shows one-third of college students report it is “sometimes” or “always” acceptable to shout down a NON-LEFTY-SHIT campus speaker.'
Corrected for you.
Lemme know when libertarians get behind free speech in the workplace.
You submissive cows.
College must really suck today. What with fear of being charged with assault for 'mispronouning'! I so pine for the good old day when a cisgender, WASP such as myself could command the class's attention while ranting away on mescaline! What ever happened to free thinking...?
I would be in bloody handcuff today for just speaking my mind... And I'd be sentenced to 10-20 were I on mescaline....
Yeah, we progressed....
"Without common education in courses that consider the rich Western tradition of intellectual debate, students cannot learn successfully to engage each other in clear, civil debate." (source)
The author laments the fact that such courses are no longer being offered (or, at least, are no longer required). But why is this the case? Because (1) the overwhelming majority of college professors and administrators are leftists, who realize that (2) “clear, civil debate” is not conducive to the victory of leftism.