Free Speech Group Calls Out 10 Censorship-Prone Colleges To Avoid
A rogues’ gallery of institutions that anybody with an independent mind should skip.

When my son, Anthony, began looking at colleges, the environment they offer for free-wheeling debate was an important consideration. Respect for freedom of speech and thought at colleges has been on the ropes for a while and worsened over the past year. Some schools, like the ones to which my son applied, rank well when it comes to tolerance for diversity of ideas, but others are the absolute pits.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a civil liberties group that began with a focus on academia, just published a rogues' gallery of institutions of higher education that anybody with an independent mind should avoid.
"Each year, FIRE bestows a special dishonor upon a select group of American colleges that go above and beyond in their efforts to trample expressive freedom. These are the schools that stopped at nothing to crush faculty rights, destroy student expression, and leave guest speakers in the dust," the group announced on February 2. "For that, we owe them their just reward: A spot on our exclusive '10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech' list."
The dishonored schools are: Hamline University, The Pennsylvania State University*, Collin College, Texas A&M, University of Pennsylvania, Emerson College, Emporia State University, Tennessee Tech, University of Oregon, and Loyola University.
Additionally, Georgetown University won a Lifetime Censorship Award for taking "122 days to determine that a 45-word tweet is protected political speech." That involved law professor Ilya Shapiro who ultimately resigned despite prevailing through the ordeal over comments about the Supreme Court selection process. He worried that the school "set me up for discipline the next time I transgress progressive orthodoxy."
After the university's multiple appearances on the "10 Worst" list for transgressions ranging from the Shapiro incident to preventing students from campaigning for Bernie Sanders, FIRE bestowed the lifetime award to acknowledge "Georgetown's fondness for censorship." In this dubious achievement, it joins Yale University, DePaul University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Syracuse University.
The other schools on this year's "10 Worst" list may not fall into the same repeat-offender category, but they've certainly been creative in earning their booby prizes.
Minnesota's Hamline won its spot by dismissing an adjunct art professor who "showed a 14th century painting depicting Islam's prophet Muhammad—but not before she offered multiple warnings, acknowledged that some Muslims believe the prophet should not be depicted in any way, and told students they weren't required to look," in FIRE's words. The ensuing controversy over speech and academic freedom continues, with the faculty last month asking President Fayneese Miller to resign.
Collin College, a Texas community college and therefore bound by the First Amendment, earned its distinction for a series of retaliations against faculty who upset the administration. Its most recent move was to fire "history professor Michael Phillips for advocating for the removal of Confederate statues and criticizing the college's COVID-19 policies," as FIRE puts it. Phillips is suing Collin.
The University of Oregon gained its ranking by directing faculty search committees to impose diversity, equity, and inclusion assessments of candidates that go well beyond the stated goal of creating a welcoming environment and instead serve as ideological litmus tests. "Basically, if you want to work at UO, you have to pledge allegiance to and promote administrators' DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] vision," notes FIRE. "These requirements violate faculty's freedom of expression and academic freedom."
DEI statements have proliferated throughout academia and are now included in consideration for tenure at 21.5 percent of colleges and universities, and at 45.6 percent of large institutions of higher education, according to a 2022 survey by the American Association of University Professors. Some are less ideological than others, but there's a tendency for them to increasingly demand adherence to specific points of view.
"Every psychologist who wants to present at the most important convention in our field must now say how their work advances anti-racism," NYU Professor Jonathan Haidt objected last year to an "explicitly ideological" DEI requirement from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. He announced his resignation from the professional organization rather than comply.
DEI statements entered my son's academic considerations as well, though tangentially. After he'd already decided to attend the University of Arizona, the state's Goldwater Institute reported that "Arizona's three public universities have all begun forcing faculty job applicants to provide mandatory 'diversity statements' as a condition of hiring." So far, 28 percent of job postings at the University of Arizona require DEI statements, far less than the 73 percent of postings at Northern Arizona University or the 81 percent at Arizona State University.
The University of Arizona scores well overall in terms of respect for free speech, ranked as it is in 18th place (above average) on FIRE's latest College Free Speech rankings. That's good news for my kid, but the news isn't so encouraging overall for anybody pursuing higher education. That assessment found an increase in the number of schools hitting rock-bottom "red light" status relative to those enjoying "green light" ratings when it comes to tolerance for ideas and expression.
"Two universities joined the ranks of green light schools this year: the University of North Carolina at Asheville and the University of South Florida. While none of the green light schools lost their status, 12 schools dropped from a yellow to a red light rating, and the percentage of red light schools rose by 0.8 percent, the first increase in 15 years," according to FIRE.
That kind of slippage in maintaining an open and respectful environment for speech and thought is why it's so important to call out schools that, for whatever reason, punish people who express themselves and debate ideas. Without consequences, it's too easy for them to target dissidents, activists, agitators, and heterodox thinkers. Ultimately, you end up with echo chambers instead of institutions of learning.
By all appearances, my son is off to a good start in higher education with his plans to attend a school that meets his educational needs while also encouraging open discussion. Everybody preparing college applications would be well-served to similarly consider the environment for free speech when they contemplate their continuing education, and to cross off all of those listed among the "10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech."
CORRECTION: The original version of this article misstated the name of The Pennsylvania State University.
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
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.NETPAYFAST.COM
Words and ideas are dangerous.
Leave those to experts.
Submit. Obey.
My last month's online earning was $17930 just by doing an easy job obout 3 months ago and in my first month i have made $12k+ easily without any special online experience. Easiest home based online job to earn extra dollars every month just by doing work for maximum 2 to 3 hrs a day. I have joined this job aEverybody on this earth can get this job today and start making cash online by just follow details on this website........
See this article for more information————————>>>OPEN>> OPEN>> http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
How many college administrators see the FIRE ranking as a challenge--a challenge to get more woke?
Not all of the speech restrictions are Liberal in nature (aka "woke.") FIRE also points out conservative restrictions on speech, including Florida's "Don't Say Gay" and "anti-woke" laws. Religious schools, like BYU and University of San Diego also require morality oaths and restrict speech.
Cite any Florida legislation that says: "Don't say gay." Please.
Do you think there might be a reason that phrase almost always appears in quotation marks?
Do you think that might be an attempt at dishonesty?
You are undeniably FOS.
Whataboutism complete fail. Those are not restrictions on free speech, they are restricting indoctrination hiding behind free speech. Nobody at those schools gets fired, expelled, or punished for expressing individual views.
He also fails to mention that BYU and USD are private institutions. They can teach and preach whatever they want. Wasn't that their justification for Twitter and Facebook's censorship? They've got a better case here since in those cases there's no collusion with the government to do that kind of thing.
Why do some people have so much difficulty understanding the difference between "can" and "should"? Yes, they can, but that doesn't magically immunize them from criticism.
Dooooood, fuck off and die, doooooood.
The term" Don't say Gay" was coined by ...the liberal media.
All liberal media is about deception and distorting the truth.
The only way to fix this issue is to continue to push the envelope. Get out there and say whatever the fuck you want to. Let 'the man" come down on you. Protest and contact the media. The last thing these schools need is a red hot spotlight on their bullshit. So let's turn on that light and shine it!
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Only if you're independently wealthy.
'cause if you're going to have to depend on someone else for a job, then you don't want "I'm a huge troll" to be the first thing that comes up when a prospective employer googles your name.
Sure if you want to be slave to an employer. I own my own business, so fuck the man.
And the Twitter mob doesn't worry me at all. Always stand up to a bully and let them know you don't fear them. That makes them powerless.
Except most kids can’t afford a legal fight.
Collin College, a Texas community college and therefore bound by the First Amendment, earned its distinction for a series of retaliations against faculty who upset the administration. Its most recent move was to fire "history professor Michael Phillips for advocating for the removal of Confederate statues and criticizing the college's COVID-19 policies," as FIRE puts it.
So how does a community college paying a history professor who advocates for the removal of historical military/political statues not *also* run afould of the 1A?
Similarly,
Minnesota's Hamline won its spot by dismissing an adjunct art professor who "showed a 14th century painting depicting Islam's prophet Muhammad—but not before she offered multiple warnings, acknowledged that some Muslims believe the prophet should not be depicted in any way, and told students they weren't required to look,"
What you're effectively talking about here is giving this adjunct art professor tenure, by law. That she can be as offensive as she pleases with her curriculum, driving away all the students she pleases, and still keep her job. That's not to say that the University should've dismissed her, but the dismissal doesn't put law on the books protecting the next adjunct art teacher's 1A right to spend a whole semester teaching kids about the female penis against the University's... and the Student's wishes.
One depiction of Muhammed, one complaint by one student, and one dismissed adjunct art professor gets you at the top of the FIRE's 10 Most Wanted list? At least the FBI's Most Wanted list contains murderers and kidnappers, even if some of them are complete fabrications.
"So how does a community college paying a history professor who advocates for the removal of historical military/political statues not *also* run afould of the 1A?"
Because employees also have free speech rights? This isn't hard. And, in the context of history (which this prof teaches), the nature of memorials to a pro-slavery secession movement is relevant.
"What you’re effectively talking about here is giving this adjunct art professor tenure, by law. That she can be as offensive as she pleases with her curriculum, driving away all the students she pleases, and still keep her job. "
This is a strawman. What it's saying is that the material was relevant to the course and consideration and warnings were given to avoid offense. Given that, any resulting offense is the responsibility of those offended and not the professor. Notably, both liberal and conservative colleagues supported the professor and the national outcry forced Hamline to reverse its decision.
This isn’t hard.
Yeah. It's real simple if you don't give two shits as to the obvious consequences of your actions and the internal conflicts of interest you're advocating and, instead, just run on pure bravado about what feels right like you're some Donald J. Trump incarnate.
And, in the context of history (which this prof teaches), the nature of memorials to a pro-slavery secession movement is relevant.
You realize this is only true if the goal is to rewrite history, correct? Otherwise, they're just historical statutes that some people take offense to the way some people take offense to Muhammed and those people taking offense should just shut up and get over it.
Oh no, wait, that's right, you're retarded and this is simple. Universities owe people jobs whether the students like them or not. Only professors, and not University Owner/Administrators or students, have free speech rights. So the only thing that matters isn't actual fact or history, but whether you like what the professor has to say. This whole social contract thing is simple if you just fuck everyone else over in the name of justice!
This is a strawman.
No. It's not. If it were just a private dispute being settled out of court it would be a straw man. As it is, she was employed for the full term of her contract, it wasn't renewed, and she's suing to have it extended. Essentially using the courts and the 1A to force the University to give her a new job/contract. So, who cannot sue and use the 1A to force the University to extend their contract?
Correct. Besides, it is impossible to offend others. Offended people choose to be offended.
Dooooood, fuck off and die, doooooood.
I do agree with you, regarding the Hamline case, that this isn't a legal issue. Setting aside the general issues with adjuncts in academia and how universities like to hide the fact that a lot of their faculty are barely earning minimum wage with no benefits or job security, all the while charging over $50k per year from their students... setting all of that aside, because it's not relevant to the legal question -- this was an employee who didn't have a contract renewed. There's no legal obligation to keep this person on, nor should there be.
But there's a bit more nuance to all of this:
"What you’re effectively talking about here is giving this adjunct art professor tenure, by law. That she can be as offensive as she pleases with her curriculum, driving away all the students she pleases, and still keep her job."
I'm pretty sure this slippery slope argument isn't what people are "effectively talking about here."
Here's the reality: IF we accept that this person's contract would have a reasonable chance of being renewed (which is never a guarantee for adjuncts, as they may not need to offer as many courses next semester or whatever), and IF we accept that one of the primary reasons her contract was NOT renewed was this issue of showing a painting, then I think it still is a situation to be concerned about.
(Note those two IFs are not clear to me as necessarily being true based on following a couple links in this article. But let's suppose they are.)
First, if there's anywhere that should be a place for open discussion and discourse, it's higher education. The students are now adults, so we shouldn't be worried about bringing up controversial issues and having serious discussions and debates.
That doesn't mean someone gets to "spend a whole semester teaching kids about the female penis," necessarily. In this case, it means -- in an ART HISTORY class, is it acceptable, after warnings on both the syllabus and in-class, to show a historical piece of artwork that some might find offensive??
As the first link in the Reason article notes:
"No one complained in advance, but that fact provided no comfort for the executive director of the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who supported a student who complained after the fact: 'a trigger warning is an indication that you are going to do harm,' he said."
This wasn't a case of some professor randomly showing pornography in class or whatever. This was an art history class, where a historical piece of art was shown. Briefly. Accompanied by multiple warnings that anyone who might be offended could: (1) avoid class that day, or (2) avert their eyes, etc.
For the past decade, there has been an argument that to avoid offending people, professors need to offer "trigger warnings" of potentially offensive content. This professor did so. A student was still offended. (Which is, of course, his right. Anyone can BE offended. The question is whether that brings any right to further action.) And now it's being argued that a professor who does offer students a chance to avoid offensive content is apparently "an indication that you are going to do harm."
Regardless of whether this is a legal issue dealing with employment, if the contract non-renewal was caused by this complaint and this logic, I think we all might reflect on whether that's the best policy for encouraging open discussion in education.
And what is a professor supposed to do now? Not show a piece of art history in an art history class because someone might be offended? The "trigger warnings" apparently weren't sufficient. So the only alternative is prior restraint and de facto self-censorship, which has the potential to impoverish discussion.
I'm not saying this case should be at the top of any list, at least given the facts as I've seen them so far. But in higher ed, we now have situations where students get a law professor put on forced leave because he gave an exam with expurgated notations like "N______", which apparently are enough to cause students to go cry in bathrooms.
Maybe this art history adjunct deserves a contract renewal or maybe not. But if this one complaint by itself was enough to lead to non-renewal, that would be a issue (to me) about the concerning culture that has been emerging lately on campuses.
(Note those two IFs are not clear to me as necessarily being true based on following a couple links in this article. But let’s suppose they are.)
Note: So, *if* you suppose guilt even in places where you yourself admit it unlikely and/or lacking evidence, you can manufacture a Constitutional Crisis pretty much anywhere? How profound!
Maybe this art history adjunct deserves a contract renewal or maybe not.
Not yours or my or FIRE's or the court's call to make. If she'd been promised or hinted at a renewal or whatever, maybe there's a case. Otherwise, it's the government wading into University books on the, as you yourself depict it, assumption of guilt. Or, as is more often the case, simply ignoring the books and/or facts of the case and simply making their decision based on the assumptions.
I'm pretty sure FIRE's ratings and criticisms don't have the force of law behind them. I admit I skimmed the article. Was someone suggesting that the dismissal ought to have been illegal?
You're confusing the old FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) with the new FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression).
The old FIRE was a student's rights political organization. The new FIRE is an ACLU-style politically-active law firm. I don't know if they're specifically handling the lawsuit filed against Hamline, I do know they've filed lawsuits in similar cases.
OK, if this is purely a terms of employment thing, then fine. But if the material was relevant and appropriate to the course being taught, then they deserve at least derision and scorn and perhaps also a law suit, depending on the specific terms of employment that were agreed to.
OK, if this is purely a terms of employment thing, then fine.
FIRE, and others, routinely conflate "Failing to renew a contract." with "Firing", including in the Hamline case. That, alone, from a legal, libertarian perspective crosses a red line and earns every inch the same amount of derision, scorn, and countersuits, IMO.
I freely admit that, in the Hamline case, firing the professor was absolutely stupid but, per libertarian norms, the market has ways of dealing with stupid.
In other cases, well, here's a professor who used University letterhead and logos to start her own teacher's union and oppose the school's COVID reopening plan, who's contract expired, and whom FIRE sued and got her contract extended. AFAICT, it's a massive fucking L where a school got extorted into giving money to a teacher's union that opposed their reopening being portrayed as a libertarian W by a bunch of ambulance-chasing shysters.
But it evolved from the same group. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/06/free-speech-group-first-amendment-00037320
How do you think I'm unaware of the history that I'm quoting?
As I indicated; previously they were a legitimate students' rights organization drawing attention to and opposing the most legitimate and broadly egregious civil rights violations. It's not clear if that just doesn't pay the bills or doesn't win you prestige or what, but they 'went pro' hired a bunch of activist lawyers and now are more like the ACLU. And Reason consistently plays the one-sided tune of plaintiffs being handled by FIRE. Who cares if we're trampling University Admin's rights? Who cares if we're trampling students' rights? Who cares if we're trampling contract law? FIRE is winning cases, er, I mean settleme-, er, I mean high profile civil rights cases for the little guy!
"What you’re effectively talking about here is giving this adjunct art professor tenure, by law." And what you are advocating is a university promoting ignorance rather than teaching.
The depictions of Mohammad she showed were paintings by 14th century Muslims. That shows that depicting Mohammad has not always been taboo. Some students protested, preferring to maintain their ignorance of this, and to also keep their fellow students ignorant. The university administration came down on the side of ignorance.
The university administration came down on the side of ignorance.
Libertarians for legislating away ignorance! If those ignorant people won't enlighten themselves, we'll use the law, rather than the market, to punish them for it! Gooooooo Libertarianism!
The idea that professors can engage in “protected political speech” without consequences for their employment is nonsense. All universities, including public universities, should be free to fire people for their speech, on and off campus, just like any other employer can. That is not a 1A violation. In fact, universities need to be able to fire people for speech if they want to have any meaningful control of their curriculum and teaching quality.
But, oh no, libertarian intellectuals and academics are entitled intellectuals/academics first and libertarians second.
Private employers are also limited in how they can fire someone for speech outside of work. The key distinction is whether the speech was on the job or not. Public employees do not give up their right to free speech just because they take a job a public school. Also... neither do students.
Goes beyond that. If the school wants to receive federal funding, it must comply with 1A. There are always strings attached to funding.
The 1A says "government shall make no law". Nothing in there says that "recipients of government money shall not be able to fire people for conduct incompatible with their institution".
The federal government currently treats funding the way you say, but that is not a logical consequence of the 1A.
Dooooood, fuck off and die, doooooood.
Companies fire people all the time for speech outside their job, for example when they say racially offensive things or disparage the company's products.
But, hey, if you can find a law on the books that disallows this, please share it!
The idea that professors can engage in “protected political speech” without consequences for their employment is nonsense.
James Damore got shitcanned for speech his employer solicited from him and that someone else violated non-disclosure policy by leaking to the press. Fuck this whole "Universities can't let someone go at the end of their contract for speech they don't like." bullshit with a rusty garden tool.
lol Grammie Dillinger taught English @Emporia State in the 40s & 50s
Interesting that University of Chicago is at the top of the rankings. I wonder if the required Core Curriculum (basically the first Great Books stuff) for undergrads helps create an experience where students can understand the purposes of free speech and free inquiry
That would seem to depend on which "great books" are selected. If it's just a who's who of dead white European dudes, then maybe not so much.
How do you figure? Dead white European dudes basically invented the idea of individual rights. And why shouldn't a university focus on the culture that produced it? Do you go to Japan, for example, and insist that their universities should focus less on Japanese literature and philosophy and more on dead white dudes?
I find it very ironic that western culture, which pretty much invented the idea that individual rights are important and that racism is a bad thing and that all individuals matter is now eating itself because it hasn't always been perfect in meeting its own standards.
Exactly so.
It's gone beyond just a Great Books list. Here's the 2022-2023 catalog of nine different sequences of courses. All freshmen have to take one sequence. Each sequence is three courses - one each term. I'm sure each year has a slightly different set of sequences/courses and obviously texts - so each class has a different core but everyone in the freshman class this year will be taking one of these sequences.
Dooooood, fuck off and die, doooooood.
I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with t his is endless.
Here’s what I’ve been doing………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
That's Loyola University **New Orleans** on the Fire Top 10. There' also the unrelated Loyola University **Chicago** (the one with Sister Jean), Loyola University **Maryland**, and Loyola **Marymount** University.
Perhaps the biggest and core problems are that the “barriers to entry” to creating a new university are enormous, and that there is no requirement to advertise the political leanings of both schools and individual professors. Like our entire public schools system, our university monopolies are antiquated and corrupt by design, and cannot possibly be “fixed” as they are now.
Universities were created when books themselves were incalculably valuable and rare, communication across distances impossibly arduous, and people able to teach advanced subjects equally rare because they required sponsorship just to have the luxury not to worry about feeding themselves so that they could devote the time to study to become experts. It was vital to bring students together where the books themselves were. The words of great teachers could not be recorded and viewed again and again - they must be repeated each time for new groups of students. In today’s world with online content being trivially inexpensive, a complete university degree for an undergraduate in core studies (math, STEM, perhaps even literature through recorded lectures, etc.) should not cost more than a few thousand dollars for those able and willing to self-study, most of that cost being for controlled testing centers.
Today’s universities have become self-important cult temples heaping abuse and indoctrination on students lead to believe that without the “blessing of the priests” they cannot get by in life. Nothing could be further from the truth. Blow them up.
Tuccille has hit a nerve. When Qing China, fresh from its third opium war beating, boycotted the USA as dope dealers, Washington responded by exporting prohibitionism & escalating other counties to world war. When Americans in 1933 boycotted nazi goods, the Reich had conniption fits, but by then, German voters had no say in these matters. I was tickled to see Texas A&M rednecks on the index, since their teams usually beat ours. One thing UTexas at Austin is proud of is it's Speaker's Corner on the West Mall.
I just looked up Penn State on FIRE's website, as that is where I went many years ago. It is ranked 107 of 203 for free speech. Um, Reason, hello. Are you there? What is your deal? The first time I fact check you, you are wrong? That's 100% lying based on my research.
Looks like Americans might finally be learning that the entire "free speech" movement in the 1960s was nothing more than a way for the Left to gain power. Rest assured that now that they have it, they have absolutely no intention of relinquishing it voluntarily as the Right did.
only 10? it's literally every college & university.
Forget college. Waste of money and time. Nothing more than for profit diploma mills where people with useless degrees in gender studies and socialism end up working at a dollar store or not working at all.
Instead, find a good trade school, learn to weld, repair vehicles, electrical work, work towards being an airline pilot......a lot of them are retiring. learn plumbing or find a school for air frame and power plant maintenance. Get a degree in maritime tech. There's a lot to offer for those with the right education and training.
A degree in trans ideology is going to get you nowhere.
And after all, what do we need with historians and scientists in the glorious Trumpvolution?
What an idiot you are. Trump has nothing to do with lib colleges, or censorship. That would be your guy, sock puppet, demented Biden.
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK. 🙂
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.SALARYBEZ.COM