Sarah McLaughlin (FIRE) on "Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech,"

I'm delighted to report that Sarah McLaughlin (of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) will be guest-blogging this coming week about her new book. From the publisher's summary:

A revealing exposé on how foreign authoritarian influence is undermining freedom and integrity within American higher education institutions.

In an era of globalized education, where ideals of freedom and inquiry should thrive, an alarming trend has emerged: foreign authoritarian regimes infiltrating American academia. In Authoritarians in the Academy, Sarah McLaughlin exposes how higher education institutions, long considered bastions of free thought, are compromising their values for financial gain and global partnerships.

This groundbreaking investigation reveals the subtle yet sweeping influence of authoritarian governments. University leaders are allowing censorship to flourish on campus, putting pressure on faculty, and silencing international student voices, all in the name of appeasing foreign powers. McLaughlin exposes the troubling reality where university leaders prioritize expansion and profit over the principles of free expression. The book describes incidents in classrooms where professors hesitate to discuss controversial topics and in boardrooms where administrators weigh the costs of offending oppressive regimes. McLaughlin offers a sobering look at how the compromises made in American academia reflect broader societal patterns seen in industries like tech, sports, and entertainment….

And here are the jacket blurbs:

As universities globalize, authoritarian regimes export censorship to American campuses. In Authoritarians in the Academy, Sarah McLaughlin unsparingly exposes how foreign pressure, self-censorship, and administrative complicity threaten academic freedom―challenging the notion that universities remain safe havens for open debate. A timely warning from the front lines of global free expression.
―Jacob Mchangama, Executive Director of The Future of Free Speech and author of Free Speech: a History from Socrates to Social Media

Essential reading for understanding how authoritarians abroad are limiting the freedom to think, teach, and learn at US universities. McLaughlin expertly shows how the sensitivity discourse prevalent on campuses is invoked to serve the censorious impulses of foreign regimes. With authoritarianism ascendant at home, this book is even more relevant.
―Amna Khalid, Carleton College

Authoritarians in the Academy uncovers an alarming truth: oppressive governments are silencing their critics on campus, even those half a world away and in countries that protect campus free speech, including the United States. Beyond the students and faculty members who are directly targeted, the resulting chill stifles others and deprives all campus community members of the opportunity to hear suppressed information and ideas. This book is an urgent call to protect dissidents and dissent in higher education.
―Nadine Strossen, former president, American Civil Liberties Union; author of Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know

Authoritarians in the Academy is one of those books that turns over a lot of rocks, exposing the unpleasant things going on underneath… The book deserves a wide readership.
―National Review

Comments

[John F. Carr]

Is the book already obsolete now that Trump is trying to cut down on foreigners in American schools?

[TheAmazingEmu]

I'm not sure how he would succeed unless they make it easier for Americans to afford to go to colleges (generally through expanded access to student loans).

[O Tempora]

He would succeed by limiting international student visas.

[y81]

I'm surprised that Prof. Volokh would allow someone from FIRE to guest blog here, considering their strong support for free speech for SJP and their opposition to universities punishing and censoring denunciations of Israel.

[Eugene Volokh]

Who is this Prof. Volokh you speak of? The Prof. Volokh I see in the mirror each morning strongly supports protections for anti-Israel speech, see, e.g., this post, this post, this post, this post, this post, and more.

To be sure, I do sometimes invite people to guest-blog even when I don't necessarily agree with their positions. But as a general matter, FIRE and I agree on very much, including on protecting anti-Israel speech.

[William of Brooklyn]

Right. There is a huge difference between free speech and threatening, harassing, or blockading students from free movement on their own campuses. I, too, am a great admirer of FIRE, and recognize they occupy the honorable place now disgracefully abandoned by the ACLU.

[y81]

I'm curious about the gravity of these various offenses. Let's see if I have this right
--Occupying a lawn that isn't on the way to anywhere: arrest and expulsion from college.
Occupying the halls of Congress and disrupting the determination of the next president: full presidential pardon.
Occupying a lunch counter (where, truth be told, other people had been planning to sit and eat lunch): Prof. Volokh? Ms. McLaughlin?

[Michael P]

Colleges don't pretend to be a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. At least, they don't pretend that yet.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Is this also an answer to Prof. Volokh's reply?

[y81]

Mostly a response to William of Brooklyn, but germane to Prof. Volokh's claim to be a free speech supporter. Prof. Bernstein exulted on March 8, 2025, that Columbia "richly deserve[d]" the $400 million penalty imposed by his comrades in the Trump administration. I take it that Prof. Volokh agrees, since he didn't say otherwise. Qui tacet consentire videtur. Columbia's major offense, of course, was permitting the "Gaza Solidarity Encampment" to persist for months, so I think supporters of penalizing Columbia have some responsibility to say exactly what the correct penalty is in situations like the ones I mentioned.

Now, of course, the response of university administrators to the Trump/Bernstein has been to add another rule to the web of speech regulation: you can't, e.g., display pictures of Mohammed, AND you can't criticize Israel. As FIRE notes in their latest newsletter, there have been 75 disciplinary actions taken against SJP, The net result, as FIRE also notes, is that "no one feels free to speak their mind." This result constitutes an improvement in Prof. Bernstein's eyes, since he has made "double standards" a highlight of his denunciation of the American academy. (6/4/25.)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Volokh linked multiple posts; he was not silent as a whole.

I don't assume Volokh agrees just because another member of the conspiracy says something, especially since there are competing views. He does not make a habit to reply to other members. So "Trump/Bernstein" is not EV in my view.

[neurodoc]

Mostly a response to William of Brooklyn, but germane to Prof. Volokh's claim to be a free speech supporter. Prof. Bernstein exulted on March 8, 2025, that Columbia "richly deserve[d]" the $400 million penalty imposed by his comrades in the Trump administration. I take it that Prof. Volokh agrees, since he didn't say otherwise. Qui tacet consentire videtur. Wow, you really nailed Professor Volokh with that! He didn't jump in to dispute (or support) Professor Bernstein, so you can conclude he agrees? You are an idiot!

--Occupying a lawn that isn't on the way to anywhere: arrest and expulsion from college.The self-satisfied legal scholar y81's opinion, school may not set out rules pertaining to the delimits of protest, like barring "encampments" and the takeover of buildings, including school libraries during exam periods and enforce those rules by means of suitable penalties. like suspensions and even arrests and expulsions because y81/b> doesn't approve? Well, y81 is not only wrong as to the substance of his views on what is in dispute, he is also notably inept as an advocate, managing little better than ipsi dixit by way of argument.

Now, of course, the response of university administrators to the Trump/Bernstein has been to add another rule to the web of speech regulation: you can't, e.g., display pictures of Mohammed, Now you're just making crap up!

You aren't a member of the bar, someone who practices law for a living, are you?

[Don Nico]

I am curious why you distort the gravity and range of offenses against non-protesting students on campuses. You refer to a trivial behavior,; where is you cite that it was that trivial behavior that caused expulsion. And why does that have anything whatsoever to do with DJTs exercise of a plenary presidential pardon?
You make an extremely unconvincing case for your protest.

[Malika la Maize]

How has the ACLU disgracefully abandoned their place on this issue?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

How has Malika la Malignant failed to notice?

Oh, right -- she has noticed, but she pretends ignorance to break the ice.

[Malika la Maize]

You’ve got a lot wrong in that brief statement, but most importantly I notice you provide no answer.

[William of Brooklyn]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/the-free-speech-war-inside-the-aclu.html

[Malika la Maize]

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/defending-speech-we-hate

[Brett Bellmore]

"Thirty years ago, in 1994, the same questions led then-ACLU president Nadine Strossen to write a 17-page article rebutting charges that the ACLU had abandoned “its traditional commitment to free speech and other classic civil liberties and is becoming a ‘trendy’ liberal organization primarily concerned with equality and civil rights.”"

Thirty years ago, Nadine Strossen in Reason:

"Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty. "

The ACLU, principled defender of whatever the hell the ACLU feels like defending...

[Mark In Florida]

I remember as a student half a century ago getting an ALCU membership brochure explaining how they support constitutional rights, and writing a letter to to them asking why they didn't mention the 2nd Amendment and they wrote back they don't think that's an individual right.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

When I was a student I financially contributed to both the NRA and the ACLU, thus covering all the bases.

Did you choose to sacrifice your support for all the other civil liberties out of spite, or did you just not consider them civil liberties worth protecting in the first place?

[David Nieporent]

The ACLU, principled defender of whatever the hell the ACLU feels like defending...

Yes, and? An organization founded to defend civil liberties defends what it considers to be civil liberties. There's nothing wrong with that.

If you don't agree with their choices, that's fine. I don't agree with all of them either; some I disagree with and some I think they put disproportionate weight on. But they're not being unprincipled as you insinuate.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Yes, and? An organization founded to defend civil liberties defends what it considers to be civil liberties."

How much principle does it actually require to defend, at any given moment, exactly what you feel like defending? Because that's what they're committed to: They defend "civil liberties", not as normally defined as "those liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution", but instead self defined as whatever they think they'd like to defend.

[David Nieporent]

How much principle does it actually require to defend, at any given moment, exactly what you feel like defending?

The principle comes in consistently defending those things regardless of who it benefits.

[Brett Bellmore]

You missed part of the ACLU scandal, I guess: More recently they announced that they'd prioritize defending groups they agreed with.

ACLU Case Selection Guidelines:
Conflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities (Wayback Machine link, because the ACLU disappeared this document after the above article was published, after having it on their site for years.)

[Brett Bellmore]

You might also recall Citizens United. It was actually a great victory of the ACLU! What happened after?

They caved to the left, got rid of a lot of principled people, and hired as their new director of litigation a guy who'd made his name gaming out ways to undo that victory...

[Jazzizhep]

I don’t think anybody is trying to tell the ACLU what they can and can’t care about.

It’s more about the difference between their much more libertarian views years ago and their much more progressive views today.

I am not going to cite specific instances (you will require me to spend an hour to copy and paste links or you will not believe the well known examples). I am just going to ask would the ACLU defend the free speech rights of Proud Boys, Michelle Malkin (except anti-Israel speech), Milo, or Riley Gaines as they once defended the KKK? Because they haven’t so far.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bluntly: They were more principled about censorship when they perceived most censorship as coming from the right, pointed at the left, and thought that they needed to look principled to the right to persuade them to relent.

Now that most censorship comes from their political allies and is pointed at the right, principle has lost its appeal.

[David Nieporent]

Michelle Malkin. Now there's a name I haven't heard in years. I don't know in what way you think her free speech rights — or those of the others you named — were infringed upon, so I don't know what "they haven't so far" refers to.

(Googling, I see why I haven't heard Malkin's name in years: she's now at Newsmax, which rivals many college radio stations for audience size.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, when I supported the ACLU, they took a much more principled approach to the civil liberties they defended. At some point, that changed.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Yes, when I supported the ACLU, they took a much more principled approach to the civil liberties they defended. At some point, that changed."

Yes, I was willing to support the ACLU at one time, despite the fact that they didn't defend the 2nd amendment. They didn't have to be a one stop shop for defending ALL civil liberties, I could support pro-gun groups, too.

I dropped my support for them when they moved from just not defending the 2nd amendment, to attacking it.

For years they'd hid behind a fig leaf of saying that they weren't defending the 2nd amendment because the Court didn't say it was an individual right. When Heller was decided?

The fig leaf was thrown away: They disagreed with the Court, and STILL would not defend the 2nd amendment.

See, they weren't willing to defend all civil liberties, but at the same time they weren't willing to admit there were any civil liberties they didn't defend. They squared that circle by finally announcing that the 2nd amendment didn't guarantee a civil liberty... They had to attack it to justify not defending it, in the end. And then they went out and brought the state affiliates who DID defend it in line with the national ACLU; State affiliates weren't allowed to continue holding a contrary position after Heller.

The funniest part of that statement? "As always, we welcome your comments."

Yeah, they welcomed them so much that they ended up taking down their online forum not long after, because it was flooded with complaints about their hypocrisy.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, corruption is always a possibility.

For any organization.

[Riva]

I was surprised he would allow a has-been Canadian pop singer to guest blog but then I realized that’s a different Sarah.

[dwb68]

University leaders allowing censorship ... university leaders prioritizing expansion and profit... say it ain't so.

When Harvard's class is 25% international so that they can charge those students full price, is this really a surprise? Money talks, especially to the socialist/progressive university elite.

[Malika la Maize]

Especially? I mean, you’re a MAGAer aren’t you? Especially, lol.

[Snorkle]

Srsly. Just look at what Comrade Krasnov has been doing to higher ed.

[Michael P]

Snorkle is a big fan of fiction posted by unreliable Russian trolls in single Facebook posts. Or perhaps Snorkle is another Russian troll.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/02/26/trump-kgb-agent-krasnov/

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I don't think Snorkle was arguing that Trump's higher education actions were being undertaken at the behest of Russia. He was just hurling an insult. (One which is especially ineffective, for various reasons--not the least of which is that Putin is not remotely stupid enough to entrust Trump with anything.)

[Michael P]

I was just observing that hauling out the "Krasnov" name is a sign of being either a troll or a sucker for Russia.

[Stephen Lathrop]

If an advocate demands, for instance, government regulation to forbid critical legal studies at a public law school, is that authoritarian advocacy, or anti-authoritarian advocacy?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, as a "public", which is to say, government, law school, the school is a state actor bound by the 14th amendment, and the teaching may just be government speech in the first place, so odds are much better it's anti-authoritarian.

The paradox of tolerance may demand that you allow others to advocate intolerance, but it doesn't demand that you advocate intolerance yourself, and for government, public schools are "yourself".

[Stephen Lathrop]

But for advocates of critical legal theory, public schools are not themselves—and the hypothetical was that critical legal theory advocates were the ones the hypothetical advocate wanted targeted. So once again, care to comment on that hypothetical?

[Brett Bellmore]

I commented on the hypothetical you gave: An advocate demands government regulation to forbid critical legal studies at the government's own schools.

It is not authoritarian for the government to decide, by regulation, what it will teach at its own schools. And advocates can "demand" whatever they like, lacking the authority to compel it, they aren't themselves "authoritarian".

So, even if you don't accept my premise that 'critical legal studies' tend to be intolerant, the result stands: It's not intolerant to ask the government not to have them at its own schools.

Now, private schools would be quite another matter.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Now you seem to be arguing that no expressive activity—either activity authorized by government, activity of government, or government activity to prohibit others' expressions—can be authoritarian, so long as the government does it in its own schools. Seems like you insist that whatever it is legal for government to do cannot be an authoritarian action, an authoritarian policy, or an authoritarian expression. Sounds pure MAGA, with all the characteristic field marks in place.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm honestly not sure what's the point in responding to you, once you become this determined to misunderstand anything I say.

The government's decision to not advance a particular viewpoint in it's own speech is never authoritarian, and that goes double when the viewpoint it decides not to advance is itself somewhat authoritarian, as is typical of 'critical studies'. And what the government's own schools teach IS the government's own speech.

There is, of course, a large authoritarian component to the government even having its own schools in the first place, and if you really want to address school related authoritarianism, you should aim at reducing government's involvement in education, not dictating that it has to advance widely disfavored viewpoints in the schools it runs.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Your non-responsive commentary is what makes you hard to understand. My original hypothetical was not about critical legal studies actually being taught. It was about advocacy that they should be taught. Go back and reread that comment.

You have not responded to that. Do you support advocacy that critical legal studies be taught in public schools, or do you think government should suppress that advocacy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, and my point was that it can't be "authoritarian" to advocate something that isn't, itself, "authoritarian".

"Do you support advocacy that critical legal studies be taught in public schools, or do you think government should suppress that advocacy."

I do not support advocacy that critical legal studies be taught in public schools. I don't think critical legal studies should be taught in any school, but if it's a private school I don't have a dog in that fight.

You weren't previously talking about suppressing the advocacy itself...

I do not think government should suppress advocacy that critical legal studies be taught in public schools OR private schools. Or advocacy that it shouldn't be taught. Such advocacy would clearly fall under the 1st amendment.

[neurodoc]

I don't get it. How is one supposed to react to the thinking of someone who isn't blog-posting here, just putting up some rather blurbs from a book she has published? Is she going to return to serve up some substance for us to consider?

And something else - am I the only person who finds it annoying that he can't readily follow which comments are in response to which other ones, especially when there have been a great many comments crossing over one another? Can't the website do something to make it better? How about assigning a number to each post for ease of referencing?

[Stephen Lathrop]

neurodoc — Comment referencing is easy. I agree it would help if more folks did it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I've noticed that the de-threading happens sometimes when the moderators (even on VC there are moderators!) delete certain comments to which others have already replied.

I doubt the moderators have the ability (or desire) to intentionally break the comment threading function.

As for the book review blog posts on VC, I note what EV said about the purpose of this preview:

"I'm delighted to report that Sarah McLaughlin (of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) will be guest-blogging this coming week about her new book." [emphasis possibly added...]