The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Authoritarians in the Academy": The Free Speech Recession
When universities are global institutions, the global speech environment matters.
In my new book Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech, I argue that higher education must adapt to protect its values as a global industry in an unfree world. The excerpts I'll feature in this week's guest posts will detail how universities have faced challenges to their values in the international education space, and how some have failed.
First, I'd like to set the scene for the global environment in which universities operate today.
Millions of students move across borders to pursue their academic careers. Universities operate study abroad programs in nations all over the world. Partnerships and grants tie together universities, corporations, institutions, and governments overseas. In some cases, universities even choose to establish joint institutions and satellite campuses thousands of miles away from their flagship campuses. Often they do so in countries with vastly different legal systems and established speech protections.
No industry—from fashion to tech to sports—is immune to the pressures it operates in, but when it comes to the institutions we rely on to help us accurately understand, research, and debate the world we live in, it matters when they are vulnerable to authoritarian censorship.
As American higher education has become more worldly, what kind of world is it operating in? One that is deeply unwelcoming toward free expression and academic freedom and, in many ways, getting worse.
Here is the state of things, and it isn't pretty.
A 2023 report from Article 19 found that, compared to the year 2020, over six billion of the world's people had less freedom to express themselves than they did at the turn of the century, with only 13% living in "open" countries. In its 2024 Human Freedom Index, the Cato Institute found that free expression was "the indicator that experienced the largest decline" among those surveyed, with that right suffering across every region globally.
Over the past 18 years, Freedom House has identified a continuous and "extensive" decline in global freedom. While only 21 countries made some degree of progress in improving conditions for freedom, they could not compete with the 52 where civil liberties declined and rights diminished. And a survey of the countries into which universities like NYU, Duke, and Northwestern have expanded with satellite campuses and joint institutes offers a grim picture. In Freedom House's individual country freedom ratings out of 100, Qatar scores 25, meaning it is defined as "not free." The United Arab Emirates scored only 18 out of 100. And China, home to one of the most heavily censored societies in the world today, achieved a measly nine—yet high profile American institutions are still willing to put down and maintain roots there. Saudi Arabia also scored only nine points out of 100 as well, yet just last year Arizona State University signed a "memorandum of understanding" with the Ministries of Education and Investment for the establishment of a new university in Riyadh.
The "free speech recession" has hit democratic nations too. In a report documenting a seven-year period across democracies including Denmark, Canada, and France, Vanderbilt University's Future of Free Speech organization found that there were three and half times more speech restrictive developments (169) compared to speech protective developments (48) between 2015 and 2022.
And here in the U.S., things are unraveling quickly. I'll discuss more of the campus-specific developments in a post later this week, but off campus we've seen a barrage of threats to free expression from the Trump administration. These threats have come in the form of efforts to bully media outlets into silence, force compliance among law firms, punish perceived enemies of the administration, and what one of my Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression colleagues called the "extortion-industrial complex."
The nations that we've come to expect to create hostile conditions for free expression—like China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia—are either continuing on the steady path of censorship or going down an even more repressive road. And the nations that we expect to protect free speech, like European countries and the U.S., are not the stalwart defenders they should be.
This environment requires heightened caution and consideration from universities—especially American universities, which either have First Amendment obligations or written commitments to protect academic freedom and expression. But as my book and subsequent posts this week will detail, they have faltered, and dissidents and dissenters have paid the price.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yes, it is definitely foreign governments that are the number 1 risk to academic freedom in the US... /s
Perhaps you missed the paragraphs at the end where she tracks the depressing developments in the US as well, finally, beware the extortion-industrial complex.
Oh boy. Nothing like consistency. I hope this improves.
Elsewhere you mention various intervals ...
(which interval this is, I'm not sure; 2020-2023, or 2001? still, at least several years)
But when Trump comes into the picture, suddenly it's not even a full year that matters. Let's just ignore Biden's social media censorship and support of woke censorship and cancellations, shall we?
I sure hope the "campus-specific developments" expands that censorship regime just a little more.
But when Trump comes into the picture, suddenly it's not even a full year that matters. Let's just ignore Biden's social media censorship and support of woke censorship and cancellations, shall we?
Huh? There's nothing inconsistent here. Freedom of speech has been declining, and also Trump's making it worse.
If Trump were truly making it worse, we wouldn't have all these people complaining as he would have already silenced them.
I feel like Republicans are unable to understand anything other than binary values. Something can be worse without being zero. Like a C is a worse grade than a B, but it's not an F.
Hope that helps.
Note a potentially troublesome method at work—the practice of comparative tracking of speech protective actions, vs. speech restrictive actions. Assuming a relatively high equilibrium for speech protection among better-performing subjects, the universe of new speech-protective possibilities may get smaller as the equilibrium point increases. A lot depends on choosing methods which would rule out biased reporting on that basis.
PEW Research says 91% of coverage by the press on the current administration is negative. This represents a complete lack of objectivity and censorship of contrary views, and Sarah's take is that Trump threatens a free press.
Credibility is definitely not McLaughlin's thing.
So should there be some agency ensuring that the U.S. press rigorously adheres to a 50-50 balance of coverage of Trump? Anything negative must be followed by some cheery news about the new Rose Paved Patio layout?
No.
But is 91% of the coverage in the Chinese press critical of the CCP?
And why isn't it?
Because China doesn't have a free press?
Citation?
The only thing that I can find that is anything like this is a study from his first term that showed a max of 56% negative coverage for press with left-leaning audiences.
Not Pew, the "Media Research Center" which is a conservative, Robert Mercer-funded joint.
It may or may not be accurate - I'm not going to do a dive into their methodology - but don't lie to launder right-wing sources.
Ah, no wonder I couldn't find it.
Interestingly, MRC found an almost identical ratio (91 vs. 92% negative) in Trump's first term when Pew found a much lower negative sentiment. So that's a pretty strong hint that the number is probably bogus.
(Also, pretty funny for thesafesurfer to lie about sources when making a claim about someone else's credibility.)
No, it doesn't. It reflects that the current administration is very bad.
There's a good article today in the WSJ about the steps universities are taking, at the Trump administration's behest, to suppress anti-Israel protests. Of course, those administration measures have been enthusiastically supported by many of the Conspirators and commenters, who only a year ago were raging at the Biden administration's efforts to police online comment Free speech for me, but not for thee is pretty much the motto here.
I wish the Conspiracy could be a consistent supporter of free speech the way FIRE has been, that seems like the moon under water at this point.
Are you just now noticing universities haven’t exactly been the bastions of free speech for at least the last couple of decades?
I think anyone who reads what I have posted here would detect my long-time, bottomless contempt for the American academy. But the Bernstein/Trump faction has added a new rule: in addition to the things you couldn't say before, you also can't criticize Israel. So there have been 75 disciplinary actions against SJP to go with the 65 against TPUSA. No one can speak freely now, and the Conspirators' work is done.