Tag: speech

FIRE SURVEY: Colleagues and faculty unions fail to defend scholars targeted for speech

“I was afraid to leave my home for several weeks. I was afraid for the safety of my children. I received death threats.”

“I was vomiting throughout the day, couldn’t eat, was having constant panic attacks, couldn’t be around people or leave the house . . .”

“I was getting violent threats via email every day . . . The police were doing daily drive-bys because so many people threatened me with violence.”

PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 28, 2025 — These are just some of the harrowing first-person accounts collected by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in “Sanctioned Scholars: The Price of Speaking Freely in Today’s Academy,” a new survey of scholars who have been targeted for any protected speech since the beginning of the decade.

“Cancellation campaigns are often wrapped in the language of preventing ‘emotional harm,’” said FIRE’s Manager of Polling and Analytics Nathan Honeycutt. “But our survey shows that it’s the mobs themselves that inflict lasting mental anguish on academics, many of whom still suffer the consequences long after the controversy subsided.”

FIRE reached out to the over 600 academics listed in its Scholars Under Fire database who were sanctioned or targeted between 2020 and 2024, of whom 209 completed our survey. (FIRE’s survey was conducted before the Sept. 10 assassination of Charlie Kirk, which was followed by nearly a hundred scholars being targeted, over a dozen fired, and 2025 emerging as a new record high.)

Nearly all (94%) who participated in the survey described the impact of their experience as negative. Roughly two-thirds (65%) experienced emotional distress, and significant chunks reported facing harrowing social setbacks, such as being shunned at work (40%) or lost professional relationships (47%) and friendships (33%).

For some, the consequences were severe. About a quarter of the scholars who completed the survey reported that they sought psychological counseling (27%), and 1 in 5 lost their jobs entirely (20%).

Nearly all institutions of higher learning promise academic freedom and free speech rights to their scholars. But many of the targeted scholars reported that they received no support from precisely the institutions and individuals who were supposed to have their backs in moments of crisis and controversy. Only 21% reported that they received at least a moderate amount of public support of their faculty union, for example, and a paltry 11% reported that they received public support from administrators.

Tellingly, colleagues felt more comfortable supporting the targeted scholars privately rather than publicly. Just under half of scholars received at least a moderate amount of private support from colleagues (49%), but only about a third (34%) received their support publicly.

In their open-ended responses to FIRE’s survey, many scholars reported that this was their deepest wound: the public silence and abandonment by their peers. “My biggest disappointment was in the cowardice of other faculty who refused to do anything public on my behalf,” one professor wrote.

“Free speech advocates have long argued that acts of censorship don’t just silence one person,” said Honeycutt. “They chill the speech of anyone who agrees with them, and even those who disagree but are too cowed to defend their right to speak. Our report shows that the academy urgently needs courageous faculty willing to stand up for their colleagues, even when doing so is difficult or unpopular.”

FIRE’s report also found a noticeable partisan gap in the level of public support reported by scholars. Larger proportions of conservative than liberal faculty reported that they received support from the general public (55% vs. 37%). But far fewer than their liberal peers reported that they received public support from their faculty union (7% vs. 29%) or their university colleagues (19% vs. 40%).

“Support for academic freedom should never depend on the views being expressed, but our survey shows that’s exactly what’s happening,” said FIRE Research Advisor Sean Stevens. “If faculty unions and institutions of higher learning won’t stand by scholars in their moments of crisis, they can’t claim to stand for free speech and inquiry.”

The Scholars Under Fire survey was fielded from Jan. 15 to April 15, 2025. A total of 635 scholars were invited to participate in this study, and 209 participated. The scholars recruited were individuals listed in FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire Database because they experienced a sanction or sanction attempt between 2020 and 2024. Participation in the survey was anonymous to encourage candid responses without fear of personal consequence, and to allow participants to speak more freely about their experiences.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

CONTACT:

Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

Source link

October 27, 2025
Clear and Present Danger – A history of free speech

Why have kings, emperors, and governments killed and imprisoned people to shut them up? And why have countless people risked death and imprisonment to express their beliefs? Jacob Mchangama guides you through the history of free speech from the trial of Socrates to the Great Firewall.
Stay up to date with Clear and Present Danger on the show’s website at freespeechhistory.com

Source link

October 27, 2025
How ‘anti-woke’ laws and cancel culture combine to chill classroom speech
Over the past several years, some politicians have tried to ban or limit discussion of controversial ideas in higher education, particularly those related to critical race theory, gender identity, and diversity, equity, and inclusion.

FIRE has been on the front lines of this fight, opposing bills that target classroom speech and challenging those that become law. We’ve warned legislators that attempts to ban ideas from the college classroom are unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court explained, the First Amendment “does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.”

Many legislatures now write their bills to avoid crossing this constitutional line. When they do not, courts often step in. Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act,” for example — part of which FIRE has challenged in court — currently faces a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of its classroom provisions.

LAWSUIT: FIRE challenges Stop WOKE Act’s limits on how Florida professors can teach about race, sex

First Amendment doesn’t allow Florida law to declare which concepts are too challenging for students and faculty to discuss in a college classroom.

Read More

Perhaps in part because of this roadblock, some actors have taken a more indirect approach to removing disfavored ideas from the classroom: a mix of “anti-woke” laws and cancel culture designed to intimidate schools into doing what the state cannot do directly.

This process involves some or all of the following steps: a politician passes an “anti-woke” law, someone misinterprets the law and claims a professor violated it, outrage erupts and people demand the school take action, school administrators cave to the pressure and punish the teacher, the school announces reviews of curricula, and then other schools follow suit.

Here’s how that cycle works in detail — and why it’s chilling classroom speech.

Step 1: “Anti-woke” laws set the stage

Texas A&M senior lecturer Melissa McCoul began the summer semester teaching ENGL 360: Literature for Children, a course she had taught 12 times that focused on “representative writers, genres, texts and movements.” During the third week of class, they were reading Jude Saves the World, a novel about a 12-year-old who identifies as nonbinary. As part of their discussion, McCoul displayed an image of the “gender unicorn,” a graphic device used to educate children about gender identity, expression, and sexuality.

Whatever one’s personal views, it should not be a surprise that a children’s literature course would focus on how contemporary children’s authors approach the major social issues of the day, such as gender ideology. Faculty at public colleges also have a First Amendment right to share their views, and to invite students who disagree to challenge them. In fact, McCoul acknowledged in the course syllabus that some of the class materials would spark “differing opinions” and that students were “not required to agree.”

This was a chance for open dialogue, until it wasn’t.

A student in McCoul’s class raised her hand and asserted that President Trump’s executive order on gender identity somehow made the discussion illegal. The student subsequently reached out to school President Mark Welsh, who defended the inclusion of LGBT content in professional-track courses. He explained to her that students “want to understand the issues” that affect the people they will work with.

Nevertheless, the school canceled the class for the summer, citing “the emotions” generated by this controversy. That’s no reason to cancel a class, but the school did not punish McCoul or cancel her class for the fall semester. Instead, they agreed that her course would be taken out of the core curriculum and more clearly marked as a special topics class.

But then, on Sept. 8, Texas State Representative Brian Harrison posted video of the student’s exchange with McCoul on X and wrote a letter to the Trump administration calling for an “investigation into discriminatory DEI practices.” The assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Harmeet K. Dhillon, called the incident “deeply concerning” and said her division would “look into this.” Gov. Greg Abbott said McCoul acted “contrary to Texas law” without actually citing any specific laws (though Abbott directed state agencies earlier this year to align their practices and policies to recognize only two sexes).

Crucially, neither Abbott’s directive nor Trump’s order bans discussion of gender identity in college classrooms. Doing so, after all, would be unconstitutional. Instead, they largely instruct Texas and federal agencies to recognize only two sexes in official government work, not to police classroom speech.

Step 2: An outrage campaign demands punishment

Harrison’s Sept. 8 post kicked off a cascade of calls to discipline McCoul. It was also only the first in a long thread of posts that set off a social media firestorm. Before long, other high profile government figures like Abbott and Dhillon were chiming in. Others with large social media followings picked up the story. A routine classroom discussion had been reframed to the public as a legal violation requiring immediate sanction.

Step 3: The school caves to pressure

Soon after, Texas A&M fired McCoul. The school also demoted College of Arts and Sciences’ Dean Mark Zoran and the English Department head Emily Johansen.

President Welsh justified these moves by alleging McCoul taught “content that was inconsistent with the published course description.” The apparent basis for this assertion was that McCoul’s course was renumbered as ENGL 394, rather than a 400-level number that would supposedly mark it as a special-topics class. But McCoul and Johansen dispute this, noting that 394 places the course outside the core curriculum and qualifies it as a special-topic class. Other faculty agreed that there is little difference between these designations.

Whatever the case, the public pressure only continued to build. Harrison demanded that Texas A&M terminate Welsh. Texas’s lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, echoed the call, saying that Welsh’s “ambivalence on the issue and his dismissal of the student’s concerns by immediately taking the side of the professor is unacceptable.” Barely a week later, Welsh announced his resignation, following McCoul out the door.

Step 4: Administrators announce curricular reviews

If this story ended only with a professor being fired for her protected speech, that would be bad enough. And driving out a university president is even more alarming, because it shows how these campaigns scare people into silence or submission. But Texas A&M System Chancellor Glenn Hegar then announced that he and the board of regents would audit all courses across all 12 schools in the A&M System.

Neither Hegar nor the board explained how it would carry out the course review, leaving faculty members guessing as to what materials would be under their microscope. But in a campaign like this one, a chilling vagueness is part of the point. In the aftermath of seeing a fellow professor fired for her classroom speech, one has to imagine that many will choose to avoid addressing sensitive topics in the future. And this will only serve to rob Texas A&M students of the opportunity to engage with challenging and topical issues.

Step 5: Other schools get the message

Although this controversy started with one class taught by one professor at one Texas A&M campus, the ripple effects rapidly reached campuses across the state. According to reporting at the time, multiple school systems launched reviews:
- Texas Tech told faculty that teaching must comply with “current state and federal law recogniz[ing] only two human sexes.”
- The University of North Texas system ordered an expedited review of courses and programs, including syllabi, for compliance with “all current applicable state and federal laws, executive orders, and court orders.”
- A University of Texas system spokesperson said they were reviewing “gender identity” courses for legal compliance.
- The Texas State University System told each campus to review academic programming “in light of recent inquiries.”
- Texas Woman’s University System said it was reviewing academic courses and programs for compliance.
And that, in a nutshell, is how vague laws and online outrage came together in a toxic cocktail that resulted in a fired professor, a removed dean and department head, and a university president’s resignation, not to mention several systemwide university audits of entire course catalogues — all starting with a single student’s complaint that discussing a children’s book was “illegal.”

A growing problem

This practice of overreading laws and executive orders in order to target protected speech is, unfortunately, not just limited to Texas. In July, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Oversight Project reportedly filed a records request for syllabi and materials from roughly 70 courses containing terms such as: “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging,” “gender identity,” “intersectionality,” “white privilege,” “cultural humility,” “racial equity,” “implicit bias,” “microaggressions,” “queer,” and “sexuality.”

The stated purpose of this request is to evaluate and publicize “compliance with current Executive Orders issued by the President of the United States.” But again, Trump’s executive orders have no bearing on whether these words can be used in class materials. Suggesting otherwise and going on a fishing expedition for controversial class materials only further chills protected speech.

Sometimes the pressure is quieter, but no less chilling. At the University of Alabama, Dana Patton, director of the Witt Fellows Program, says she was told by university officials that a “very powerful person” in the state capital believed her program violated state law. This person reportedly asserted, among other things, that “divisive concepts (were) embedded” in the program. Patton responded by removing course content, including three documentaries, from one of her classes because they can prompt a “visceral reaction” and “feelings of guilt and anger” in students. This is self-censorship driven by fear of political blowback, not educational judgment.

How not to reform higher ed

As government officials increasingly look for ways to reform higher education, they must remember that efforts to ban controversial ideas from academia are not merely unconstitutional, they’re harmful regardless of their legal legitimacy. Such efforts frustrate an essential purpose of university life: young Americans should be able to explore and grapple with a wide variety of ideas, even those that many find offensive.

Amy Wax is academic freedom’s canary in the coal mine

Penn’s chilling decision to punish the controversial professor calls tenure protections at private universities into question

Read More

The debates in this country around gender and sexuality will not subside because of censorship in Texas. Indeed, classroom debates on this topic have the potential to leave both conservative and liberal students with a richer understanding of the issue. But some young Texans will now be robbed of this opportunity. Many others will be left with impoverished versions of those conversations, stripped of anything controversial that would draw the ire of government officials.

We should expect college students to be fearless when faced with ideas they dislike, regardless of the partisan valence of those ideas. As FIRE said when critics on the left came after conservative University of Pennsylvania professor Amy Wax, “Any university that would attempt to shield its community from offense would soon see the death of intellectual vitality, and the waning of its influence in society.”

If lawmakers want to reform higher education or bolster viewpoint diversity, they should do so by passing laws that protect the speech rights of all students and faculty — like FIRE’s model legislation — and they should focus on bringing more ideas onto public campuses, not removing those they dislike through vague assertions of illegality and targeted pressure campaigns.
Source link
October 24, 2025
EXPLAINER: Why Marco Rubio’s arguments for deporting noncitizens for speech are wrong

In August, FIRE sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio for violating the First Amendment.

Since March, Rubio and the Trump administration had been detaining and attempting to deport legally present noncitizens for protected speech — including writing op-eds and attending protests — because they disliked that speech.

To do it, they invoked two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act: one that allows the secretary of state to initiate deportation proceedings against any noncitizen for protected speech if the secretary “personally determines” the speech “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest,” and another that enables the secretary of state to revoke the visa of any noncitizen “at any time” for any reason.

This, as FIRE has argued, is unconstitutional. Noncitizens in the United States have First Amendment rights, and Rubio’s use of these provisions not only violates those rights, but also showcases why the two provisions are unconstitutional and must be struck down to the extent they allow adverse immigration action based on protected speech.

Of course, the government sees it differently. They have leveled several arguments for why their conduct is defensible, necessary, and constitutional. However, a brief filed on October 20 by FIRE explains why the government’s arguments don’t withstand scrutiny.

Here’s a breakdown of the government’s claims and why the law points in the other direction.

The government says it isn’t targeting protected speech — despite all evidence to the contrary

The government’s attorneys in this case insist that the claims of FIRE’s plaintiffs — The Stanford Daily, which employs the writing of noncitizen journalists and covers the impact of the war in Gaza on campus, and Jane and John Doe, who engage in pro-Palestinian advocacy — should be dismissed because the government, the attorneys argue, “do[es] not pursue visa revocations and removal proceedings purely based on political speech.”

Unfortunately, everything government officials have said and done proves otherwise.

President Trump, for instance, has vowed to deport “any student that protests” and revoke visas of “antisemitic” students. Rubio has stated publicly that “people that are supportive of movements” he determines “run counter to the foreign policy of the United States” are subject to visa revocation and deportation.

Officials tasked with carrying out these promises have also testified that a wide variety of pro-Palestinian speech, including chanting “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” calling Israel “an apartheid state,” and “criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza,” are sufficient to justify action under the revocation and deportation provisions. These are all forms of political expression protected by the First Amendment, proving in both word and deed that the government is in fact targeting noncitizens for their free speech.

“Secretaries Noem and Rubio are engaging in a mode of enforcement leading to detaining, deporting, and revoking noncitizens’ visas solely on the basis of political speech,” U.S. District Judge William Young wrote in a 161-page assessment of the Trump administration’s behavior, “and with the intent of chilling such speech and that of others similarly situated.”

And that chilling effect is another important aspect of this case.

The government’s actions are a chill on protected speech

When combined, the two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act grant the secretary of state nearly unlimited authority to target noncitizens whose protected speech they dislike, to revoke the visas of those noncitizens, and to initiate deportation proceedings.

If you’re a visa or green card holder in the United States, that’s going to make you think twice about speaking your mind — and that’s the point.

FIRE’s plaintiffs John and Jane Doe have engaged in and planned to engage in speech about American foreign policy and Israel — including accusing Israel of committing “genocide” and using the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” All of this speech is protected by the First Amendment, but because the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act enable the secretary of state to revoke a visa and render noncitizens deportable based on this exact type of speech, that speech is being chilled. Jane Doe is choosing not to speak out anymore, and John Doe is continuing to speak but fears enforcement action.

FIRE’s other plaintiff, The Stanford Daily, is experiencing a similar chilling effect. As a newspaper committed to “to cover[ing] all relevant campus activities in an unbiased fashion and provide an outlet for Stanford community members to publish opinions,” the newspaper has a keen interest in covering the voices of students on campus — which necessarily includes noncitizens with pro-Palestinian views.

However, due to the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as the actions Rubio and the Trump administration have already taken to target disfavored speech, noncitizen journalists have refused assignments and even quit the newspaper out of fear. One need only to look at the case of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts student who was detained for writing an op-ed critical of Israel, for ample reason behind The Stanford Daily’s concerns.

The implications here should be obvious. If there is a credible threat of the government revoking your visa and engaging in deportation proceedings for speech you publish in your school newspaper, you’re unlikely to take the risk. This not only violates the First Amendment rights of these noncitizens, it also harms the ability of all citizens to read and hear perspectives about matters of public importance that the current administration doesn’t like.

The provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act are unconstitutional and must be struck down

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting — and the executive branch from enforcing — laws penalizing speakers because of their opinions, no matter their immigration status.

It’s as simple as that.

The idea, from our nation’s founding, is to protect the “inalienable” right to free expression. Our Founders did not believe that free speech was a privilege granted to us by our government, but rather a right inherent to us all, which required protection from government. And there is no historical merit to the idea, forwarded by some, that these rights were only ever intended for American citizens. In fact, many of the most prominent and controversial voices during our nation’s founding were noncitizens.

This is why the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the First Amendment’s protection for free speech applies to noncitizens, noting in cases such as Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding that:

Once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments … They extend their inalienable privileges to all ‘persons’ and guard against any encroachment on those rights by federal or state authority.

For all of these reasons, the revocation and deportation provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act — which the government itself has publicly acknowledged allows it to revoke noncitizens’ visas and render them deportable for protected expression — are an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

The government argues that, because its actions involve immigration and foreign policy in this case, its “authority is at its zenith” and its arguments are “entitled to the most deference from the courts.” However, it is basic high school civics, and noted in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

The Supreme Court has also explained, as it did in Holder v. Humanitarian L. Project, that “[o]ur precedents, old and new, make clear that concerns of national security and foreign relations do not warrant abdication of the judicial role. We do not defer to the Government’s reading of the First Amendment, even when such interests are at stake.”

And as the Ninth Circuit court noted in Washington v. Trump, “the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context.”

The Constitution does not disappear when important issues are at stake. The point of a written constitution is to prevent the political branches from declaring the limits of their own power. The provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act are a clear violation of these principles. Both constitute viewpoint and content discrimination because they permit the government to impose adverse immigration consequences on lawfully present noncitizens simply because the secretary of state dislikes their political speech.

No person should hold such power under our system of government. For these reasons, FIRE is seeking a landmark ruling that these provisions are unconstitutional to the extent they allow the secretary of state to revoke visas or initiate deportation proceedings based on protected speech.

America is different, and that’s a good thing

Regardless of your opinions on the political speech in question, if you value the First Amendment, this case should matter to you. This doesn’t just implicate the expression of lawfully present noncitizens. It also implicates your ability to hear speech that the government finds unfavorable to its interests — and that is a critical freedom that sets America apart.

As FIRE’s brief notes:

America is different. Over the centuries, as the world’s nations jailed, censored, and exiled unpopular speakers in the name of some pressing interest, we charted a different course. In our country, Thomas Jefferson explained, “the rights of thinking, and publishing our thoughts by speaking or writing” are inalienable rights belonging to the individual and never surrendered to a government’s control. To protect those inalienable rights, the Founders crafted the First Amendment, ensuring that “Congress shall make no law” abridging the right of individuals to think and speak for themselves. The Bill of Rights’ opening command, forged when noncitizen Europeans were some of the most prolific and controversial commentators of the day, makes “no distinction between citizens and resident aliens.”

For a more detailed and granular assessment of the arguments forwarded in this case, we encourage you to read the brief in full.

Source link

October 21, 2025
UT Austin Muzzles Grad Student Assembly’s Political Speech

The Graduate Student Assembly had planned to consider resolutions against two Texas laws.

Officials at the University of Texas at Austin blocked the Graduate Student Assembly from considering two resolutions against Texas state laws last week, arguing that the student-run body must follow institutional neutrality policies.

Mateo Vallejo, a first-year master’s student and representative in the GSA for the School of Social Work, drafted two resolutions for the assembly to consider: one condemning Texas SB 17, which bans diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at Texas public institutions, and another against Texas SB 37, a state law that, among other changes, put faculty senates at public institutions under the control of university presidents and boards.

On Oct. 10, GSA president David Spicer submitted the two resolutions to Associate Dean for Graduate Studies Christopher J. McCarthy for approval. According to the assembly bylaws, the dean of students’ office must approve all proposed GSA legislation before it can be considered by the full assembly, effectively giving the office an opportunity to veto, Vallejo explained. Once a bill is submitted to the dean’s office, the assembly cannot make any changes to the text. Vallejo, Spicer and the GSA vice president were careful to follow the bylaws during the drafting process to give administrators as little reason as possible to shut the resolutions down.

Five days later, McCarthy nixed them.

“[Vice President for Legal Affairs] considers the legislation to be political speech that is not permitted to be issued by a sponsored student organization in their official capacity,” McCarthy wrote in an email to Spicer, which Inside Higher Ed obtained. “This legislation should not be permitted to go forward.”

Spicer followed up, asking why the GSA was prohibited from engaging in political speech when others have done so in their official capacity at UT Austin. He pointed to an op-ed by Provost William Inboden in the conservative magazine National Affairs and a statement from University of Texas System Board of Regents chairman Kevin P. Eltife, who said the university was “honored” to be among the institutions “selected by the Trump Administration for potential funding advantages” under Trump’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.”

“Their speech was on ‘political and social’ matters, so I do not know how they escape the neutrality requirement whereas GSA cannot,” Spicer wrote in his response to McCarthy. In addition, UT Austin’s undergraduate student government recently put out a statement of support for the university’s new president, Jim Davis, which Spicer argued is also political speech.

“Like attacks on the Faculty Council, silencing GSA through institutional neutrality is an attack on the notion of shared governance,” Spicer said in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “GSA appoints students to university-wide committees and, previously, Faculty Council committees. GSA is the one space at UT Austin where students can voice issues impacting their graduate education.”

When asked about the double standard, UT Austin spokesperson Mike Rosen told Inside Higher Ed that the resolution in support of Davis is not political speech because he was appointed by a nonpartisan board and not by an elected official. Members of the University of Texas System Board of Regents are appointed by the Texas governor.

“UT Austin exercises institutional neutrality consistent with a policy approved by the UT System Board of Regents, which prohibits System institutions from expressing positions on political matters or issues of the day. As a sponsored student organization, GSA acts as an extension of the University and cannot act to cause the University to violate the UT System policy,” Rosen wrote in an email.

Vallejo’s resolutions against SB 17 and SB 37 would not be the first attempt by the GSA to address Texas politics. In 2022, the Assembly passed a resolution in response to Texas attorney general Ken Paxton’s opinion and Gov. Greg Abbott’s directive to the Department of Family and Protective Services that gender-affirming medical care for minors could be treated as child abuse. In its resolution, the Assembly urged campus officials not to adopt that definition for campus reporting purposes.

Source link

October 21, 2025
Judge Halts UT’s Comprehensive Ban on Student Speech

SB 2972 was passed after students at several public Texas universities protested the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Jon Shapley/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images

A Texas district court judge on Tuesday ordered the University of Texas system to hold off on enforcing new, sweeping limits on student expression that would prohibit any “expressive activity” protected by the First Amendment between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.

“The First Amendment does not have a bedtime of 10 p.m.,” wrote U.S. district court judge David Alan Ezra in his order granting the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. “Giving administrators discretion to decide what is prohibited ‘disruptive’ speech gives the school the ability to weaponize the policy against speech it disagrees with. As an example, the Overnight Expression Ban would, by its terms, prohibit a sunrise Easter service. While the university may not find this disruptive, the story may change if it’s a Muslim or Jewish sunrise ceremony. The songs and prayer of the Muslim and Jewish ceremonies, while entirely harmless, may be considered ‘disruptive’ by some.”

A coalition of student groups—including the student-run Retrograde Newspaper, the Fellowship of Christian University Students at the University of Texas at Dallas and the student music group Strings Attached—sued to challenge the restrictions, which, in addition to prohibiting expression overnight, also sought to ban campus public speakers, the use of drums and amplified noise during the last two weeks of the semester. The restrictive policies align with Texas Senate Bill 2972, called the Campus Protection Act, which requires public universities to adopt restrictions on student speech and expression. The bill took effect on Sept. 1.

“Texas’ law is so overbroad that any public university student chatting in the dorms past 10 p.m. would have been in violation,” said Adam Steinbaugh, a senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, in a press release. “We’re thankful that the court stepped in and halted a speech ban that inevitably would’ve been weaponized to censor speech that administrators disagreed with.”

Source link

October 16, 2025
VICTORY: Federal court halts Texas’ ‘no First Amendment after dark’ campus speech ban
AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 14, 2025 — A federal judge today issued a preliminary injunction blocking the University of Texas System from enforcing a new Texas law that bans virtually all protected expression on public university campuses after dark.

In his ruling, Judge David Alan Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found that students challenging the law on First Amendment grounds were likely to succeed on the merits, and blocked the law from going into effect while the case makes its way through the courts.

“The First Amendment does not have a bedtime of 10:00 p.m.,” the District Court held. “The burden is on the government to prove that its actions are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. It has not done so.”

“Today’s ruling is a victory not only for our plaintiffs, but all of those who express themselves on college campuses across Texas,” said Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression senior supervising attorney JT Morris. “The First Amendment protects their freedom of speech on campus, every hour of the day, every week of the year.”

Passed in the wake of several protests over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Senate Bill 2972 reversed Texas’s previously strong statute enshrining campus free speech protections into state law, and would have forced public universities to ban “expressive activities” from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m., which it defined as “any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.”

That’s a shockingly sweeping ban that would have empowered colleges to punish everything from wearing a T-shirt with a message, to writing an op-ed, to playing music — even worship. That’s an intolerable attack on freedom of speech at public universities, where First Amendment protections must remain indispensable.

“Texas’ law is so overbroad that any public university student chatting in the dorms past 10 p.m. would have been in violation,” said FIRE senior attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “We’re thankful that the court stepped in and halted a speech ban that inevitably would’ve been weaponized to censor speech that administrators disagreed with.”

Another provision from Texas’ law required public universities to ban students from inviting outside speakers, or using amplified sound or percussive instruments during the last two weeks of any academic term. FIRE challenged those provisions on behalf of a diverse group of student groups and organizations who would be adversely affected if Texas’s law was allowed to go into effect on UT System campuses:
- The Fellowship of Christian University Students (FOCUS) at UT-Dallas, a campus ministry group whose evening prayer gatherings and guest‑led services would be curtailed by the law’s nighttime ban on “expressive activities” and its ban on invited speakers.
- The Retrograde, an independent student newspaper at UT-Dallas whose newsgathering, writing, and posting often occur after 10 p.m.
- Young Americans for Liberty, an Austin-based, pro-liberty nonprofit with campus chapters throughout Texas that organize petitions, protests, and speaker events. (FIRE is also representing Zall Arvandi, a student member of YAL who attends UT-Austin).
- Texas Society of Unconventional Drummers, a UT-Austin student percussion performance group known for their end‑of‑semester shows that would be barred by the law’s ban on percussion during finals week.
- Strings Attached, a UT-Dallas student music group that stages public concerts — including in the final two weeks of term and sometimes using amplification.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

CONTACT:

Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]
Source link
October 14, 2025
Introducing the SPFI Sentinel: Free speech stories by — and for — student journalists

Thirteen hundred student newsrooms across the country prove each day that the news doesn’t wait until graduation to break. And no one’s closer to the ground where free speech debates are blazing on college campuses than student journalists.

So far this year, FIRE’s Student Press Freedom Initiative has received 84 calls for help from student journalists. In 2024, there were 140. As they cover the battle for free speech on campus, they face their own fights for press freedoms, often combating censorship without the recognition they deserve.

That’s why we created the SPFI Sentinel. With the Sentinel, we’re celebrating the student journalists on the front lines of the First Amendment by recognizing their unflinching reporting and sharing their stories with 1,300 other student newsrooms in the U.S.

The following are the featured journalists for the 2025 edition of the Sentinel.

Nikita Osadchiy, The Heights, Boston College:

I’m Nikita Osadchiy, an assistant news editor at The Heights. With nearly a year on our editorial board and amid a presidential administration intent on battering higher education nationwide, the need for accountability journalism has never felt more urgent. Newspapers serve as watchdogs, holding institutions — academic or otherwise — to the principles from which journalism itself springs. When those institutions fail, it is the press’s mission to confront them, expose wrongdoing, and reaffirm the public’s right to truth. Student journalism has been the chance to preserve integrity where it falters and to give voice where silence would otherwise prevail.

Dylan Hembrough, The Alestle, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville:

I’m Dylan Hembrough, editor-in-chief of The Alestle at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. I’m a second-year pharmacy student and in my third year as editor-in-chief. I got into journalism because I love to write, and that has blossomed into a passion for disseminating information and giving people the unfiltered truth they deserve.

Glenn Hedin, The Michigan Daily, University of Michigan:

My name is Glenn Hedin, and I am a student journalist. I report on university governance and campus activism, and I like to tell myself that if powerful people aren’t mad at me then I’m doing something wrong. Free speech in America is eroding fast, with even major media institutions preemptively capitulating to censorship. Journalists need to rise to this occasion by intensely scrutinizing powerful institutions and seeking out silenced voices to listen to. Student journalists play a part there, and I hope that when I’m old I’ll be able to look back and say that I did mine well.

Barrett Dolata, The Michigan Daily, University of Michigan:

My name is Barrett Dolata and I am a student journalist pursuing my final year of a BA in English, with a minor in art and design at the University of Michigan. Student journalism holds a special place for me because it gives voice to the students and community members I pass every day in Ann Arbor. What makes it particularly unique is the immersion, as we’re not distant observers writing about issues from the outside. We’re experiencing many of these same challenges and moments right alongside the people we’re covering, which brings a depth to our reporting that wouldn’t be possible otherwise.

Chloe Platt, The Spectator, Seattle University:

I’m Chloe Platt (she/her), a Seattle-based journalist, poet, and writer whose work is rooted in empathy and poetic connectivity. As editor-in-chief of The Spectator, Seattle University’s student newspaper, I held fast to the belief that journalism is both a vessel for amplifying vulnerable voices and a force for challenging oppressive systems. I carry this conviction into my professional work, viewing student journalism as essential in shaping critically minded, outspoken storytellers who see narrative as a tool for social change.

To these and all of the other talented journalists across the nation, SPFI has one message: We have your back.

As the 2025 academic year begins, we encourage any journalists facing censorship on campus to contact our 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734) for guidance, resources, and answers to your legal questions. For information on topics like defamation and privacy law, visit SPFI’s clickable guide to common media law and First Amendment Questions: Can I Publish This?

Source link

October 6, 2025
Trump’s tinseltown tariffs threaten free speech

“The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death,” declared the 47th president in a post earlier this year on Truth Social. To lure more film productions back to America, Trump ordered the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative to place a 100% tariff on foreign films.

Hollywood went into panic mode. But the summer months passed without any update from the White House. Then, on Monday, Trump renewed his calls for a foreign-film tariff.

Much has been made about the financial implications of Trump’s shocking movie mandate. But beyond the economic concerns, both the industry and elected officials alike have failed to consider the broader constitutional implications of the president’s chaotic posts, should the tariffs actually be implemented.

Nestled in his posts, declaring offshore film productions a “National Security threat,” Trump further justified the tariffs this year by labeling foreign films as “propaganda.” For any American who cares about free speech, that should be the cue to jump up and holler, “Cut!”

“Propaganda” carries an ominous connotation, one that those in power have often used to censor speech they dislike. But no matter what the president declares to be propaganda, whether movies or any other medium, it is still protected speech. That protection extends to both making and watching films, regardless of where they were produced, as the First Amendment safeguards not only the right to speak, but also the right to receive information and ideas.

Artists have the right to express their ideas, even when such ideas irk those in power.

Details are incredibly murky, and the White House clarified in May that “no final decisions” have been made on what the policy would look like. But Trump’s threats to use the government’s might to financially punish Hollywood for working with foreign filmmakers, while limiting Americans’ access to those films, are deeply worrying.

Any directive that aims to suppress movies based on their content or filmmakers’ creative choices would violate both the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment. The president claims these tariffs would strengthen American industry, but doing so by targeting filmmakers and their art, based on their place of origin or viewpoint, is as un-American as it gets. It’s less Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and more The Manchurian Candidate.

America’s proud free speech tradition is built on protecting speech critical of those in power. Because of this, the arts have historically been a potent force for social and political change in this country. One just has to look at the history of cinema to see that.

‘So to Speak’ Podcast: ‘The Trials of Lenny Bruce’

His trials began with a police bust at the Jazz Workshop in San Francisco in 1961, and ended with an obscenity conviction in New York in 1964.

Read More

Since the medium’s advent over a century ago, movies have been a dominant form of artistic expression in the United States. Not only that, but it’s historically been used to push back against the status quo.

During the studio system’s heyday, Meet John Doe shone a spotlight on the rising threat of fascism on domestic soil. Later, Casablanca tackled the dangers of isolationism. At the height of the Cold War, the Gary Cooper western High Noon challenged the Red Scare. Heralding the start of New Hollywood, Easy Rider rebelled against the prudish, white-picket-fence America of Eisenhower and Kennedy, while They Live! condemned the Reagan-era capitalism of the late 80s and early 90s. During the War on Terror, The Dark Knight questioned the morality of the Patriot Act surveillance state.

Not only that, but courts have consistently repelled government efforts to suppress artistic expression, reaffirming that artists have the right to express their ideas, even when such ideas irk those in power.

In a free society, the government, regardless of who is in power, cannot dictate what films we can watch or what books we can read.

In the 1948 Supreme Court case Winters v. New York, a 6-3 majority explained that “one man’s amusement teaches another’s doctrine.” The First Amendment protects everything from highbrow political commentary to sensational entertainment. Artistically, the line between high- and low-value expression is too subjective, too paper-thin to entrust the government with policing it. This free speech principle still rings true today, but the president seems willing to cast it aside to exert greater control over the film industry.

The nation’s highest court also has much to say on why taxing speech is unconstitutional because, let’s be clear, Trump’s tinseltown tariffs are just another tax. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the First Amendment protects us against government taxing expression it dislikes.

Like all art, movies both provoke and inspire. They are, in the words of the late film critic Roger Ebert, “empathy machines.” In the darkness of a movie theater, we sit with strangers from different backgrounds. We gravitate to those cathedral-like spaces to share in one singular experience that is more than likely foreign to our own. We watch movies to be swept up in something different. At the very least, movies can challenge our ideas, much like a thriving free speech culture. At their best, movies change us.

In a free society, the government, regardless of who is in power, cannot dictate what films we can watch or what books we can read. And when we encounter a film that we may disagree with, the way we respond is our own speech, our own art, our own expression. As the nation’s chief executive, Trump cannot use the force of the presidency to target filmmakers and their artistic expression in the name of “national security” or “propaganda.” That’s unconstitutional. And that’s to say nothing of the other legal roadblocks to his plan.

The president’s vague, broad call for speech-retaliatory tariffs against foreign films has the potential to silence storytellers, chill the efforts of studios, and prevent American audiences from participating in the international exchange of ideas movies provide.

That doesn’t “Make Hollywood Great Again.” It makes it worse.

Source link

October 1, 2025
In Defense of Distasteful Faculty Speech (opinion)

Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10.

Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy that struck at the heart of American democracy. As the faculty adviser for Turning Point USA at Georgia College & State University, I took on that role despite significant ideological disagreements with the organization Kirk founded because I believe so fervently in the value of political discourse—even when that discourse makes us uncomfortable.

Kirk and I disagreed on virtually every policy issue. His rhetoric often struck me as divisive, and his positions frequently ran counter to my own deeply held beliefs. Nevertheless, I advised the campus chapter of his organization because I passionately believe that universities must be places where competing ideas can clash, where students can hear from voices across the political spectrum and where the marketplace of ideas remains vibrant and open.

The wave of faculty terminations sweeping across American institutions in response to Kirk’s death represents a dangerous moment for academic freedom and constitutional principles. Educators across the nation have been fired or suspended for social media posts that ranged from celebrating Kirk’s death to making pointed observations about the irony of his rhetoric regarding gun violence being an acceptable price to pay to maintain the Second Amendment. While these comments were often distasteful and insensitive, the rush to punish people for them reveals a troubling disregard for the First Amendment protections that should shield government employees—particularly university faculty—from exactly this kind of viewpoint-based retaliation.

I’m not defending the wisdom or sensitivity of the statements made about Kirk by those being fired. In point of fact, I believe that most if not all were ill-timed, crude, callous and deeply hurtful to those mourning Kirk’s death. But constitutional principles protect speech that offends, disturbs and challenges our sensibilities.

For example, in 1987, the Supreme Court decided Rankin v. McPherson in response to a government employee being fired after expressing hope that a potential future assassin would succeed in killing President Reagan. Even though this despicable comment was said in the immediate aftermath of an assassination attempt against the president, the court nevertheless held that it was protected speech. If such an extreme statement merits protection, surely the same is true for similar statements about Kirk in the wake of his assassination.

The irony here is particularly acute. Conservative activists and politicians who claim to champion free speech principles are now leading coordinated campaigns to silence critics through organized pressure and doxing efforts. Meanwhile, university administrators—those who should be the staunchest defenders of academic freedom—are capitulating to political pressure rather than standing up for constitutional principles. The result is a chilling effect that extends far beyond these specific cases, sending a clear message to faculty everywhere that certain political viewpoints will no longer be tolerated.

For public university professors like me, this represents an especially troubling erosion of academic freedom. The Supreme Court has long recognized that universities occupy a special place in our constitutional framework as centers of free inquiry and debate. The Pickering balancing test that governs government employee speech also typically weighs heavily in favor of faculty members discussing matters of public policy, precisely because such discourse is central to the university’s educational mission.

We’re witnessing universities abandon their constitutional obligations to appease a political pressure campaign, one often led by Republican members of government. Universities and school districts are making hasty decisions based on social media pressure rather than carefully considering their legal duties and educational responsibilities. This institutional cowardice not only violates the constitutional rights of individual employees but also undermines the very principles that make American higher education a global leader in research and innovation.

The legal precedent here is clear, and many of these terminations will likely be reversed through costly litigation. Even so, the damage to academic freedom and democratic discourse has already been done. The message being sent is that political speech—even on matters of clear public concern—can be punished if it offends the right people with sufficient political power.

This is precisely the moment when our institutions must demonstrate courage in defending constitutional principles. University presidents, school board members and other educational leaders must resist the pressure to sacrifice employees on the altar of political expedience. They must remember that their obligation is not to popular opinion or political movements, but to the Constitution and the principles of free inquiry that make education possible.

The death of Charlie Kirk was a senseless tragedy that robbed America of a young voice in our political discourse. But if we allow that tragedy to justify the systematic erosion of free speech protections, we will have compounded the damage immeasurably. The best way to honor Kirk’s memory is not through ideological purges, but by recommitting ourselves to the principles of free expression and open debate that he claimed to champion.

Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University and the faculty adviser to the campus chapter of Turning Point USA.

Source link

September 29, 2025