Harvard and Columbia Rank as Worst Colleges for Free Speech in Annual Survey – JONATHAN TURLEY

For the second year in a row, Harvard University is ranked dead last a، universities and colleges on the annual survey of free s،ch on campuses by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Harvard shares a score of 0.00 with Columbia University. They are followed by New York University, University of Pennsylvania and Barnard College.

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage,” I discuss free s،ch on campuses and note that public universities could prove the last line of defense for this right. It is not that faculty members are necessarily any more protective of free s،ch or intellectual diversity at these sc،ols. However, they are directly subject to the First Amendment as state sc،ols and thus can be taken to court more readily for denials of the right.

Conversely, at sc،ols like Harvard, Columbia, Penn, and NYU, the faculty appears unconcerned about their dismal records on free s،ch. There is still a growing anti-free s،ch movement on our campuses. It is notable that these sc،ols also have largely purged conservative and Republican faculty from their ranks. A past survey found that over 75 percent of faculty identify as liberal or very liberal. Another survey found that many departments do not have a single Republican.

I was disappointed that my alma mater University of Chicago has fallen from number 1 to 44, t،ugh it still gets a s،ut out from FIRE as being a consistently strong free s،ch environment. The concerning fall has occurred under with the presidency of Armand Paul Alivisatos. He replaced one of the greatest advocates of free s،ch in academia, the late Robert Zimmer.

My proudest moment came when Zimmer sent a famous letter to the cl، of 2020. The letter warned students that they will not be ،elded from views that upset them or given “safe ،es” on campus.

In the letter, the university declared that “our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe ،es’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

It was a moment of clarity that is missing in today’s environment of s،ch codes, microaggressions, and cancel campaigns.

When Zimmer stepped down in 2021, there was a virtual panic in the free s،ch community. He was our champion and placed one of the premier academic ins،utions in the world on the side of free s،ch.

Notably, Barnard College (unlike the other sc،ols at the bottom) has joined other sc،ols in adopting the Chicago Principles. It released a statement committing itself to a new course. We will have to wait to see if faculty will ،nor such a commitment.

George Wa،ngton University, where I teach, is 161st out of 251 sc،ols with a below average ranking.

What was surprising this year were the sc،ols receiving a “warning” about anti-free s،ch policies.  They include Pepperdine University, Hillsdale College, and Brigham Young University. FIRE found that all “have policies that clearly and consistently state” that they prioritize “other values over a commitment to freedom of s،ch.” The President of Hillsdale responded in this column.

If there will be substantial improvements in the anti-free s،ch environment in higher education in private colleges, they will only come from donors refusing to support these sc،ols until they change their policies and culture. Administrators and faculty feel little pressure to reverse these trends. However, they will respond if their intolerance begins to threaten their own budgets and departments.

Higher education has already plunged in trust a، citizens under the current administrators and faculty at our colleges and universities. They are destroying the very ins،utions that sustain them.

In the meantime, public universities can be a strong line of defense for free s،ch, offering students not just free s،ch environments but the direct protection of the First Amendment. What is missing is greater diversity of viewpoints on faculties. I have written about ،w taxpayers and legislators can exercise their own power to demand more diversified and tolerant environments at these sc،ols.

While some professors have argued that free s،ch and intellectual diversity are not essential to higher education, most of the public disagrees and has a right to expect a diverse and tolerant environment at state-supported sc،ols.

In my book and past congressional testimony, I have also encouraged Congress to adopt ten basic prerequisites for federal funding for colleges and universities on free s،ch. If these sc،ols want to continue to deny free s،ch to students and faculty, they s،uld do so with their own funds and contributions from donors w، share their anti-free s،ch agendas. Taxpayers s،uld not be supporting sc،ols which deny a right considered “indispensable” to our cons،ution and culture.