In recent months, media outlets and First Amendment experts have called attention to the Texas legislature, Board of Regents and UT administration for their repeated attempts to exhibit overreaching control over UT’s students and faculty. 

The Editorial Board has covered many of UT’s countless attempts to politicize this campus, including consolidating liberal arts departments, banning DEI practices and scholarships, abolishing faculty councils, limiting controversial discussion in classrooms, deploying law enforcement on student protestors, attempting to remove the campus’s designation as a traditional public forum and banning drag. Students and faculty alike, regardless of their political views, have now become ideological pawns in a culture war against higher education. News organizations such as The Guardian and The New York Times have reported on this phenomenon, which the Austin Chronicle called, “the right-wingification of UT.” 

UT’s  “Statement on Academic Integrity,” alleges the public has lost faith in higher education. However, the Editorial Board has lost faith in this administration and our lawmakers. UT should not serve its legislative bodies, it should serve its students. And yet, it appears to do the opposite.

However, UT is just one of many colleges under fire. We wanted to know if universities nationwide face the same challenges, and how UT stacks up against them. We created a policy index for 15 large public universities, UT included. We interviewed free speech experts, students and faculty across all campuses and gave each college a grade for four policy areas: academic freedom, state educational control, free expression and faculty representation.

We chose fellow flagship public universities with similar sizes, governance structures and prestige as UT. The original list included University of Oklahoma and University of Alabama, which have since been removed due to sourcing difficulties. Our policy index includes Arizona State University; University of California, Los Angeles; University of Florida; University of Georgia; University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; Indiana University; University of Michigan;  North Carolina at Chapel Hill; The Ohio State University; Pennsylvania State University; Texas A&M University; University of Texas at Austin; University of Virginia; University of Washington; University of Wisconsin.

Out of all 15 schools, UT scored among the lowest in each category, consistently falling behind peer institutions in creating an environment consistent with academic freedom and free expression and ensuring protections for faculty governance. UT is also one of the only universities being consistently subjected to extreme legislative overreach. Few others demonstrated the same pattern of politicization as UT. These observations led us to the conclusion that the school’s academic integrity has been compromised.

Click here to see how we conducted our research.

UT’s extensive issues with academic freedom, clashes with students’ free speech rights and lack of faculty governance highlight the school’s problematic campus environment.

Academic Freedom: F

UT is subject to a broad range of restrictions on academic discussion and political speech. Their institutional neutrality policy, though meant to provide a safe space for political debate, has been criticized by FIRE, who allege the Office of the Dean of Students used the policy to restrict Student Government speech. 

Additionally, a Board of Regents policy passed in February bans “controversial topics” from classroom discussion but does not elaborate on which topics fall into this category, leaving room for administrative overreach. 

In 2023, two teaching assistants lost their positions after condemning  UT’s silence on the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. In 2024, UT deployed state troopers on their own students engaging in a peaceful protest. This resulted in 57 arrests, with all charges later dropped.

This fall, a Daily Texan faculty survey revealed about 40% of undergraduate faculty changed their curriculum or teaching methods to avoid potential violations following Senate Bill 37, and about 60% considered leaving UT altogether. 

UT’s policies create a tangible chilling effect on student and faculty speech, earning the school an F.

State Educational Control: F

State legislators have made unprecedented, overreaching attempts to politicize education and limit academic discourse. These actions span years and come as a result of the governor’s overwhelming control of UT’s governance. 

House Bill 229 limited gender expression in the state to only male or female. Months later, UT announced it would consolidate seven ethnic and gender studies.

Senate Bill 17, passed in 2023, banned DEI practices on public university campuses, resulting in the shuttering of the Multicultural Engagement Center, the termination of identity-related scholarships, and layoffs of 60 faculty and staff. Senate Bill 37 banned faculty councils and created president-appointed committees to determine curriculum, which many faculty believe paved the way for the eventual consolidation of ethnic and gender studies departments. 

The influx of policies aimed at increasing legislative control, and their disastrous effects, earn UT an F.  

Free Expression: D

UT’s free speech policies claim the right to speak is fundamental to the University’s mission. However, the Campus Protection Act, attempted to restrict expressive activity on campus by enforcing a restrictive 10 p.m. curfew, banning amplified sound and masked protest, requiring prior approval for guest speakers and attempting to strip the campus of their traditional public forum status. Many of these restrictions were already present in UT’s speech code, representing an attempt by both University and state leaders to limit the free expression of students.

A federal judge found that many of the restrictions are not narrowly tailored and fail to achieve a compelling government interest. However, the judge allowed the provision eliminating universities’ public forum status, meaning members of the public are not allowed to protest on campus.

Furthermore, a 2024 executive order from Gov. Abbott requires institutions to adopt the speech code of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which categorizes criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. 

These policies, along with Texas’ partial drag ban, or prohibition of “sexually oriented” performances in front of minors, and decision to deploy law enforcement on student protestors, earn UT a D.

Faculty Representation: F

SB 37 disbanded UT’s faculty council, which previously would meet directly with the President. This bill eliminated the method in which faculty expressed their concerns or requested clarification from administration, and disbanded its 25 standing committees, leaving 3,700 voting members without representation.

In October, the University created the President’s Faculty Advisory Board. However, the board consists of only 14 members who are selected by the University, instead of by fellow faculty. This committee does not derive its authority from fellow faculty members, and are elected only in an advisory role, not as a means to advocate for UT’s employees. 

Davis told the Texan this new model is “not meant to be representative” of faculty members, rather, “stewardship of the whole.”

However, even before SB 37’s passage, UT routinely disregarded reports from its faculty, failing to offer responses to a 500-person vote of no confidence in former President Jay Hartzell, a resolution in defense of critical race theory and a report stating UT administration violated their own institutional rules by restraining free speech and pursuing criminal charges against students.

Additionally, UT’s faculty and staff have not received an across-the-board pay raise since the union’s severance from state employees in 2003. 

With no meaningful form of faculty representation or formal channel for input, UT earns an F.

ASU has a proven commitment to academic freedom, free expression and faculty governance, with any attempts at legislative overreach vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs.

Academic Freedom: A

ASU currently boasts a 12-member Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which testifies to its commitment to academic freedom.

In 2023, ASU had a controversial relationship with Turning Point USA, where several members of its faculty were put on a Professor Watchlist. ASU President Michael Crow requested TPUSA to remove all ASU faculty members in September, but by October, two members of TPUSA assaulted queer professor David Boyles, English instructor and the co-founder of Drag Story Hour Arizona. However, President Crow condemned the harassment and requested in a letter to founder Charlie Kirk that faculty be removed. In the letter, he confirmed his support for faculty and their right to teach, and even requested they add Crow to the list if they refuse to remove faculty members.

Crow’s defense of faculty, and ASU’s strong protection of academic freedom, earn the school an A.

State Educational Control: B

In 2025, Arizona Republicans introduced Senate Bills 1694 and 2868, both aimed at removing federal funding for and banning the introduction of DEI programs. Democratic Gov. Hobbs vetoed the bills. Additionally, Republicans introduced House Bill 2735 in 2024, changing faculty’s roles from participants to advisors in the university’s governance. Though these bills failed, their intended overreach earns the school a B.

Free Expression: A

ASU’s free speech policies are clearly outlined and narrowly tailored for safety concerns. Students are restricted to daytime hours not between 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. in reservable, outdoor spaces. Distributable handheld signs, leaflets and other portable objects are allowed, as long as shade structures or other stakes are not driven into the ground. Music and other amplified sound must be requested during specified hours.

ASU has also demonstrated concrete defense of on-campus freedom of expression. For instance, when members of the student government opposed Palestinian poet and journalist Mohammed el-Kurd’s talk on campus, a university spokesperson responded, “All individuals and groups on campus have the right to express their opinions, whatever those opinions may be, as long as they do not violate the student code of conduct, student organization policies, and do not infringe on another student’s individual rights.” El-Kurd thus was allowed to host his speech.

Faculty Representation: A

Since spring 2008, ASU has utilized a “one-senate” model after the consolidation of all campus-based Senates, including a 12-member executive board. Each campus also elects a representative to a three-year term, who then go on to serve as president-elect, president and past president, all to comprise the University Academic Council of the University Senate.

The senate also has individual committees, including various internal committees, campus-specific committees and grievance committees, such as the aforementioned Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure.

This system aims to achieve the Academic Assembly’s responsibilities of shared governance, with the authority on all matters of educational policy, faculty grievance, faculty personnel, financial affairs, university support services and all other matters affecting the faculty and academic professional role in the university, its campuses, research parks and other facilities. ASU’s system earns an A.

UCLA demonstrates high standards for faculty governance and faces limited state government pressure. However, there are some notable instances of threats to academic freedom and free expressions, and questionable time, place and manner restrictions.

Academic Freedom: B

UCLA’s speech policy, which prohibits “banning speech or other forms of expression based on the content or viewpoint of the speaker,” is a good example of how universities should strive to protect academic freedom. Additionally, their academic freedom statement, created by a joint task force of faculty and administrators, contains a three-part mission to protect the principles of scholarly research.

However, the university is still willing to infringe on aspects of academic freedom. On Oct. 27, the UC system eliminated its Department of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, replacing it with the Office of Culture and Inclusive Excellence. This change followed a lawsuit by the federal government demanding a ban on diversity-related scholarships, restrictions on foreign student enrollment, limits on gender-affirming healthcare and increased sharing of personnel data with the federal government.

In 2025, the Educational Policy and Curriculum Committee cancelled a class about public health in Palestine, despite the Department of Community Health Sciences’ unanimous approval of the course. The Committee stated the course did not meet the school’s regulations due to its student-led nature. However, graduate students have been permitted to teach classes at UCLA in the past, leading to speculation that the decision was political. 

These instances earn UCLA a B.

State Educational Control: A 

Similarly to the UT system, the UC system is governed by a Board of Regents that are appointed by the governor of California, who subsequently appoint the president of the UC system, the 10 chancellors, and the directors and deans. However, besides the typical uninteresting requirements (such as preparatory courses decided between universities and high schools collaboratively), there was nothing found indicating that the state of California or the Board of Regents had either threatened state funding, nor enacted any partisan educational control, earning the school an A. 

Free Expression: C

UCLA has a series of policies known collectively as the Time, Place and Manner policies, which came into effect in September 2025. These policies monitor standards on available areas, times and manners to “ensure safety.” “Public Expression Activities” may occur between 6 a.m. and 12 a.m., and although UCLA “welcomes” these activities, the majority of outdoor areas of UCLA property require prior approval, and the activities may not impede or disrupt either food or vehicular traffic.

While most of the policy can genuinely help promote safety during campus demonstration, requiring approval to outdoor areas that are, for the most part, public, can be a significant barrier to organizations or individuals attempting to exercise their right of expression.

Many reported threats to free speech lie in UCLA’s attempts to restrict attendance of controversial guest speakers. In 2024, three such instances took place. When UCLA health attempted to hold a lecture about whiteness as the driver of the opioid crisis, UCLA changed the title of the speech and restricted any online attendees. A pro-Israel speaker scheduled to visit the UCLA Young Americans for Freedom chapter was rejected for being “too dangerous” due to ongoing Palestine protests, and administrators requested the event be moved to a low-traffic location. Another pro-Israel speaker scheduled to speak at the Center for Israeli Studies was moved online for fear of disruption. 

Additionally, in 2024, UCLA administrators suppressed student and faculty speech by shutting down a Palestine Solidarity encampment that had lasted for eight days before being deemed too unsafe to continue. This led to a lawsuit by the ACLU and other protestors, who allege that the university failed to protect them from wrongful arrests and excessive force by police and counter-protesters. UCLA lost a related lawsuit from a group of Jewish students for permitting the creation of a  “Jew Exclusion Zone” by one of the encampments.

These instances, as well as their suppression of protest and restrictive time, place and manner policies, earn UCLA a C.

Faculty Representation: A

UCLA has an Academic Senate, which works in partnership with the university administration. Though it cannot be certain that it is effective in pushing back against unwanted bills, there is also an independent organization, the UCLA Faculty Association, which helps deal with grievances, labor disputes, wages, hours and other conditions of employment.

The Faculty Association is a protected employee organization, which has helped lead lawsuits calling for administrative transparency and an end to politicized budget cuts and grant rejections. Tenured faculty are also entitled a hearing in front of the UCLA Academic Senate’s Committee on Privilege and Tenure if they are to be fired, and the university must have a good reason to terminate their employment.

These protections, as well as UCLA AAUP’s role in preventing academic freedom attacks from the Trump administration, earn UCLA an A.

State-sanctioned academic freedom violations and drastic punishments for student protestors create a chilling effect on UF’s campus.

Academic Freedom: F  

A 2021 report by a UF faculty committee found faculty have a “grave concern about retaliation” from the administration.

In 2021, UF restricted three professors from working as paid expert witnesses in a voting rights lawsuit against the state. The university cited a “conflict of interest” as employees of the state, but the accrediting body for Southern schools announced an investigation into academic freedom threats. While the University later reversed this decision, the professors sued UF for First Amendment violations. 

UF adopts a position of institutional neutrality, but abuses it to silence faculty speech. The policy states, “in conducting their University Business, UF institutional and unit leadership teams may not make statements or proclamations regarding Social Issues or other issues not directly related to UF’s mission, governance or operations.” However, the policy classifies class instruction as “university business,” meaning faculty’s teaching, and university communications, is subject to institutional neutrality.

A recent example comes from this past semester: in September 2025, UF officials revoked law professor Jeffrey Harrison’s emeritus status when he compared Charlie Kirk to the Gestapo after his assassination on social media. This comes in light of a letter Anastasios Kamoutsas, Florida commissioner of education, sent out after Kirk’s death. Part of the letter reads, “We will hold teachers who choose to make disgusting comments about the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk accountable. Govern yourselves accordingly.”

Gov. Ron DeSantis banned DEI funding at universities in 2023. A year later, UF eliminated DEI positions and terminated existing faculty to comply with the law.

In 2025, the Florida Board of Governors cut the amount of classes in their general education catalog from 1200 to 300, in response to Senate Bill 266’s ban on courses that “distort significant historical events or teach identity politics.” More than ¾ of cuts came from humanities and social sciences.

In striving to protect academic freedom, UF directly contradicts it, earning them an F.

State Educational Control: F 

In 2022, Florida passed Senate Bill 7044, allowing the Board of Governors to conduct “comprehensive” reviews of tenured faculty every five years. This leaves faculty’s careers in the hands of a DeSantis-selected Board, with no safeguards for political consequences.

In July 2022, Florida legislators passed House Bill 7, or the “Stop WOKE Act,” that said students and employees couldn’t be considered “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive … solely by virtue of his or her race and sex.” Although the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals filed a preliminary injunction on the bill in March 2023, professors report still experiencing a subsequent chilling effect years after. In May of that year, the Florida House approved SB 266, banning public colleges and universities from funding, promoting or taking official actions related to DEI initiatives. Then, in April 2024, DeSantis’ signed a bill requiring the “dangers and evils of communism” be taught in public schools to fight indoctrination in colleges.

In 2025, Gov. DeSantis even created his own accreditation agency to combat other accreditor’s supposed progressive ideology. He referred to traditional accreditation organizations as “woke accreditation cartels.” This turns what is supposed to be a legitimately independent process into a way for state governments to directly influence academia.

Together, these policies signal to faculty and students that certain ideas carry risk, reinforcing a climate where academic inquiry is guided less by intellectual curiosity and more by political boundaries. The school earns an F.

Free Expression: D

In 2019, UF released a statement on its commitment to freedom of expression, which would assumably signal a higher rating. However, their loosely-defined campus demonstration policies warrant case-by-case punishment to anything that fits “disruptive action.”

For example, nine UF students were violently arrested for participating in a peaceful pro-Palestinian protest in April 2024, a move heavily criticized by the ACLU. UF changed its protest rules on the second day of demonstrations, with bans including sitting in chairs. Despite recommendations to “lightly punish” arrested students, UF’s dean of students kicked four students out of school for three to four years. FIRE called these decisions “disproportionate and unreasonable.”

Then, most recently, Gov. DeSantis signed a Florida law that allows leaders to label certain groups as terrorists. Any students found supporting these organizations could be expelled. In combination, UF’s free expression policies reflect a deeper motivation to enforce Gov. Desantis’ agenda rather than to truly protect free speech. The school earns a D.

Faculty Representation: C

A 17-member board of governors, 14 of whom are appointed by Gov. DeSantis, oversee the State University System, which the University of Florida resides under. Faculty members have only a single representative advocating for them to Florida’s governing board.

While UF has faculty committees and councils filled and elected by other UF faculty colleagues, two-thirds of UF faculty strongly or somewhat disagree with, “The process of shared governance, as it exists at UF, meaningfully incorporates my input in important decisions, affairs and operations.” These infractions, along with SB 7044’s tenure oversight, earns the school a C.

UGA’s response to pro-Palestine student protests, restrictive speech policies, state-wide DEI bans and censured tenure process show a lack of free speech protections and institutional representation.

Academic Freedom: A

In 2023, the Board of Regents updated the university’s definition of academic freedom to include all three requirements from the AAUP’s official 1940 Statement of Academic Freedom, signaling a commitment to academic freedom and shared governance. 

Georgia has also mandated professors make their syllabi public. While some professors warn this may lead to public backlash aimed at professors, we found this policy will increase transparency in public universities, earning the school an A.

State Educational Control: C

While Georgia also controls funding to UGA, the governor, Brian Kemp, has proposed a budget that includes $325 million to the University System of Georgia to match endowment funds for the DREAMS Scholarship Program, along with about $20 million to fund the UGA School of Medicine. The university has publicly thanked the governor, stating that the proposal reflects a “strong commitment” to affordability, student opportunity and workforce development in public higher education.

However, Georgia has also followed in other states’ footsteps by rolling back DEI to avoid losing federal funding. Instead of a traditional DEI ban, UGA has gone further, by removing sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy from its non-discrimination and anti-harassment policy, which has effectively ended their status as a protected class on campus. The move was meant to align UGA’s policies more closely with the University System of Georgia’s Board of Regents’ policy, though some students believe it comes from a place of willingness to comply with Trump’s policies. earning the school a C.

Free Expression: D

Sixteen students were arrested on the UGA campus in 2024 during a pro-Palestine encampment demonstration, resulting in the Students for Justice in Palestine at Georgia’s suspension as a student group. Due to the fact that UGA’s time, place and manner policy heavily restricts how protests can be conducted and implements multiple bureaucratic hoops for organizers to jump through, it would have been incredibly hard to abide by all of the university’s policies. 

Additionally, the Forum Act of the Georgia Constitution protects the use of amplified sound and protests on unrestricted outdoor areas of public campuses. Administration also instructed protestors to move to a designated “free speech zone,” despite the Georgia General Assembly outlawing these zones in 2022. 183 faculty sent an open letter to UGA administration calling for an “un-suspension” of the students, and saying the decision was “unwarranted and antithetical to our educational mission.”

UGA alleges that the demonstrators did, in fact, violate the university Freedom of Expression policy. They claimed the protestor’s presence posed a “serious and immediate danger or threat to persons or property,” despite the lack of violence that occurred. Six of these students had sanctions later imposed on them, which suspended them the following fall semester, and put them on probation for the rest of their time at UGA. It is because of these policies that those 16 students were unable to continue their education for an entire semester, earning UGA a D.

Faculty Representation: C

UGA does have a Faculty Advisory Committee, which is intended to help serve as a channel of communication between faculty and administrative officers. While there are many resources to reach out to, there is not much information about the effectiveness of the committee in practical terms.

Some faculty, though, have taken to writing columns detailing their requests in order to get noticed. Moreover, in an interview conducted with a UGA faculty member, they expressed that while faculty does have a voice, their representation is limited, and they do not have as much of a say as other universities do. UGA also has a union, the United Campus Workers of Georgia, though it is officially unrecognized, limiting its power to create meaningful change.

Additionally, the University System of Georgia appears on the AAUP’s censure list in 2022 due to changes for its posttenure review, making it possible for a tenured faculty to be fired without a hearing. These instances earn UGA a C.

Amidst the current administrative effects upon universities across the country on academic freedom and public discourse, UI hasn’t passed action that affects their self-proclaimed support for free speech and expression. However, from federal pressure and public opinion, external effects have made their way to campus and impacted classroom topics and discourse. 

Academic Freedom: A

Through the abiding of the first amendment and Section 4 of Article I of the Illinois Constitution — which recognizes a person’s freedom of speech and expression — The University of Illinois’ Free Speech and Expression policies aim to protect the academic freedoms of faculty and students. Guaranteeing freedom of inquiry and expression, university statutes allow for faculty to discuss, research and publish without institutional censorship or discipline. Illinois has not passed legislation that censors curriculum or classroom content.

In addition to these policies, the university incorporates the Expressive Activity Campus Administrative Manual Policy and student code, both of which are not deemed constitutional threats by FIRE, to regulate activities and avoid campus disruptions. With no prominent academic freedom threats, UI receives an A. 

State Educational Control: A

Illinois appears to have a relative independence from state-level political control. The state hasn’t introduced legislation that meaningfully dictates what can be taught or how universities must structure their academic programs. While the school has faced increased federal oversight, they do not face excessive state control. 

Overall, Illinois retains high institutional autonomy over its academic and institutional functions. Despite the presence of federal political influence, the school earns an A.

Free Expression: B

On paper, the university supports student speech and allows for expression across campus. But in practice, recent events suggest that those protections are not always applied.

The university has faced criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union after it revised protest policies, disciplined student groups and restricted campus activism, raising concerns that enforcement limited political expression. The union warned the university not to infringe on students’ free speech rights. 

In a letter to the university, the union stated, “The University has added several vague and arbitrary requirements and set violations thresholds that are far too low. As a result, student protestors have and will continue to be subjected to an unpredictable disciplinary regime that effectively puts their academic careers at risk for engaging in protected speech.”

At the same time, free speech organizations, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, came into the defense of the Illini Republicans, a student organization, after they were reviewed under Title VI after a controversial ICE post that has been taken down. The free speech organization argued against the investigation of political speech.

While speech is formally protected, these events suggest that enforcement can become uneven when political pressure is involved, earning the school a B. 

Faculty Representation: B

The university maintains an active faculty senate, and there is little evidence that faculty authority over curriculum and academic policy has been systematically overridden. Through university statutes, the UI claims to protect their faculty’s right to speak or write as citizens without institutional discipline. 

However, rather than direct legislative control, Illinois is increasingly navigating federal oversight and public scrutiny tied to political issues. Guidelines from the University Senate recommended that department-level statements focus on core academic topics rather than political ones. The Senate stated that the act of faculty engaging with issues beyond campus — such as state, national or international policy — can be seen as “controversial” and “polarizing.” 

These dynamics reflect a broader shift in how universities operate within an increasingly polarized environment. Even without the presence of direct state mandates, increasing pressure from federal oversight can shape how much authority and independence faculty have at the university, giving UI a B.

Indiana received a failing grade in every policy section, and earned the last spot on our list of schools. The school faces severe threats to academic freedom and free expression, as well as significant legislative overreach and a lack of faculty governance.

Academic Freedom: F

In 2024, Indiana implemented Senate Enrolled Act 202, which was aimed to promote “intellectual diversity.” However, the IU administration is exploiting the bill to push its political agenda. SEA 202 allows students to report professors who they believe are not supporting free inquiry, expression and intellectual diversity in the classroom. 

An anonymous student filed an intellectual diversity violation after social work lecturer Jessica Adams covered white supremacy in her lecture and included a graphic with “Make America Great Again.” Adams said she was then removed without due process, meaning she has not been allowed to make her case, collect evidence or receive counsel. She returned to Indiana as a lecturer, but is under administration supervision and was found guilty of violating SEA 202. 

In 2025, Germanic studies professor Benjamin Robinson was sanctioned after a SEA 202 student complaint accused him of describing the war in Israel untruthfully. Despite SEA 202 outlining that sufficient evidence is needed, Rick Van Kooten, executive dean of IU’s College of Arts and Sciences, still sanctioned Robinson without any verification of the anonymous student’s claim. Furthermore, during Robinson’s case, the chair of Germanic studies was not informed, it was not forwarded to a reviewer within three months, there was no investigation to prove the claim’s merit and faculty governance was denied, according to AAUP Indiana.

Additionally, Senate Bill 199 requires public universities in the state to review “low-wage” degrees, and to close or consolidate these programs. Before the review, Indiana already committed to consolidate or merge dozens of majors, including religious studies and gender studies. After the review, the school added 7 more to the list, including other languages and African American and African diaspora studies. This emphasis on career training over academic inquiry limits the scope of topics students have access to.

The lack of due process for faculty and emphasis on career readiness over well-rounded education, as well as the closure of DEI programs and subsequent termination of staff, speak to the larger issue of Indiana’s academic freedom, earning the school an F. 

State Educational Control: F

In addition to SEA 202 and SB 199, a 2025 state budget provision gives Indiana Gov. Mike Braun the power to appoint all nine trustees of IU. For over a century, alumni elected some trustees to the board, while the governor appointed the rest, but the new budget disproportionately gives all of the power to Braun. He has now removed all alumni-elected trustees and replaced them with media commentator and podcaster Sage Steele, prominent conservative lawyer James Bopp Jr. and attorney Brian Eagle. 

House Enrolled Act 101, another 2025 budget provision, prohibits alumni emeritus faculty from participating in faculty governance. This decision led to a lawsuit by three former faculty members, who allege HEA 101 violates both the U.S. Constitution and state law.

Senate Bill 289, proposed in 2025, originally issued a comprehensive DEI ban. However, the provision was removed before the bill’s passage.

The disproportionate power of Braun and the stripping of alumni and faculty power signifies IU’s partisan control, earning the school an F. 

Free Expression: F

Out of every school surveyed, Indiana demonstrates the strongest threats to free speech on campus. We found significantly more instances of suppression, censorship and unconstitutionality at IU than any other college. 

The threats started in 2024 amid nationwide pro-Palestinian protests. Hours before protests began on campus, Indiana altered their speech policy to prohibit the installation of structures in Dunn Meadow, a space with decades-long traditions of campus protests. The change was approved by a four-person committee containing no students or faculty members. 

When protestors failed to comply with the change, state police arrested 33 people, using zip ties and riot shields to break up the peaceful protest. All 33 people were banned from campus for a full year. The County Prosecutor’s office later dropped the criminal charges, calling them “constitutionally dubious.”

Later that year in November, Indiana passed another restrictive policy requiring approval for protests and instituting an 11 p.m. curfew for all forms of expression, not just protests. A federal judge later blocked this policy.

Numerous examples of suppression against both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine community members followed in the next year. The university suspended and sanctioned the faculty advisor for the campus’ Palestine Solidarity Committee after the group held a lecture with an Israeli-American activist which the university had not authorized. The university sanctioned the professor without a hearing before a faculty board, a violation of their own policy.

Days before this incident, the school cancelled a pro-Palestine art exhibition in 2024 due to concerns with the “integrity” of the showcase. The artist said the university failed to disclose what, if any, threats led to the cancellation. Indiana also postponed an IU Hillel event featuring a former Hamas member who later became an Israeli spy, citing security concerns. The event was never rescheduled.

IU’s free speech infractions culminated in a series of attacks on the school’s independent student newspaper, the Indiana Daily Student. After the paper published two pieces on the school’s FIRE free speech ranking and suspension of the Palestine Solidarity Committee, the school fired the paper’s student media director and ordered them to cease their print publications. The decision received criticism from the Student Press Law Center, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Indiana Daily Student editors.

Indiana’s campus is one full of censorship and suppression of students’ free speech rights, earning the school an F and solidifying its place on the index as the worst campus for free speech.

Faculty Representation: F

While Indiana does have a faculty council, there are repeated examples of the University’s disregard for faculty opinions. 

In June 2025, the IU Board of Trustees passed the Merger, Reorganization and Elimination of Academic Units and Programs (BOT-25), which under Indiana Law dissolves any faculty governance. Decision-making authority is solely shifted to university administrators and faculty are now only used for “advisory” purposes, and faculty representation is optional and up to university administration.

However, this “advising” is optional and discretionary as the wording states faculty governance “may be invited” to participate. Furthermore, any documentation like budgets, forecasts or justifications are up to discretion by administration if they will be released to faculty. Most notably, the policy states that Indiana law supersedes all conflicting policy provisions. These restrictions strip away any autonomy from IU faculty. 

In 2021, faculty passed an overwhelming vote of no confidence in their president, provost and vice provost for concerns with academic freedom and shared governance. While the president told faculty she would “listen and learn” from the vote, IU has made no effort to rectify their concerns. By cutting out the scholars and experts in education from decision-making, the university clearly prioritizes politics over education, earning the school an F.

Michigan maintains an environment of academic freedom and expansive faculty governance, with limited legislative control. However, their strategic amendments to speech policies and targeting of student protestors is cause for concern.

Academic Freedom: B

The University of Michigan holds high standards for academic freedom, with an official statement on the subject built into the official faculty handbook since 2010. This statement specifically provides for the freedom of: research and publication, teaching, internal criticism and participation in public debate. 

In response to federal pressure from the Department of Education, Michigan closed its DEI Office last march. The university previously invested $250 million into the program, which reportedly increased the first-generation student population by 46%, and Pell Grant recipients by 30%. This incident earns the school a B.

State Educational Control: A   

The University of Michigan maintains a freely elected board of regents, contrary to politically appointed models like Texas. 

State Rep. Jimmie Wilson introduced a bill to rescind a state grant from the school for its data center project, county officials said the university did not disclose the true size of the project, and was unwilling to offer community benefits. Therefore, this bill is not an example of state budget control.

The Michigan state legislature has not passed any bills targeting public universities, and if they did, they would likely not be signed into law by Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

Free Expression: F

In September 2025, Michigan amended its Student Statement of Rights and Responsibilities in under 40 seconds and without public comment. The changes allow the university to submit a complaint against students, removes the guarantee for a student to discuss consequences with a resolution coordinator before accepting, requires this coordinator to determine whether the student may appeal and shortens the appeal process. 

This was not a singular attack. The administration previously revised the document in July of 2024 without community input, altering the disciplinary process against students. 

In November 2023, Michigan brought disciplinary charges against pro-Palestine protesters following mass arrests at a campus demonstration. The university changed the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities during these proceedings, subjecting students to new standards for disciplinary action against political protest. They also created a new Office of Student Accountability led by Donovan Golich, who left UVA after a controversial audio recording of his interrogation of a student was leaked. Under Michigan’s current policies, Golich acts as both the complainant and the investigator in charge of gathering evidence. He also denied student protestors access to a student jury, evidenced by an audio recording obtained by the Michigan Daily.

U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib criticized these changes, saying they were meant to “shut (students) up.” The attorney general later dropped all criminal charges, with the students’ attorney calling the case “selective prosecution and rooted in bias, not in public safety issues.” 

Additionally, a 2025 report by The Guardian found that Michigan hired undercover investigators to follow and record members of pro-Palestine student groups. The report detailed $800,000 in payments to the investigators’ company, and some of their collected evidence was used in court proceedings to charge students. Michigan did not deny these claims. Michigan’s interim president cancelled the contract after the report’s publication.

Last April, the FBI and police raided the homes of five pro-Palestine student activists. The attorney general’s office said these raids were related to vandalism charges. No students were arrested, but officers detained them until they provided cheek swabs, and “confiscated personal belongings from multiple residences.” The attorney general, and Detroit FBI, failed to provide proper explanations for these raids, which some students believe were targeted at student protestors. Regardless of intent, failing to provide clear explanation, and even failing to present warrants at some locations, leaves students in the dark about whether or not their rights have been violated.

The Michigan Daily warned that Michigan is using its power to punish student protesters, effectively cracking down on free speech on campus. This editorial board agrees, earning the school an F.

Faculty Representation: A

At The University of Michigan, the Home of Central Faculty Governance represents faculty input to the University through the Faculty Senate, Senate Assembly and Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs. The faculty assembly is robust compared to other public universities, regularly meeting to discuss faculty concerns which are relayed to University administration and considered in decision-making. The school earns an A.

UNC’s academic freedom policy and overreaching policies are cause for concern, but they maintain strong free speech protections and extensive faculty governance.

Academic Freedom: C

The UNC Board of Governors approved an official definition of academic freedom in February, and elaborated on what is and isn’t protected. The definition protects’ the right to teach controversial topics, but articulates that “academic freedom is not absolute.” Topics not protected include teaching unrelated to course matter, use of university resources for political activity and refusal to comply with institutional policies. The statement also required faculty activities to “align with the university’s mission.” The AAUP of North Carolina published a petition opposing this definition, claiming it will create a chilling effect on campus speech and lead to public retaliation against faculty.

In addition, DEI requirements have been suspended in the classroom and faculty have been subject to political consequences. Dwayne Dixon, an Asian and Middle Eastern studies professor, was suspended for five days after Fox News published a story alleging he had ties to an anti-racist, anti-fascist group connected to an organization that advocated for political violence in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s death. 

UNC’s restrictive academic freedom policy and instances of retaliation against faculty earns the school a C.

State Educational Control: D

North Carolina’s state legislature has attempted to exert significant partisan legislative control over the University. 

North Carolina’s Republican-led General Assembly has proposed and enacted multiple policies and engaged in legislative efforts to control the University’s functioning. A prominent example of this is the proposed NC REACH Act, which would require two and four year institutions in North Carolina to require students to read a specified set of historical documents reflecting America’s “founding principles,” arguably excluding the voices of marginalized groups. 

The state legislature passed Senate Bill 227, Senate Bill 558, and House Bill 171 in 2025, meant to eliminate DEI practices. HB 227 bans DEI in public education, HB 558 extends the bill’s reach to higher education institutions and HB 171 prevents local governments from engaging in DEI initiatives. Senate leader Phil Berger called DEI practices “a façade used by Democrats to alter curriculum to fit their agenda.”

Additionally, the proposed House Bill 715 in 2023 laid out a series of changes to University operations, including the elimination of academic tenure and increased oversight on faculty research. While these changes are not yet law, they demonstrate a concerted effort towards partisan educational control by conservatives in North Carolina’s state legislature, earning the school a D.

Free Expression: B

A FIRE representative reported UNC has more constitutionally acceptable policies than any other school. Their recent policy, which regulates campus gatherings by requiring 24 hours’ notice for large gatherings expecting to exceed 200 participants, prior approval for temporary structures, a prohibition of camping and regulation of chalk, signs and amplified noise, has been viewed by students as an attempt to repress protest and prevent expression. But First Amendment violations are not inherently present in the policy, and it did not earn them a grade decrease.

However, UNC is reportedly investigating students who published a satire sketch calling their South Campus neighborhood a “third-world country.” This decision violates their free expression policies. The First Amendment has historically protected satire content, and FIRE denounced the decision, saying “condemning speech is not the role of a public university.”

The University also facilitated the violent arrest and suspension of pro-Palestine protestors during the five-day-long 2024 Triangle Gaza Solidarity Encampment, presumably due to disruption of campus operations. A federal judge later ordered the suspension to be lifted due to its indefinite nature and lack of evidence. These instances have created uncertainty at UNC in terms of what kinds of expression are acceptable, for students and faculty alike, earning the school a B. 

Faculty Representation: B

There is a lack of faculty protections at UNC Chapel Hill, specifically in relation to the consequences of free speech. One significant example is the recent policy for academic freedom referenced in the academic freedom section. Their exceptions to academic freedom, which are relatively broad and may be confusing for faculty and administration alike, leave faculty vulnerable to losing tenure protections due to a politically-charged redefinition of terms.

Additionally, UNC closed area study centers without consulting the faculty council and despite their resolution against the decision, which faculty said violates UNC’s principle of “shared governance.”

However, UNC’s chancellor Lee Roberts declined Trump’s Compact for Excellence in Higher Education and reiterated administration’s responsibilities to consult with faculty on matters of academic freedom, an example of representative faculty governance. UNC earns a B in this category.

Senate Bill 1 is Ohio State’s biggest threat in every category, and the primary reason for its two failing grades. The widespread impacts of this bill result in significant constraints on free expression.

Academic Freedom: F 

Academic free and intellectual diversity are self-proclaimed “hallmarks” at Ohio State, but the current political environment surrounding it has altered this stance. Recent state-level developments have introduced pressures that shape how freely faculty feel they can engage with certain topics. 

Senate Bill 1, known as the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, was implemented at the university last year. Of the bills’ many troubling provisions, the biggest threat to academic freedom lay in its mandatory evaluation of every faculty to determine whether they foster an environment of “intellectual diversity,” giving university administrators the power to define this term. 

Originally titled Senate Bill 83, the law had been of constant debate for 2 years before it was strengthened, rebranded and signed in 2025 — with firmer bans on DEI and the elimination of faculty strikes.

Consequently, Ohio State released an Implementation Guide outlining how departments at the university were to follow the newly instituted law. Since its installment, course syllabi require an “intellectual diversity” statement obtained through review and adherence to the bill’s elimination of DEI and prohibition of mandatory diverse statements. Additionally, the bill mandates the elimination of “low attendance programs,” resulting in the university cutting eight majors and merging others in compliance with this provision. 

While the bill states that it does not prohibit discussion of controversial topics, it creates a more regulated academic environment that signals for increased oversight of curriculum, classroom content and institutional priorities — signaling that academic freedom at Ohio State is no longer fully independent and earning the school an F. 

State Education Control: F

In recent years, Ohio legislators have taken a more active role in higher education, especially through efforts to ban DEI programs and influence curriculum. 

SB 1 bans DEI programs, restricts diversity-based hiring and scholarships, and prohibits faculty from striking. The Ohio bill threatens to punish public Ohio universities by stripping funding for not complying with anti-DEI efforts. 

The university SB 1 implementation committee went on to release a guide outlining six areas to be affected: cultural and awareness recognitions and events; DEI training exceptions; curriculum requirements; orientations; philosophy on statements; land acknowledgements. The ACLU warned that the bill could lead to faculty self-censorship due to “overly-broad content regulations.”

In February, Senate Bill 698, known as the SB 1 Compliance Supplemental Appropriation Act, was introduced by Ohio state representatives. The bill aims to build a formal process required for universities to ensure compliance with SB 1, or lose state funding. It also mandates colleges produce a “justification report” for any employees who continue to work in DEI related jobs.

Beyond general oversight, such actions reflect a shift towards direct political involvement at universities in Ohio. The state’s legislative encroachment upon universities reveals an attempt to redefine what can be taught, how programs are structured and who holds authority in academia, earning the school an F. 

Free Expression: C

While the university has pledged support for freedom of expression in abiding by the first amendment, the current political environment complicates its application.

The implementation of SB 1 has introduced new dynamics to the university. While supporters argue that the law restores intellectual diversity and eliminates ideological indoctrination, critics question which forms of diversity are valued and which are sidelined. Earlier this school year, “chalking,” a long-standing tradition at the university that allowed students to express their opinions peacefully, was banned.

Ohio’s relationship with student protestors in the past few years has been tumultuous. In January, three protestors were arrested after multiple warnings from staff for “criminal trespassing” charges at a career fair, at which border patrol officers were present.​​ We believe these arrests, which violated OSU’s space standards, were supported by the University’s speech code, which was created with the intent to protect student safety. The school did not lose points for this incident.

Ohio Police arrested 36 pro-Palestine protestors in 2024, and reports showed the University planned these arrests ahead of time, with police even requesting to reserve space on campus to process arrested protestors. However, protestors did violate the University’s space rules, which FIRE did not determine a constitutional violation, by erecting encampments. Additionally, the university received a bomb threat 30 minutes prior, constituting a significant safety concern. Because of the university’s reasoning, and because the charges were eventually dropped from those arrested, we held the incident to be less damaging than protest controversies at other schools, and gave the school a C.

Faculty Representation: C

Faculty governance at Ohio State appears to be increasingly constrained by external influences. SB 1 shifts decision-making power away from faculty by centralizing authority in the hands of trustees and state-appointed officials.

The law introduces new requirements for faculty evaluation through an annual review, post-tenure review and faculty workload through procedure parameters such as: “exceeds,” “meets” or “does not meet.” Limiting the ability of faculty independence over academia, the university also banned faculty strikes in accordance with its “Students First” agenda, which argues that students’ education should not be interrupted by labor disputes — further reducing faculty power, influence and protections.

Such actions have resulted in the retirement of faculty who disagree with the university’s overcompliance. Ruth Colker, former Ohio State law professor, expressed her disdain for Ohio State’s conformity towards SB 1 to The Lantern.

Overall, the law reduces the university’s traditional autonomy of faculty governing curriculum, evaluating peers and determining academic direction. Although faculty input still exists within the university, it’s no longer the primary force shaping governance — their authority is increasingly shaped by external pressures, earning the school a C.

While Penn State maintains strong free speech protections with minimal threats to academic freedom or state interference, there are instances of disregard for faculty concerns and a lack of clear support for faculty unions.

Academic Freedom: B

Penn State’s academic freedom policy permits faculty to speak and write freely on issues related to their specializations. However, while Penn State has not explicitly banned class discussion on topics like race or sexuality, president Neeli Bendapudi did cancel plans to build a Center for Racial Justice in 2022, earning criticism from the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus and a signed petition from 400 faculty members. When the cancellation was announced, Bendapudi promised to invest the millions of dollars that would have gone to the center into diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts that were already in progress at the university. 

However, there is no evidence of this reinvestment in programs Bendapudi highlighted, and they continue to operate with less support than they previously received for over a year and a half, before being further exacerbated by the Trump administration’s anti-DEI initiatives.

While a law professor filed a formal complaint in 2025 accusing Penn State of targeting her for statements she made regarding “affirmative action, immigration policies, and the relation between culture and economic advancement,” it was dismissed in federal court. These instances earn Penn State a B. 

State Educational Control: A

Although the state of Pennsylvania does not have explicit control over Penn State, it, like many other states, is able to exert indirect influence through funding. Each year, Pennsylvania splits hundreds of millions of dollars between the four major state universities, and state law dictates how such money should be used.

However, the state has proven itself to be largely in the best interest of students. The state increased funding for Penn State by $59 million for the 2026-2027 school year, in return for not raising undergraduate tuition, which should protect thousands of students from unnecessarily increased financial burden in their pursuit of higher education.

We found one instance of attempted state control, in which 102 Democratic legislators asked university admin to be neutral regarding faculty’s attempts to unionize. However, the lawmakers request, “to spend no state funds, taxpayer dollars or tuition dollars on ‘union-avoidance tactics’ or engage with “union-avoidance firms,” proved to be in the best interest of faculty, and was not accompanied by any threats or consequences, earning Penn State an A.

Free Expression: A

Penn State clarifies that recognized student organizations do not need the university’s consent to invite speakers or sponsor programs of their choosing without censorship. Like most campuses, the university prohibits protests that obstruct or impairs authorized activities, disrupting typical school functions, or entering private rooms without approval. Moreover, the university prohibits tents (or other unapproved structures), especially for the intent of encampment.

Otherwise, there are no restrictions on when expressive activities specifically can take place, though the university has universal quiet hours between 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. from Sunday through Thursday, and sound amplification is generally prohibited between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Similarly to UCLA, the restrictions in place are attributable to safety rather than to a want to restrict speech.

While there was one alleged attempt at restricting the university’s Turning Point USA chapter from allowing speaker Riley Gaines on campus, administrators cited the group’s failure to submit the reservation requirements by the posted deadline. Gaines was still able to appear on campus in a different location, earning Penn State an A. 

Faculty Representation: B

Penn State has numerous opportunities for faculty to provide input into the inner workings of the university. First is the University Faculty Senate, which meets monthly and constitutes an advisory and consultative body to the president and provost. Additionally, a 2025 survey of over 52% of staff members report 86% of staff members believe their department welcomes diversity and 83% believe they are given the freedom to perform their jobs well. 

However, after an announcement of multiple prospective campus closures in 2025, faculty representatives from said campuses were reportedly “taken aback” and “frustrated,” and were allegedly not involved in the decision, nor were they given access to sufficient information regarding the closures.

More recently, Penn State faculty, through the Penn State Faculty Alliance, are attempting to unionize. Some faculty have spoken out against the university administration, which previously pledged to not discourage faculty from joining a union. Faculty have pointed out, however, that the Penn State website dedicated to the issue includes text that suggests a union would “impact Penn State’s ability” to compete against recruiting leading faculty and researchers, among other negatively-connotated statements. Such text explicitly goes against their aforementioned promise by only including potential negative outcomes of unionization, while excluding any positive ones, such as increased pay or benefits. Penn State admin’s lack of communication and support for faculty unions earn the school a B.

Following the Texas legislature’s higher education playbook, Texas A&M has faced overreaching partisan policies and an end to institutional faculty governance.

Academic Freedom: F

Melissa McCoul, senior lecturer in English, was terminated in September 2025 after a student recorded her lecture on gender identity. The video was posted by House Rep. Brian Harrison on X with the caption calling the incident “transgender indoctrination” and has 5.7 million views. 

The A&M president at the time, Mark Welsh, initially defended McCoul, but later said the decision was not about “academic freedom; it’s about academic responsibility.” Welsh stepped down from his position following the controversy, but McCoul was not reinstated. 

In November, the Board of Regents passed System 08.01 requiring university presidents to approve any courses teaching “race and gender ideology or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity.” After receiving backlash from PEN America, it was then revised to say “advocate” instead of “teach.” However, the revision makes little to no difference in the censorship of faculty. This decision led to the closure of the school’s women’s and gender studies program, the cancellation of six courses and the changing of hundreds of other courses.

Following this policy, A&M ordered a philosophy professor to remove Plato readings from his syllabus, because they contain content about “race ideology and gender ideology.” The action led the professor, who was previously chair of the Academic Freedom Council, to resign. 

This decision encourages students to report professors if they hear something in class they disagree with, instead of listening to differing perspectives. It is dystopian-like that faculty must choose between keeping their jobs or utilizing their first amendment right, earning the school an F. 

State Educational Control: F

As a fellow Texas public school, A&M is subject to the same restrictive legislation as UT, including SB 17, SB 27 and HB 229. These policies led to A&M’s removal of their women’s and gender studies programs, the dissolution of their faculty senate and a ban on DEI programs. The bills, and subsequent impact on A&M’s campus, result in A&M, like UT, earning an F.

Free Expression: D

Similar to UT, A&M is subject to the same unconstitutional legislation. These include the Campus Protection Act, which strips the campus of its traditional public forum status; Gov. Abbott’s executive order classifying criticism of Israel as antisemitic speech; and banning drag shows, which qualify as “sexually-oriented” performances, in the presence of minors.

The Texas A&M System Board of Regents attempted to ban drag shows on campus in 2025, but the ruling was temporarily blocked by a federal judge for its unconstitutional nature. These incidents earn the school a D.

Faculty Representation: F

SB 37 dismantled A&M’s faculty senate after 40 years of governance. It was replaced by a faculty advisory committee, which is controlled by the university president. Half of the new committee is appointed by administration and will serve longer terms than the elected faculty.  

This committee does not represent the faculty, but is instead a facade to simulate autonomy. 

A&M’s lack of a faculty council, as well as System 08.01’s requirement for the president to approve controversial course material, earn the school an F.

UVA has strong free speech protections, but has faced grade deductions from governors’ interferences with its governing bodies and federal pressure forcing its president to resign.

Academic Freedom: C

In March of 2025, UVA’s Board of Visitors unanimously voted to dissolve its central DEI office and require all programs, policies and practices to be reviewed for compliance with federal civil rights law. 

Federal pressure from the Trump administration and the Department of Justice over the school’s DEI initiatives led to the Board’s resolution banning DEI. The Board later pressured former President James Ryan to resign due to threats of funding loss from the Trump administration. The Board said Ryan had failed to enact the necessary DEI policy dissolutions. Ryan published an open letter alleging the school board gave him four hours to resign after former Gov. Glenn Youngkin told Fox News “DEI is done” at UVA, and that he believed the Board “exaggerated the scope and nature of that resolution,” which he said did not ban every DEI policy.

The Board selected its new president despite Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger’s request to pause its process until she takes office. The Board of Visitors’ overcompliance with federal demands compromised academic freedom at the university, earning it a C.

State Educational Control: B

Before Gov. Spanberger’s inauguration, Gov. Youngkin had appointed every member of the Board of Visitors. When a State Senate committee blocked eight of his appointments in June, then-Attorney General Jason Miyares sued state Democrats, despite Senate approval being written into the state constitution. 

UVA’s Board of Visitors has also seen politicized conflict on the left, as Gov. Spanberger asked five members to resign in order to appoint 10 new members herself, amid ongoing tensions surrounding how the Board is governed. These instances earn the school a B.

Free Expression: B

In 2024, FIRE named UVA the No. 6 college for free speech. The organization indicated UVA’s policies, including institutional neutrality and a commitment to free speech, as “nominally (protected) free speech.” While the university recently revised its speech policy, it was created in partnership with First Amendment experts and includes narrowly tailored, content neutral restrictions.

However, the school dropped in FIRE’s rankings after university police and a student affairs representative threatened to arrest and ban a student from campus. The law student, who sat in a lawn chair with signs protesting President Trump’s actions in Gaza, was later told by university officials that he did not violate university policy. Staff did not interfere with the student on his second day of protest. However, these threats earn the school a B.

Faculty Representation: C

UVA does have a faculty senate which engages regularly with university leadership. However, there have been instances in which faculty directives have been disregarded.

In July of 2025, the Faculty Senate passed an overwhelming 46-6 vote of no-confidence in the Board of Visitors following the resignation of President James Ryan. The Senate cited a lack of consultation during a time of crises and outside interference as the Board, holding final governing authority, continued to manage the leadership transition and compliance with the Trump administration’s DEI policies.

The Board of Visitors also elected a new president despite a faculty resolution urging a delay in the decision. This disregard for faculty resolutions earns the school a C.

Washington maintains a campus with little threats to academic freedom or student expression, and expansive faculty governance.

Academic Freedom: A

Washington’s College of Arts & Sciences in 2025 effectively consolidated into two departments: the languages, literatures, and culture cohort and the social sciences cohort. The former includes Asian languages & literature, classics; French & Italian studies, German studies, Middle Eastern languages and cultures, Scandinavian studies, Spanish & Portuguese studies and Slavic languages & literatures. The latter includes American ethnic studies; American Indian studies; and gender, women, & sexuality studies. 

However, these changes were made to alleviate budget concerns amid funding cuts, not for an ideological reason. Furthermore, the university explicitly states it has no further plans for consolidating or eliminating any academic programs, and if proposals are made, they must be subject to faculty review. This provides a valuable safeguard against unnecessary consolidation, and helps protect students, faculties, and departments from harmful control. The school earns an A.

State Educational Control: A

Due to the uncertainty of federal funding under the current administration, the state of Washington is admittedly grappling with how to pursue budget cuts in the face of a shortfall. Despite the potential of cuts, there have been no restrictions on what can be taught in the classroom, and the university provides a Freedom of Expression statement that articulates the importance of free speech to public and university discourse. 

Even more importantly, the state of Washington has maintained RCW 28B.10.147, which enshrines diversity, equity, inclusion and antiracism policies on campuses. The state’s conviction has led to a DOJ probe over what the administration labels “illegal.” The fact that the state has stood their ground for so long, even amid threats, shows their dedication to refrain from succumbing to external pressures and earns the school an A.

Free Expression: B

The University of Washington has not been void of violations of faculty and student speech. Just recently, a professor — Aria Fani — was removed as the head of the school’s Middle East Center after reportedly criticizing the U.S. and Israel’s war on Iran, and expressing his distaste for Zionism in a university newsletter. The move indicates that faculty are being monitored for expressing certain viewpoints, and suffering drastic consequences because of it.

The University of Washington has their own set of time, place and manner guidelines. These restrictions include prohibiting overnight camping, interference with standard activity and sound amplification in most places. 

However, the clause of note is that the Use of University Facilities Committee is able to extensively review any event proposal they wish if they suspect the event has a high likelihood of disrupting the university’s academic functions. This gives the committee inordinate power to decide which events to look into and which to ignore, all on the basis of a suspicion, which leaves the school vulnerable to abuses. 

 Twenty-one students were arrested last year during the pro-Palestinian protests on campus. The students were subsequently suspended, though this does not constitute a violation, because the actions of the protesters resulted in over $1 million in damages — warranting penalization. The school received a B.

Faculty Representation: A

The University of Washington has 12 current Faculty Council, that meet during the academic year and represent an integral part of shared governance over the university. These elected positions advise their respective deans and chancellors on matters including faculty promotion and tenure, and submit weekly reports that are publicly available online.

The reports include detailed accounts of what is discussed, passed, and reported on, which can be a valuable tool to hold the university accountable. Moreover, it puts in writing what is agreed upon, and with such an emphasis on faculty communication, can be a powerful way to ensure the university represents the interests of the faculty. This extensive example of faculty governance earns the school an A.

Despite media controversies, UW maintains relatively strong free speech and academic freedom protections, as well as independence from legislative overreach speech and academic freedom protections, and broad faculty governance. 

Academic Freedom: B

The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin abide by the regents policy, which underscores a commitment to academic freedom and upholds freedom of expression. In 2023, the Wisconsin State Legislature codified the provision of academic freedom and free speech on college campuses. 

UW closed its DEI department in 2025, and Republican coalitions continue to push for the dismantling of all DEI initiatives on Wisconsin campuses, despite official policy maintaining the freedom of professors and students. The school earns a B.

State Educational Control: B

The University of Wisconsin system university leadership have clashed with conservative critics over DEI, faculty governance and funding allocation. In 2023, Republican lawmakers demanded UW halt diversity initiatives or give up additional state funding, forcing a “compromise” that would stop hiring for diversity positions, end an affirmative action faculty hiring program at UW–Madison and create a new faculty position focused on conservative thought.

Community members have raised concern about the broader liberal bias of UW, calling for increased ideological diversity. In legislative hearings, Republicans have claimed the UW administration suppresses conservative opinions on its campuses. 

Last Tuesday, the UW system board fired former President Jay Rothman. Republican legislators questioned this decision and condemned the board for a lack of transparency in the process. State Sen. Patrick Testin called the firing a “partisan hatchet job,” blaming the Rothman’s removal on him not aligning with the University’s liberal majority. It’s unclear how this development will affect UW’s partisanship moving forward. 

Overall, the UW system seems to mostly resist partisan overreach despite lawmakers’ attempts to pressure administration. However, the state legislature regularly and publicly disagrees with the University’s decisions, forcing UW to comply or face consequences. This earns UW a B. 

Free Expression: A

The same regents policy that provides for academic freedom at UW campuses also applies to freedom of expression. A separate website breaks down the Wisconsin system’s provisions for freedom of expression, including expressive activity policy and a guidebook that is designed to help faculty and students understand their free speech rights; in addition, UW provides a training module on free expression. 

In February, the Wisconsin Legislature passed Senate Bill 498, which codifies the UW system’s free speech allocations into state law and outlines consequences for their violation. 

Faculty Representation: A

The University of Wisconsin has a large faculty senate that considers policy, processes faculty feedback and communicates with University administration. With over 100 districts represented in the senate, senators encourage other faculty to identify issues of importance to bring to administration. The school earns an A.

For the rubric:

Academic Freedom:

We spoke to representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, about the most pervasive academic freedom issues on college campuses. We discussed which policies present a true threat to academic freedom, and which do not violate the integrity of academia. In our research, we collected data from studies by the Harvard Kennedy School, which reported that the largest threats to higher education come from “external government interventions and internal academic cultures,” and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni’s annual academic freedom report. We also used the Free Speech Center’s index of academic freedom cases and FIRE’s “Scholars Under Fire” database.

State Educational Control: 

We looked at every piece of legislation in the past five years passed by each state’s government pertaining to college campuses to consider which were necessary bureaucratic policies and which represented overreaching governance. We considered every piece of legislation which directs what can be taught or discussed in classrooms, shifts authority from the university to legislators or restricts funding for programs and colleges with specific ideologies, as an instance of partisan educational control. To determine this, we pulled research about partisan education legislation from the American Association of University Professors, or AAUP, referenced the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators’ legislative tracker and PEN America’s report on higher education censorship in 2025 legislative sessions, which found that “more than 70 bills and policies across 26 states have been introduced to censor higher education.”

Free Expression:

We used FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings as a guideline for our grading scale, and discussed the state of free speech at each school with a FIRE representative. This helped us determine censorship patterns on campuses, and decide which policies inhibit free expression. We spoke to an ACLU representative about which kind of policies are First Amendment violations, which are genuine safety restrictions and how to determine the difference. We also referenced Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute to determine which policies are narrowly tailored and further a compelling government interest, and which unnecessarily inhibit free speech. To determine legal precedents for free speech in higher education, we used PEN America’s report on the law and campus free speech, which breaks down the type of expression allowed and prohibited, and the court cases supporting each type of speech.

Faculty Representation:

We looked at the faculty governance structure of each university to determine their level of faculty representation. We first evaluated whether they had a faculty council, or any equivalent forum allowing faculty to express their concerns with university admin. If the university lacked a faculty council or any equivalent forum, we docked them two letter grades. If the school has a faculty council, we looked for instances of university administration disregarding faculty’s concerns. These include any faculty surveys, votes of no confidence and disregard of faculty resolutions. We used AAUP’s list of sanctioned institutions for schools who committed “infringement on governance standards,” and their 2021 shared governance report. We evaluated each university’s faculty governance policy according to AAUP’s guidelines. We also referenced the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges’ statement on shared governance, which outlines the key principles necessary for shared faculty governance, and the U.S. Department of Education’s study on shared university governance, which identifies the important roles faculty governance plays in creating meaningful change in universities.

For the schools:

University of Texas at Austin:

We used a Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board summary of higher education legislation to determine which pieces of legislation posed significant risks to faculty governance, partisan overreach and academic freedom. We also used FIRE’s college ranking to find instances of UT threatening the free speech of community members, and spoke to ACLU of Texas engagement coordinator Ayania Hicks about specific threats to free expression at UT. We spoke to Alison Kafer, director of LGBTQ studies at UT, about the state of academic freedom and faculty representation following the consolidation of her department. We also spoke to astronomy professor Paul Shapiro, former faculty council member who opposed SB 37 at the last faculty council meeting in front of President Davis, about the University’s communication and dissolution of the faculty council. We also used findings from an AAUP faculty survey of academic freedom and a Daily Texan faculty survey about the state of higher education following SB 37.

Arizona State University:

Having spoken to three different professors (English professor Richard Newhauser, history professor Brooks Simpson and Russian professor Hilde Hoogenboom) and scheduling more interviews than we could accept, ASU faculty’s willingness to comment speaks for itself in its high ratings. The professors we spoke to had vastly different levels of grievances, some being more outspoken of ASU’s policies than others, but we believe lots of these opinions came from department-specific decisions. Other research was supplemented by ASU’s academic freedom committee, Turning Point USA’s professor watchlist, the Institute of Politics and an extensive reading of The Arizona State Press.

University of California, Los Angeles:

In our research for UCLA, we interviewed Clark Barrett, a professor of anthropology. During the interview, we discussed how the current political climate has affected university practices, alongside how the university has dealt with protests and funding issues. Dr. Barrett pointed us to various sources, particularly the UCLA Faculty Association and their involvement in a suit against the Trump Administration. Outside of the interview, the rest of the information was collected through various online sources, including the UCLA and UC System websites themselves.

The University of Florida:

We interviewed law professor Jane Bambauer, who admitted to having fairly moderate values, so she could offer both a defense and a critique of UF’s policies. She also provided a 30-page research paper on the intertwining of academic integrity and higher education policies, which proved very useful for this research. We used documents from Florida’s student newspaper, NYT investigation, a report from the Faculty Senate committee on academic freedom, Florida House Bills, lawsuits from university professors and UF’s institutional neutrality policy.

University of Georgia:

The primary avenue of our research for UGA was through news sources and the university system websites themselves. There was a lot of information regarding the pro-Palestine protests that happened in 2024, along with their policies regarding protests and free speech. To supplement our research, we interviewed Elise Robinson, the academic professional and program director for the Institute for Women’s and Gender Studies at UGA. Our interview with Robinson helped elaborate on these issues, as well as helped detail her personal experience as a member of faculty. We also used the Georgia Constitution’s free speech laws, students’ formal complaint against UGA to the Atlanta Office for Civil Rights and UGA’s free speech policies.

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign:

To evaluate Illinois, we spoke with Jonathan Livengood, associate professor in the philosophy department, on UIUC’s actions during the current state of the political environment. Livengood spoke about how the Trump administration’s attacks on academic freedom have been by way of attacks on funding. However, he said that Illinois — a fairly liberal, democratic state — insulates them from the pressure that the federal government inflicts upon institutions. Pressures on academic institutions have raised questions on what can be said, how they will appease public pressures, and the extent to which what can be said is true, reasonable and beneficial to society. 

Indiana University:

We contacted the editor-in-chiefs of IU’s student newspaper, the Indiana Daily Student, for an email interview, and discussed issues important to the paper and the state of higher education at Indiana. We used the Indiana General Assembly’s Senate bills, Indiana budget provisions, ACLU statements and suits filed against IU, the Indiana Daily Student, PEN America and FIRE’s reports on free speech at Indiana, faculty resolutions and reports from AAUP Indiana, the largest chapter in the United States.

University of Michigan:

We connected with the editor-in-chief of The Michigan Daily to speak about campus concerns. We also interviewed political science professor Robert Franzese and philosophy professor Elizabeth Anderson in regards to politicization of higher education and the faculty experience at Michigan. We also referenced the faculty handbook, reports from The Guardian and Politico and Michigan’s DEI policy.

The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill:

We spoke to one retired faculty member and one student, Harry Watson and Vijaykrishna Bajaj. Harry Watson is a former Atlanta Distinguished Professor in Southern Culture. He is also a Faculty Council member, and is involved with  UNC’s chapter of the AAUP. Vijaykrishna Bajajis a political science and business administration sophomore, who has also been involved in UNC’s student government. We also made use of resources such as UNC’s student newspaper, The Daily Tar Heel, UNC System’s academic freedom definition, AAUP reports and North Carolina House Bills.

The Ohio State University:

To evaluate Ohio State, we interviewed Paul Beck, emeritus professor of political science and former dean of the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences at The Ohio State University. Beck spoke on his experience as a professor at the university and a citizen of the state who has observed political movements affecting students and staff. We used coverage from The Lantern, the University’s student newspaper, the AAUP Ohio’s academic freedom guides and SB 1 resources and the New York Times’ coverage of academic freedom at Ohio State.

Pennsylvania State University:

After interviewing Christopher Allen Beem, a research professor and managing director at the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State, we learned more about the inner workings of university policy. Beem articulated his personal experience regarding job security, and how the university supports professors. Through research on the Penn State website, as well as local newspapers, we were able to gain a more comprehensive view of the situation, and found multiple incidents of note between the categories. We also used Penn State’s faculty survey, and the Pennsylvania Legislature’s letter in support of unionization.

Texas A&M University:

We received input from Leonard Bright, AAUP at A&M president, professor for the Bush School of Government and Public Service school, former Assistant Provost in the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies, and former Assistant Dean of Graduate Education for the government and public service school. Bright has previously talked about academic freedom at A&M with publications like The New York Times, PEN America, and The Texas Tribune. We also used social media posts from elected representatives, AAUP reports, university governing documents and senate bills.

University of Virginia:

We spoke to two faculty members, Walter Heinecke and Jeri Seidman. Walter Heinecke is an associate professor of research statistics and evaluation in the School of Education and Human Development, and Jeri Seidman is the Paul Goodloe McIntire associate professor of commerce in the McIntire School of Commerce, as well as the president of UVA’s Faculty Senate. We also made use of resources such as UVA’s student newspaper, the Cavalier Daily, UVA’s website, Former President James Ryan’s open letter and various local news outlets that cover UVA.

University of Washington:

Within our research for the University of Washington, we focused on looking at specific state legislation that dictates university practice, particularly regarding DEI. The university website also heavily aided our research, providing up-to-date information on policies regarding free speech, expression and faculty. Multiple news outlets were also used to gain information on the protests, damages and academic violations enacted by the university. Lastly, we were able to interview professor Mark Alan Smith, who elaborated on the university’s political location in a deep-blue state and its previous policies that have been restricted in the current climate.

University of Wisconsin–Madison:

We researched official policy from the University of Wisconsin system as well as articles published by The Daily Cardinal, UW–Madison’s student newspaper. Controversies surrounding partisan overreach as reported on by local and mainstream news outlets are referenced but did not influence our ultimate grades for each category. We also spoke to political science professor Matthew Pietryka.

The Daily Texan opinion department contributed the research, developed the grading scale and provided the scores. Department contributors include senior columnists Caris Gray, Lisette Huerta and Abigail Tuscano; associate editors Tiffany Lam, Tenley Jackson, Belle Xu, Maria Vazquez and editor-in-chief Ava Saunders. Digital director Mazzy Warren, data editor Tyler Pullum and data analyst Walt Truelove developed and designed the index.