The ideal of academic freedom has always rested on a simple promise: scholars must be free to pursue truth, wherever it leads. But new data from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) show how far higher education has drifted from that ideal.
In FIRE’s latest survey, an astonishing 94 percent of faculty reported suffering some negative consequence for their speech. These range from lost professional relationships (47 percent) and workplace shunning (40 percent) to seeking psychological counseling to cope with the fallout (27 percent) or even losing their jobs (20 percent).
These are not isolated anecdotes. They describe a profession under siege.
Even more revealing is that 68 percent received no public support from their faculty union, and 78 percent got none from administrators. Institutions that claim to protect open inquiry have become bystanders—or worse, accomplices—when controversy strikes.
The partisan pattern is unmistakable. Only 19 percent of conservative scholars said they received public support from colleagues, compared with 40 percent of liberals. Among unions, the gap was even wider: seven percent of conservatives versus 29 percent of liberals. If support for speech depends on ideology, it isn’t freedom; it’s favoritism.
FIRE’s Sean Stevens put it plainly, stating, “Support for academic freedom should never depend on the views being expressed, but our survey shows that’s exactly what’s happening.” His colleague Nathan Honeycutt added, “Cancellation campaigns are often wrapped in the language of preventing emotional harm. But it’s the mobs themselves that inflict lasting mental anguish on academics.”
That’s the paradox of the modern campus. Speech is punished in the name of compassion. Administrators invoke “well-being” as a justification for silencing, yet it’s dissenters—not mobs—who bear the real psychological cost. The result is a culture of timidity that corrodes the mission of higher education.
[RELATED: FIRE Overstates Conservative Censorship on Campus]
Silence as Policy
What’s most striking in the data is not just fear. It’s abandonment.
Faculty unions, once defenders of professional autonomy, now stand mute. Administrators hide behind neutrality statements and procedural reviews. Scholars under fire are treated as liabilities rather than colleagues.
The message to younger academics is clear: stay quiet, stay safe. The damage extends far beyond those punished. It spreads through whispered warnings, cautious syllabi, and classrooms drained of debate.
FIRE’s earlier surveys show that faculty are four times more likely to self-censor today than during the McCarthy era. Then, the threat came from Washington. Now, it comes from within. What was once fear of being called disloyal is now fear of being called insensitive. The mechanism is the same. It is only the ideology that has changed.
The Civic Cost
The stakes extend beyond the ivory tower. Universities remain the institutions most responsible for modeling disagreement and for teaching citizens how to reason across differences. When they teach fear instead, students learn conformity, not curiosity.
We see the results daily. Students refuse to engage opposing ideas, professors hedge every sentence, and administrators confuse fragility with virtue. A culture that silences discomfort breeds dogmatism. And a democracy that loses the habit of persuasion loses its core civic muscle.
Academic freedom is not a partisan privilege. It protects progressives questioning capitalism as much as conservatives questioning identity orthodoxy. It protects inquiry itself. When universities apply it selectively, they teach that power—not principle—determines who may speak.
[RELATED: After University, Censorship Looms]
What Must Change
The path back to sanity is not complicated. But it requires courage.
Universities should affirm viewpoint neutrality. Free inquiry means every idea, not just fashionable ones, are protected. Faculty unions must remember that defending speech is part of defending labor. Administrators must issue swift, public statements of support when scholars are targeted rather than hiding behind “ongoing investigations.”
Hiring and promotion must abandon ideological litmus tests. Diversity of thought, rather than political uniformity, is the true measure of intellectual vitality. Faculty themselves must model the civic habits they hope to teach, including generosity toward opponents, charity in debate, and the refusal to mistake disagreement for harm.
The Chicago Principles remain the gold standard: “The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” Yet few institutions live by them. Too many have become critics themselves, and even of their own faculty.
The Moral Failure
Behind FIRE’s data lies a moral story. The professors who’ve been silenced are not all provocateurs. Many are thoughtful teachers and researchers whose only mistake was saying something unpopular. When their colleagues and institutions turned away, the damage went beyond careers. It struck at the heart of trust: the belief that universities exist to safeguard inquiry itself—to protect those who question, not punish them.
If universities wish to recover their moral credibility, they must rediscover courage. Otherwise, when the ivory tower turns its back, it ceases to be a sanctuary for truth. It becomes just another fortress of fear—proof that the real crisis in higher education isn’t what we’re allowed to say, but what we’ve lost the courage to defend.
Image by Jafree on Adobe; Asset ID#: 1596866665
