These are turbulent times for universities.
Rising incidents of antisemitism on campuses across the country — highlighted in a disastrous hearing in Congress that contributed to the resignations of two Ivy League presidents — have led to widespread calls to reform higher education, refocusing it on principles of pluralism and free expression.
It’s true that higher education needs to reform itself. But more than ever, it also needs to defend itself.
In the wake of Claudine Gay’s ouster at Harvard on the heels of Liz Magill’s departure from the University of Pennsylvania presidency, Manhattan Institute senior fellow and New College of Florida trustee Christopher Rufo took credit, gloating that his real objective was not to enforce plagiarism standards or prevent campus antisemitism, but “to eliminate the DEI bureaucracy in every institution in America.” In doing so, Rufo made clear what we at PEN America have long observed.
While there are very real problems on college campuses — many of which do stem from challenges with antisemitism, free speech and diversity, equity and inclusion offices — bad-faith actors are using this as a pretext to promote a longstanding and largely unrelated political agenda that is hostile to higher education as a whole.
Since 2021, over 100 higher education gag orders — legislative restrictions on classroom speech — have been proposed in 34 states, and 10 have become law in nine states. Many of these proposals are based on language developed by Rufo and his allies.
In 2023, these critics expanded their attacks beyond the classroom, seeking to undermine the university governance structures that protect academic freedom. New laws in Florida and Texas restricted general education curricula, weakened faculty tenure, banned DEI initiatives and threatened university accreditors, all in the name of ideological control.
Higher education certainly isn’t beyond reproach. For years, many university leaders have made poor choices when it comes to safeguarding free speech and ensuring people of all backgrounds and political viewpoints feel safe and welcome. Universities must acknowledge and address these challenges.
But government censorship isn’t the solution. And we should remember that higher education is itself a very good thing: a driver of innovation, an engine of social mobility and a vital training ground for democratic citizenship. If we want it to stay that way, the higher education sector must meet this coordinated attack with a coordinated response.
Here’s what I recommend:
First, universities should recommit to educating their students about free speech and open dialogue, inculcating a culture of free expression on campus from orientation to graduation. (PEN America, where I am the Freedom to Learn program director, offers a guide and a training program.)
Education is the best tool for fighting stereotypes and discrimination. Students need to learn and practice how to have difficult, civil and respectful conversations with people of different backgrounds, identities and politics. This won’t change overnight, but changing it should be a priority.
Second, leaders should recognize that the independence of higher education is broadly popular. Large majorities of Americans in both parties believe that college curricula should be shaped by professors without the influence of state governments, that teaching uncomfortable history is reasonable and that colleges should embrace free inquiry. In defending their campuses, administrators should emphasize the importance of promoting free expression on campus and opposing government overreach.
Third, administrators should avoid doing the censors’ work for them. Educational gag orders are vaguely written — some unconstitutionally so — and state government agencies rarely enforce them through direct penalties. Instead, these laws turn the prudent management of risk into a weapon, relying on skittish administrations and terrified faculty to censor themselves. Institutions should scrutinize legislative text carefully and only restrict what the laws require, offering support for as much educational speech as possible.
Fourth, supporters of universities should raise the salience of these attacks on higher ed. There’s an intensity gap at work: The majority of Americans who support higher education are less committed to these issues than are the minority of opponents. To change this, we should speak frequently and publicly about educational gag orders so that Americans come to see them for the urgent threat to democracy that they are.
Finally, rather than merely promoting the virtues of individual institutions, higher education should work collectively to raise the profile and popularity of the entire sector. Because the threat of government censorship impacts every stakeholder and institution in higher education, there’s an unusual opportunity for sector-wide solidarity within institutions and collective action across them.
The last three months have set higher education back on its heels, perhaps deservedly so. But these challenges also present an unprecedented opportunity. Universities must seize the initiative on two fronts: Reform the censorial culture that threatens free expression on campus, and defend themselves vigorously against the official government suppression of speech.
This is not the moment for college leaders to remain silent. On the contrary: there’s never been a more urgent time to speak up for the freedom to learn.
Jeremy C. Young is the Freedom to Learn program director at PEN America.